I've never claimed to have legal background. I've never "made up" anything or claimed "inside information," but I have claimed, and will continue to claim, that I have insight (that anyone is completely free to choose to accept or ignore or take with a grain of salt) into how Judge Berman is likely to approach the case based on 25 years of being around members of the Prosecutorial (from Manhattan ADA's to Federal Prosecutors), Judicial (from Clerks to Judges to people whose first name is "Justice") and legal (including prominent First Amendment and Defense Attorneys) community in this part of the country.
Perhaps you could expand upon what you mean by 'being around'.
Part of my skepticism is no doubt based on what seems to me like you are dancing around that trying to make it sound like more than it is.
Perhaps I am too skeptical, I just get my bs senses up when someone tries to purport having a better insight into what the judge will do because they 'know a lot of people with the same background'.
Even now you are still adding this information to your post, as if to espouse your opinion as somehow specially informed.
Some of those connections are through family, some through friends and some through professional relationships, but I assure you that none of them are fabricated and certainly none of them have been presented with the intention of misleading anyone.
I didn't say you fabricated that you know people, or that you were trying to mislead anyone, I said that you are making comments designed to make you sound like you have some type of inside information and that your opinion is more informed that others.
That is what you are saying right? So just explain what manner your insight into how "someone like Berman' would view things, as well has how you know who 'someone like Berman' is.
Clearly you aren't saying everyone in the legal profession in NY are all the same and anyone who lived there 25 year can predict their actions.
Some on the Board have found that useful and said so...and I don't view any of them as particularly gullible. Others haven't...and I respect their views. You are apparently among the latter. Why don't you just ignore what I have to say if you find it so "misleading" or, as you imply, disingenuous.
I'm done with this conversation, Andy.
Because you are claiming better insight into this than anyone else.
If you were an attorney in that court, or a reporter, or someone who has studied the court, and Berman's decisions, I would respect that and place more value on your guess.
If you were simply trying to make your opinion sound more informed than someone elses by claiming you have insight into Berman, then why would you be reluctant to describe how you have that. So far its just "I live here, I know how THOSE PEOPLE think.
I choose not to ignore what you have to say because I honestly want to judge it appropriately.
If you have a legitimately enhanced insight into this situation that would impact my value on your opinion. If that insight is bluster, that would also.
Up to you. You can just say no more, or you can give some details to back up your claim that your guess is more educated (other you saying it is because it is).