Pantekhnikon wrote: wserra wrote:
Heidi I wrote:It [the so-called "Credit River" case - wserra] has not been nullified
Heidi II wrote:The Credit River Decision was nullified
Enough. Whatever Heidi says is a cross between ad hoc rationalization and stream of consciousness nonsense. When propositions "A" and "¬A" appear in her same post, it's time to move on.
Now wasn't that
a clever attempt at taking quotes out of context and hoping that our readers are too worn out by wading through your group obfuscations to look back up through this thread and find out what I actually
said... and even better, to realize what I actually meant:
Snip spin, spin, spin, spinnity-spin
. Ignore for the moment Heidi's "Forget what I said, here's what I meant" apologia
. No case can be a "nullity" in one context and a valid basis for argument in another. It's either a nullity or it's not. Heidi would have it both ways, and can't.
As I posted earlier, it appears that the specific decision was never appealed, and (as Heidi correctly says) that the decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court nullifying the Mahoney/Daly decisions was effective some months post-Credit River. I posted all this a few years ago, when Heidi first appeared here. That brings us to the point I made above - that a decision need not be specifically reversed or overruled to be bad law (see Dred Scott, Korematsu
Several Mahoney/Daly decisions, made on exactly the same grounds as Credit River, were declared nullities by the highest court in Minnesota on the dual grounds that they far exceeded Mahoney's jurisdiction, and that they were simply wrong. See Zurn v. Northwestern National Bank
, 284 Minn. 573, 170 N.W.2d 600 (1969), and Daly v. Savage State Bank
, 285 Minn. 503, 171 N.W.2d 218 (1969). Daly himself was first suspended (In Re Jerome Daly
, 284 Minn.567, 171 N.W.2d 818 (1969)) and then disbarred (In re Jerome Daly
, 291 Minn. 488, 189 N.W.2d 176 (1971)) for arguing in court the exact positions which Heidi espouses here - and seeking to walk away from his own legitimate debts on those grounds. Sound familiar?
Legally, there is no "other side". The only thing at stake are profits from book sales to those who don't know better.
the likes of Murray N. Rothbard and Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Phd. ... learned men whose lectures are available on youtube, btw -- just search their names.
Ooh. It's on Youtube. It must be true.
Attempting to vilify me is simply aiming at the easy target, like any amateur. Try taking on the targets that I've espoused and see how far you get.
If they come here, I'll be glad to. Especially Rothbard. Please be clear about what I'm saying, though. I'm not arguing economics. That's not my field. Anyone who asserts that this nonsense is even arguable law, though, is legally ignorant.
As you are well aware, countless decisions are never appealed, and therefore never overturned OR upheld... that does not make the decisions themselves "mythological".
While I am glad you finally realize that, you still fail to take the next step: Due to the lack of appellate review, even if not
identical to other cases specifically nullified by a higher court, those decisions are of little relevance to anyone other than the parties to them.