TPB: Court Rules Judge Not Biased, Lawsuit Ensues

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]moricon[/nom]Eeek!!! where is this going?[/citation]
TPB will amass an army of the millions of piracy advocates worldwide to plunder Sweden!! YArrrrr!
 
[citation][nom]dman3k[/nom]I wonder if Smith & Wesson will ever be charged for murder...[/citation]

nope. they have protection in the USA. they lobbied for this long ago!
 
wow... how can it not be a conflict of interest?

Im going to have to look up "conflict of interest" in the dictionary because I though the definition was judge Tomas Norström !

TPB is hooped... gets yer downloads in NOW.
 
Exactly who is the judge when a suit is filed against a country, which is basically the courts themselves? Is this going to be an arbitrary ruling mediated by God?
 
[citation][nom]smithereen[/nom]Who hasn't figured out they are in it for the attention yet?[/citation]

Oh yes because that makes sense they are doing it for attention. Going to jail and being sued for millions but it was all for the attention right? What a grade A idiot you are sir.

Now to the topic. I figured this would happen. Lets face it the whole thing is a vendetta against them. I'm sure the trail was decided before they even walked into the courthouse for the first time. The corporations claim that piracy costs them money whether or not this is true it doesn't matter in this case. Because whom largely invests into this companies and believes they are losing money because of piracy? The rich of course. And whom are the people always elected into politics? The rich. They could have easily dictated to the courts on what the verdict is going to be and just so they don't get some radical judge who actually does his job they put one in that also has reason to find the guys at PB guilty. Then simply deny any appeals and their job is done.

This is what we get for forming our modern civilizations where the rich don't just have the money but also have the political power. Of course they will always favor the corporations they invest in and of course the people will give screwed if it means just to have the very chance to profit for them.
 
[citation][nom]Core2uu[/nom]Exactly who is the judge when a suit is filed against a country, which is basically the courts themselves? Is this going to be an arbitrary ruling mediated by God?[/citation]
There is a judge available to such matters, but probably they'd never even get that far, as a case has to be approved before it can be presented in court - and who'd want to admit a trial against itself?
 
The judge threw out the case himself if he thought such affiliations will not backfire on his ruling. Even if he doesn't let his bias affect his ruling, the rule of law won't allow that. Judge was stupid on this one giving TPB reason to retrial.
 
its just like umpires in a game. Nobody is going to call off the main ump after its been decided. These judges are the exact same way. They don't want to make their "legal" system look bad, so they have to agree with the original ruiling. If they don't it will make all judges fall under prejudice and everyone would be set Scott free.
 
Download bitblinder p2p anonymous torrent program that prevents the origin of p2p source... you cant download it right away but use this link and you can bypass the invitation thing...good luck...
http://bitblinder.com/download/

=)
 
[citation][nom]dman3k[/nom]I wonder if Smith & Wesson will ever be charged for murder...[/citation]


[citation][nom]Hanin33[/nom]nope. they have protection in the USA. they lobbied for this long ago![/citation]

Yeah, they will when GM, Ford, Mercedes Benz, Toyota, Honda, etc. get charged for murder when someone kills someone in an auto accident, or if the maker of the Louisville Slugger baseball bat gets charged for murder because their bat was used to kill someone.

Baseball bats, automobiles, and firearms don't kill people, people kill people.
 
I don't understand. I went to dictionary.com and looked up "Conflict of Interest" in case the definition changed. Here's the first entry:

–noun
1. the circumstance of a public officeholder, business executive, or the like, whose personal interests might benefit from his or her official actions or influence.
2. the circumstance of a person who finds that one of his or her activities, interests, etc., can be advanced only at the expense of another of them.

Seems pretty straight forward to me, but just in case its not, the 3rd entry is far more specific.

A situation in which someone who has to make a decision in an official capacity stands to profit personally from the decision. For example, a judge who rules on a case involving a corporation in which he or she owns stock has a conflict of interest.

I'm not making this up, that's what it says. How is the judge in TPB case deemed not to have a "conflict of interest"??? I guess they must be using a different dictionary.
 
Will the court battle ever end?
Hoping you'll all die of old age before you have to pay the fines?

Same with my nephew in custody battles... he will be 18 before this ever ends.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom