wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

THE COURT: And I hope you stuck to the subject matter before the
Supreme Court in Washington better than you're doing today. Because
most of what you said doesn't have anything to do with the issue
before the Court.

Yep, really shows his courtroom savvy.

Apparently he did, because he won before the Supremes. I've actually
seen
worse pro se defendants. Most judges who are aware of the increased
obligations placed on them by pro se litigants, will attempt to focus the
litigant with questions and prodding before they ramble too much. This
judge didn't do that and let his frustrations show with sarcastic
remarks.
I wouldn't expect much better from a county level judge in S. Carolina.
I
can tell you that in the Federal courts, judges do a much better job than
this S. Carolina judge did.

Every case is different. I suspect the facts are a good deal better in
the
present Truong action than they were for him in S. Carolina. Time will
tell. :-)

"During this series of suspensions respondent Sloan ...filed a
petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
challenging the orders on a variety of grounds. On October 15, 1975,
the court dismissed as frivolous all respondent's claims, except his
allegation that the "tacking" of 10-day summary suspension orders for
an indefinite period was an abuse of the agency's authority and a
deprivation of due process." Justice Rehnquist on SEC v Sloan.

Even a blind shooter will hit the target sometimes. Might be a little
hard on the bystanders, though.

Even harder on the target.

How many cases has Sam actually won? Out of how many filed?

Don't know. Don't care.