To tell someone else what they are thinking/feeling and why is totally
inappropriate in civilized discussion - my humble opinion. It's also grounds
for loosing respect when you're trying to express your opinion.
You
don't like the verdict, so you're trying to fit what you believe into the
standards that exist.
It is just as inappropriate for you to say
what my intent is as it is for me to try and claim I know your intent better
then you.
I am making it clear:
My feelings towards the verdict has
nothing to do with my analysis of Mr. Hogan's own public
activities!
Perhaps you are both a Practicing Attorney as well as a
Practiced Psychologist/Psychiatrist - but even Psychologists/Psychiatrists can
be wrong when they're attempting to interpret someone else's intent.
I
don't claim to know Hogan's intent - just that what he has publicly stated, in
my humble opinion, raises concerns about his actions as being improper. Whether
that is agreed upon by any Legal minded person whether Attorney or Judge is a
different matter. I quite often disagree with the Federal Circuit on their
position of what constitutes Patentable subject matter. With that same opinion,
I agree with the position of the Supreme's in Mayo vs. Prometheus who obviously
do not agree with the Federal Circuit.
But what people here keep
believing, contrary to the history of jurisprudence, is that jurors are blank
slates.
I can't speak for others, but I can speak for myself: You
are wrong! As a result - It is either you again telling me what my mind/intent
is or it's nothing but a diversion. So let me be explicitly clear:
I don't
expect Juror's to be blank slates!
What I do expect:
A: Juror's follow
the instructions of Law as the Judge has provided!
B: Juror's do not
introduce evidence in the deliberations to other Juror's that was not part of
the trial and was not provided to the Judge/Laywers for discussion on whether
it's appropriate or not and how it will be presented if it's allowed!
As
you can clearly see: there's nothing in my expectations about being a blank
slate. That's another strike where you claimed to know my
mind/intent.
If they had brought in a copy of Nimmer
into the jury
room, then an evidentiary hearing would be
warranted. That's not the
case.
Do you have evidence of this? Were you in the Jury room
during deliberations so you can state that as a fact? If not: then you should
stop presenting your opinion and/or conjecture as established fact. To do so is
to be deliberately misleading.
"Well, the plaintiff's demand seemed
high, so we cut down what they were asking for." That's... well, not exactly
legal.
Isn't it? I guess this is another point where we disagree.
The Jury instructions made clear that it was up to the plaintiff of the claim to
prove, to a reasonable level, the actual damages. And to say that the
plaintiff's demand seemed high is a reasonable indication that the plaintiff had
not proven their actual damages. I do not have a contention with Hogan's
statement on that part. I have never expressed contention on that part. Let me
be perfectly clear:
I do not have an issue with the Jury deciding that the
Plaintiff had not proven what they were asking for in damages as the Jury
Instructions make quite clear that was expected!
If you presented that as a
point of discussion surrounding what my mind/intent was, that was even more
wrong because you are injecting an opinion that I have never stated! If you
didn't present it for that purpose, then it has no bearing on the concept I
presented and is just misdirection again.
These aren't grounds for
overturning a
verdict.
I never said they were. If you can find a
single instance of me saying so, I will apologize. If you can not - and I
always sign my posts with RAS, so you can follow up to clear the record - then
you are claiming to know my mind better then me which is
inappropriate.
Bottom line: If you keep trying to represent that you know
others posters minds/intent better then they do then you will continue to loose
respect. Justifiably so. Just as Justifiably as if someone attempts to present
your mind/intent such as claiming your sole purpose is as a troll. I do not
claim this but use it as an example of why such behavior is
uncivilized.
I don't profess to know why you choose to keep
mis-representing what people are saying or why you keep wanting to inject
misdirection into your posts. I simply point out why you are loosing my respect
with regards the opinions you are attempting to express. It's not the opinions
of "Hogan did nothing wrong" that I find a loss of respect for. It's your
opinions of "I know your mind better then you" and "I will present my opinion as
established fact" that are loosing you respect for your posts.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
