| I can't believe three things here:
1) That DG actually takes umbrage at this decision - given the facts.
2) That DG is upset that Berryhill posted a public record.
3) That DG would get a decision and not bother to read it.
There is no "indiscretion" here, DG. Yes, Berryhill posting the decision exposes your foolishness and crushes any sympathy anyone might have for your cause. However, he's done nothing remotely wrong. In fact, he's done a public service by posting the decision. Perhaps this will educate others that "blustering a lot about technicalities and form over substance when it comes to legal matters" is not the same as "having legal knowledge."
__________________
Marc J. Randazza The Legal Satyricon
No post should be considered to be legal advice.
|