|
[ typographical correction: ]
. . . divided panel of the U.S. court of appeals for
the Third Circuit purported to deal with what they
claimed were "facts" that were/weren't essential,
including some real-world facts that were essential
but which they pretended were not in the Mumia
Abu-Jamal case (re. which a motion for consideration
en banc is being made).
|
| |
| |
|
