Quote:
Originally Posted by sarettah
And until someone challenged it in court, they got away with it. Right or wrong.
It takes a court challenge to establish this shit. If Slick has had his civil rights trampled as much as everyone says, his lawyer would have had this in court, getting an injunction back last wednesday or thusday when all the shit went down originally.
So, he either has a suck ass lawyer or he doesn't have a leg to stand on in his lawyer's eyes.
|
Why does everything have to be challenged in court? Like I said, money seems to trump what is right in many instances. OJ for instance. (just my opinion btw)
Maybe he can't afford a lawyer, but if he can and he has a suck ass lawyer, why should what is right always have to be determined by lawyers?
You want your freedoms defended by someone's suck ass lawyer who might lose a precedent setting case that affects your rights?
edit: Getting away with it is not the issue.