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