Yes, right or wrong, his RULE OF LAW defense is sadly, laughable. Just look at how the ROL has held the real culprits accountable. Coester receives slaps on the wrist, pocket change fines for his actions. And Coester is just one of the poster boys.For pointing out the reality of the executive order?
It is very easy to not care about the rule of law when the rule of law works to possibly let people and entities who are bad actors off the hook or when the regulators don't follow all of the laws as they discipline people/entities you don't like or accomplish things that you find desirable. That's all well and fine until you find yourself or one of your friends before the same regulators who don't care about following the law, then all of a sudden the rule of law will become very important to you.Yes, right or wrong, his RULE OF LAW defense is sadly, laughable. Just look at how the ROL has held the real culprits accountable. Coester receives slaps on the wrist, pocket change fees for his actions. And Coester is just one of the poster boys.
It is very easy not to care about the rule of law when the rule of law works to possibly let people and entities who are bad actors off the hook or when the regulators don't follow all of the laws as they discipline people/entities you don't like. That's all well and fine until you find yourself or one of your friends before the same regulators who don't care about following the law, then all of a sudden the rule of law will become very important to you.
Thank you. TimD must have me on ignore and couldn't see my 3 times asked question as to whether he is privy to LA Board finances. Yea, I think i just gave him a convenient out.Then why is the rule of law suddenly tied to the economic condition of the state?
Did someone write some new rules?
.
You state the following in post 43 in this thread: Yes, right or wrong, his RULE OF LAW defense is sadly, laughable.Point out where I say I don't care about the ROL. I'm not breaking the law. I'm just tired of entities skirting the law and using lawyers, guns and money the exert their will. (Note the Zevon reference)
Thank you. TimD must have me on ignore and couldn't see my 3 times asked question as to whether he is privy to LA Board finances.



According to TimDs rationale - Add these oil states as well. Alaska, Texas, NM, WY, WV, OK, Utah and ND to to LA - as having empty coffers.....just because. Who really expects a person with a law degree would answer a simple yes or no question?Then why is the rule of law suddenly tied to the economic condition of the state?
Did someone write some new rules?
.
