XPost: alt.politics.british, can.legal, misc.legal   
   From: forget@it.com   
      
   Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:   
   > Ken Smith wrote:   
   >>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:   
   >   
   > [...]   
   >   
   >>>Ken is seeking from Denver State District Court an IMMEDIATE injunction   
   >>>against the enforcement of Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure #201 "in its   
   >>>entirety".  C.R.C.P. rule 201.1 states:   
   >>   
   >>>   The Supreme Court exercises jurisdiction over all matters involving   
   >>>   the licensing of persons to practice law in the State of Colorado.   
   >>>   Accordingly, the Supreme Court has adopted the following rules   
   >>>   governing admission to the practice of law.   
   >>   
   >>>So Ken is seeking to have a state District Court judge order the state   
   >>>Supreme Court to stop exercising jurisdiction in these matters.  [!]   
   >>   
   >>   Yep.  [...]   
   >   
   > So what happens when the Supreme Court tells the lower court to go scratch?   
      
      In case you hadn't noticed (see Howlett v. Rose), the Colorado   
   Supreme Court is answerable to federal law, and a valid order emanating   
   from the trial court grounded in federal law is just as binding as if it   
   emanated from a federal district court.  Read the case for once, and learn.   
      
      They still have appellate rights, though.   
      
      If you understood the law, you'd understand why this concept is not   
   so far-fetched -- but ignorance has NEVER stopped you from opening your   
   fat mouth, and almost certainly never will....   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)