ableoneable
Veteran
- May 6, 2007
- 711
- 0
A more mature person would read that as the process that warrants the moniker, "kangaroo court". A less mature would take it as an attack. Any legal process that narrowly defines evidence in order to guarantee a desired outcome is a kangaroo court, by definition.
Nice reach, but not credible.
Anyone who had been paying attention knew what evidence the court would and would not allow. Only USAPA and their supporters believed that the trial would be about the alleged unfairness of the Nicolau award.
That was never what this trial was about. The ninth circuit is not gong to hear any of the excluded evidence either. It is not germain to the question before the court.
It appears that you will soon attach the Kangaroo appellation to the ninth circuit as well, for when they find that USAPA's appeal has no merit they must too be relegated to kangaroo status.