From the motion: "The purpose of the ESRB system is to provide easily understood information about games to consumers and parents - not to dictate what is ultimately appropriate for individuals of different ages"
I swear that needs to be printed up into huge banners and hung up everywhere that games are sold, because it seems like the anti-game people have a lot of confusion on this subject.
It must be fun to be a lawyer and to get to write a motion like this where you get to basically quote from the preliminary injunction order that the judge you are submitting the motion to just issued. That motion is just littered with parts where they show why they are entitled to summary judgement backed up by quotes from the judges very PI Order that he issued last week. Its sort of like 'here are the reasons we are right and if you need evidence look at these things that you wrote just last week'.
Re: bigger fish to fryjabrwockAugust 31 2006, 22:08:41 UTC
The AG office has bigger fish to fry then to defend a swiss cheese law like this...
Not sure why he's still listed as a defendant. Didn't the judge remove the AG from the defendant's list for not being directly responsible for enforcing the law?
Or would they have to file for summary judgement, then re-file, in order to do that?
Here's a thought...vansauAugust 31 2006, 23:39:13 UTC
I say we start keeping track of all these ridiculous cases and then tally up the legal fees (paid for by taxpayers) they've incurred. At the end of the year, perhaps an editorial including the amount of money spent on failed legislation against "obscene" video games?
Comments 24
"The purpose of the ESRB system is to provide easily understood information about games to consumers and parents - not to dictate what is ultimately appropriate for individuals of different ages"
I swear that needs to be printed up into huge banners and hung up everywhere that games are sold, because it seems like the anti-game people have a lot of confusion on this subject.
It must be fun to be a lawyer and to get to write a motion like this where you get to basically quote from the preliminary injunction order that the judge you are submitting the motion to just issued. That motion is just littered with parts where they show why they are entitled to summary judgement backed up by quotes from the judges very PI Order that he issued last week. Its sort of like 'here are the reasons we are right and if you need evidence look at these things that you wrote just last week'.
Reply
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/20/hospital.deaths/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/18/hospital.deaths/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/18/hospital.deaths/index.html
Reply
Reply
Not sure why he's still listed as a defendant. Didn't the judge remove the AG from the defendant's list for not being directly responsible for enforcing the law?
Or would they have to file for summary judgement, then re-file, in order to do that?
Reply
anyways my post was originaly intended to be a jab at JT... and yes everyone i know my sentance structure is less then disirable :P
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment