Time: Fri Nov 15 09:31:40 1996 To: BretCahill@aol.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Legal Tactical Tips/Karma Cc: Bcc: Bret, Thanks for this great advice. Thus far, the government has been falling silent. That is the main reason why I have been working so hard to apply estoppel by acquiescence (aka equitable estoppel). /s/ Paul Mitchell At 12:40 AM 11/15/96 -0500, you wrote: >> Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The omission by >>Congress of the USDC from 18 U.S.C. 3231 must have been >>intentional; the maxim certainly allows us to infer that it was >>intentional. Use of this maxim allows for us to exploit one of >>the most powerful techniques in American jurisprudence. It is >>called "collateral attack" -- a broadside, rather than a head- >>on, collision. > >First, judges want a lot of supporting case law. >Federal court isn't the patent office. They want >to avoid novel arguments because that requires >thought. Judges like to think about as much as >the next guy. DeTocqueville said that the law, >lawyers and judges are slow to change. They >need precident to function. It's always been this >way. > >Second, judges don't like a lot of highly legally >technical arguments. Lawyers try this all the >time and it really pisses judges off. Judges are >like everyone else. They want something simple >and entertaining -- KISS > >Third, while the idiots were saluting the Gipper, >the Gip was putting idiots on the bench. (This >may work in your favor if you don't have a good >case.) > >I'd like to see the government's answer, >however. > >Bret Cahill > > > > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail