"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


"Powell" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote

[snip]

We've got to remember that Morein tried to sue his
school in the Supreme Court of the United States in a
failed attempt to get a PhD degree. This is one
seriously and expensively bruised ego.

Two litigous fruitcakes, masters of denial, umm patting each other on the
err, backs:

As one who has invested substantial funds in attorney
fees as a necessary expense of doing business I can
appreciate Robert's disposition on the matter. I have
respect for anyone who has been thought the financial
commitment of litigation and psychological hardships
they can cause.

While it is sport to dig Robert I don't believe it is a
reflection of any greater truth of moral or ethical quality.
Two metaphors to consider "A man who carries a cat by
the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
- Mark Twain", and Voltaire who said "I was never ruined
but twice; once when I lost a lawsuit, and once when I
won one."

Apparently Powell hasn't learned much from his experiences.

The only way to truely win a lawsuit is to get more money out of your
opponent than the lawyers gets out of you. Sometimes you get the
opponent'smoney, sometimes your opponent just spends more money with his
lawyer. Been there, done that twice. Done it both ways.

Like his RAO cohort in legal failure Scott Wheeler,
Morien's case got thrown out of court.

My case didn't get thrown out of court.

Sure it did.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/suprem...22403pzor.html
shows:

CERTIORARI DENIED - 02-863 MOREIN, ROBERT V. DREXEL UNIV., ET AL.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossa...certiorari.htm

Defines CERTIORARI DENIED. It means that the court refused to hear your
case, Morein. IOW, your case was thrown out of court. In essence, its the
same thing that happened to Scott Wheeler's case.

No, it's not.
The Supreme Court hears, on the average, only 2% of the cases presented to
it. Because of the extremely limited number of cases SOCUS can hear, the
cases are chosen based upon the urgency of the constitutional issue
involved.
Unlike other courts that may apply in the appeals process, a hearing before
the Supreme Court is not guaranteed by due process.
Consequently, the Supreme Court DID NOT RULE on my case.

The term "thrown out of court" usually refers to instances where the trial
judge dismisses claims during motion hearings before the argument phase of
the trial. For example, in the Court of Common Pleas, the lawyer for Drexel
moved that our case be dismissed before argument. The motion was denied, but
had that happened, it would be properly referred to by "thrown out."

What is true, and what you may wish to say in the future, is that the
Superior Court of the State of Pennsylvania REVERSED the decision of the
trial court.