What's more, how are you going to try to say that you on the one hand see that the initial charges are BS, yet on the other hand feel the legal system is working just great and fine when conditions that arose from and exist only because of the initial bullshit charges come about?



My question to you, Lee, is why do you try and pass yourself off as some uber-strict legal trooper whenever there's a case such as this? Because you do it every time. Is it because you're thinking it will make people believe you are the most upstanding, law-abiding webmaster around? Whether or not you are is beside the point. It's why you seem so gleeful and happy everytime there's a story of a legal case that comes around that intrigues me. You seem to make it a point to seek out these stories and post some hardline commentary about them in here. The impression I get from it is that you do it because you think people will look at it and think "Well Lee must be Mr. By-The-Book super-duper law-man". To me, however, it makes you look like someone who can not see the forest for the trees, does not appreciate the meaning of precedent when it comes to the law, and is overcompensating for something.

That's just my take on it.