home
Me thinks (none / 0) (#9)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:47:00 PM EST
  The ACLU likely is more interested in a) getting some publicity and b) the fun of putting itself on Craig's side without his likely desire. High in "karma points" perhaps but likely meaningless as tot he proceedings.

  That's a pretty poor piece of work and I've never heard of any court allowing an amicus brief to be filed to a motion in an inferior court.

It's always nice to be a friend of the court (none / 0) (#17)
by Beldar on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:15:47 PM EST
I agree with you about the brief, Deconstructionist. But I had one occasion on which I was hired to appear as a "friend of the court" in a trial court proceeding, about which I blogged here.

[ Parent ]
That's an amusing anectdote (none / 0) (#20)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:20:05 AM EST
  but even there it does not sound as if you were actually granted leave to file as a amicus. Your role appears to have been to let the judge know Rice cared about the case and you accomplished that but as a "chum" you would not have had standing to file a memorandum of law to be docketed in the matter and considered by the court. I've also attended court as a representative of a person who was not a party  but had an interest in the matter but that's something other thasn being an amicus curiae.

  In Craig's case, it seems the ACLU is publicizing its brief without having asked for or having been granted leave to file it with the court. I'm assuming in your matter, Rice wasn't issuing press releases touting its legal work in the case.

 

[ Parent ]

Oh for sure (none / 0) (#19)
by manys on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 01:35:19 AM EST
If there's one thing people can say about the ACLU, it's that they do what they do for fun.

[ Parent ]

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft