Well, we're back on the docket. Arguments in about two weeks...a little over a week after the election. One might say that this was to have the time to devote to the contemplation...or, maybe not to have the firestorm prior to the election. The new case has been filed since before Christmas.
The last decision raised the eyebrows of every law review that took it up...and ultimately overturned by the appellate court. This one will be thought out and referenced with far greater detail, I have no doubt.
Obviously, I have my preference of verdicts, as does Essent. But please note: 'blogging' is not a new phenomena, at least in what I do. Benjamin Franklin wrote under several pseudonyms, as did several other writers the years prior to the American Revolution because of the possibility of repercussions and retaliation. It was just in a different medium.
I am hopefully
not looking at a hanging, but the other side probably has a different hope and expectation. Speaking of expectation, I've heard, over the months, many that said should the case go against me, they were dropping Suddenlink like a hot potato. Something about an expectation of their privacy. Could be (might be just talk,) but I'm going to explore the Suddenlink involvement in the case in later posts, so don't drop that 'tater just yet.
This case has written a footnote into Texas law already. It should be interesting if it becomes a paragraph.
The last decision raised the eyebrows of every law review that took it up...and ultimately overturned by the appellate court. This one will be thought out and referenced with far greater detail, I have no doubt.
Obviously, I have my preference of verdicts, as does Essent. But please note: 'blogging' is not a new phenomena, at least in what I do. Benjamin Franklin wrote under several pseudonyms, as did several other writers the years prior to the American Revolution because of the possibility of repercussions and retaliation. It was just in a different medium.
I am hopefully
not looking at a hanging, but the other side probably has a different hope and expectation. Speaking of expectation, I've heard, over the months, many that said should the case go against me, they were dropping Suddenlink like a hot potato. Something about an expectation of their privacy. Could be (might be just talk,) but I'm going to explore the Suddenlink involvement in the case in later posts, so don't drop that 'tater just yet.This case has written a footnote into Texas law already. It should be interesting if it becomes a paragraph.
5 comments:
Never mind Texas law- what about Federal law? Certainly this case is setting precedence in the area of posting on a blogsite under a nom de cyber.
Which court will hear the case now? Certainly not the local court again- Judge McDowell's interpretation was. to be fair, dismally inaccurate, if not downright scary.
Arguements presented, 10 days to file rebuttals. More waiting.
You'd think by now the ASS-ent would be smart enough to realize this is a hot potato they need to set down and forget!
Well, I was sadly mistaken, it's the same idiot judge as last time. Wonder if he'll try to rewrite Constitutional law with the help of Essent's ambulance-chasers....
I think what you are doing is awesome! You are doing what so many wish they had the nerve to do. In short, PRMC sucks! Someone in medical records gave out information on a patient in my family over the PHONE! Also, did you know that it is common practice for the idiots in radiology to stand 1 year olds on rolling stools to take their xrays? Funny huh! You would think everyone would know by now to leave town for medical care. I sure learned my lesson. Thanks again for standing up for yourself and this cause.
Post a Comment