Re: The insolence of Office; Hoisting them on their own Petards

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry) wrote:

>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ken Smith
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Merlin wrote:
>>
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry) wrote:
>>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >
>>> >For starters, read the eleventh amdendment. (Which I assumed you knew,
>Merlin :))
>>> >
>>> ><http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment11/>
>>>
>>>         Thanks,  Rightly cited.  The OP is in for some big fun now!
>>
>>  While you two are busy congratulating yourselves on your combined
>>"how in the hell did you pass the Bar, anyway?" knowledge of the law
>>in this area, you seem to forget that it is not the state, but state officials,
>>who are the actual tortfeasors in this arena.  If you want state officials
>>to do their job, you sue the state; if you prefer to punish them for their
>>misconduct in the business end, you sue them personally.
>
>Umm, Kenny, read Ex Parte Young.  A suit against a state official will
>affect state revenues (i.e. you're seeking damages) then it will be
>treated as a suit against the sovereign state, even if the state officials
>are personally named as defendants.  Unless you can show they somehow
>acted outside of the scope of their authority.

        Isn't this the same Kenny Smith who brought a 1983 case against 
        the Co Supreme Court, personally,  in the 10th Circuit?
        That's not a suit you'd want to screw up on, huh? 
        I wonder how he did? 

        Hey Kenny... after reading Ex Parte Young, maybe you 
        should go back and review the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
        You never know when a little scrap of  knowledge might 
        save you from smushing full tilt into that brick wall..  ya think?

        -Merlin