The Word, Reasonable. Christmas Greeting from the Supremacy, and Why this Holiday is so Important to the Lawyer, even the Non-Believer

The word reasonable is the central word of American jurisprudence. Does it carry its dictionary meaning? Is its meaning ever clearly delineated in law school? Does it refer to the behavior of someone with good common sense? The answer to those is, no. If any of these meanings were to be used, they would cause a mistrial. This commentary is addressed to the most atheistic, anti-religion lawyers possible.

Man fell from Eden. This Fall made his intellect subject to being misled by temptations, deadly sins, emotions, some very negative. So logic and intellect are not useful guides to moral decision making.

Reason has a specific meaning in the world of Scholasticism. St. Thomas Aquinas was its most prominent philosopher. Henry of Bratton was a student. He wrote the case book, from which English and American law emerged almost fully formed.

To those two, reason is the human faculty that perceives God. Thomas goes to a great length to show the New Testament is the sole, reliable guide to righteous, moral decisions.

In technical Scholasticist terminology, reasonable refers to conduct guided by the New Testament, a book about the life, thoughts, and acts of Jesus Christ.

The reasonable person is a fictitious character and must be fictitious. He is Jesus Christ. And his standards of due care and conduct violate the Establishment Clause of this secular nation. That illegality is the reason the word is never defined in law school, nor anywhere else legal.

Merry Christmas to the lawyers. You should celebrate this day because it holds a very special meaning to the lawyer.

Pharmaceutical Executive Speaks Out Against Animal Rights Terrorists

This is a moral duty. He has paid a high personal price.

Many patient direct action groups should be formed. These would be family members of patients who benefit from technology, including that tested on animals. They would bring the fight to the terrorists and all left wing enemies of clinical care. They would beat them, burn them out, then kill those who do not learn. These terrorists are threats to the survival of their loved ones. Killing them has full moral justification. It should be done during the commission of a terrorist act, to preserve a possible legal justification.

From USA Today, "CEOs may feel under attack like never before, but few have experienced it like Dan Vasella, CEO of Switzerland-based pharmaceutical giant Novartis (NVS).

This past summer, animal rights activists went to his hometown village and painted "murderer" on the church. A week later, they desecrated the graves of his sister and parents. Then they set fire to his Austrian vacation home. Most CEOs respond to loud criticism by staying quiet, but Vasella, 56, decided to go public and do media interviews and lobby for tougher law enforcement throughout Europe. He spoke to USA TODAY corporate management reporter Del Jones about what leaders should do when anger crosses the line. Following are excerpts edited for clarity and space.

Q: What do you get from confronting enemies? You're not going to change their minds.

A: You win public support. With that, you can achieve anything. Without public support, you cannot achieve anything.

Q: This Q&A makes no attempt to determine right and wrong in animal testing debate. But aren't you helping activists by giving them the soapbox they desire?

A: I don't believe so. It's my duty as a citizen to speak up when illegal actions take place. Suffering in silence doesn't help anybody. You have to stand up. You have to fight for something. If everyone remained silent, then the people who are violent would prevail.

Q: Other drug companies have not fought this so publicly. Aren't you putting a bull's-eye on Novartis?

A:No. If others duck to stay off the radar, that's a bad recipe.

Q: CEOs in a variety of industries have told me that they get anonymous threats through the mail and elsewhere. Should they go public?

A: The general advice that security departments give is: Don't respond, don't react, and we'll handle it. In the U.K., police are much more active than in continental Europe. There was a bomb case in the U.S. a few years ago, and the FBI became active, but that activity passes by when nobody dies. My advice to others is to be cool and react with logic, be prudent, take precautions, but do not panic and be afraid. Be willing to engage (with activists) if they have a point, if it's appropriate. We've engaged with Greenpeace and with Médecins Sans Frontières International (Doctors Without Borders). But sometimes their objective is to create fear and uncertainty, a terroristic attempt at psychological tension.

Q: Are CEOs wrong when they file a police report but stay quiet?

A: In many instances, that may be right, but I think there is also a line which one has to draw. It's a judgment call. It should be a deliberate decision and not an emotional one. In my case, people understood because what happened was so outrageous.

Q: If you were to do it over again, would you do anything differently?

A: I would go public earlier, immediately. We should have done more to engage politicians and the press in making them aware what was going on, because we need the public to understand.

Q: Has your response done anything to stop the behavior of your antagonists?

A: It's calm right now, but I don't think that they have changed in any way their fundamental attitude and actions. We have more support on the political side in continental Europe. Changing laws is a multiyear process, but we have never encountered so much support as now.

Q: Where do yet get your courage?

A: If I ever came home from school and said I felt unfairly treated by a teacher, my parents never said the teacher was right. They said: You have to stand up and defend yourself. You occasionally prevail. That gives strength inside, which not everyone had the luck to experience.

Q: If CEOs went more on the offensive, would they have to worry about the safety of themselves and family?

A: I don't. There was a period when I was more alert, a normal reaction. Now we are conducting our lives as we used to. Of course, there are security measures that have been taken, but you can never protect everything.

Q: If you were the leader of the animal rights group, what would you do differently to get your point across and cause change?

A:You put me in a difficult position to argue for them. Certainly, any criminal actions won't lead to success in the long term. The only way to proceed is to engage in dialogue."

Judge Rejects Necessity Defense of Killer of Abortion Doctor

Necessity sometimes can trump the Constitution. It was designed to save lives, and not to allow individuals to impose a policy change on their own. The judge may have gotten his additional evidence had the homicide taken place during the abortion of a viable fetus. The killer should have researched the law. No attorney could have advised him on setting up the defense of a homicide better.

From USA Today, " A judge ruled Tuesday that Kansas law doesn't allow a so-called "necessity defense" in the trial of a man charged with killing one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers.

The decision was another blow to lawyers for 51-year-old Scott Roeder, who has confessed to shooting Dr. George Tiller on May 31 and says it was necessary to save "unborn children." Roeder listened intently, at times twiddling his thumbs nervously under the defense table, as the judge gave a lengthy recitation of case precedents that mostly undermined that contention.

In his ruling, Judge Warren Wilbert cited a 1993 criminal trespassing case involving an abortion clinic in which the Kansas Supreme Court said that allowing a person's personal beliefs to justify criminal activity to stop a law-abiding citizen from exercising his rights would "not only lead to chaos but would be tantamount to sanctioning anarchy."

But he noted that the 1993 case dealt only with a property rights issue, whereas the case involving Roeder has elevated the argument to whether it is justified to take one life for another.

"That is certainly not a position I want to be in -- because I am not God," Wilbert said.

The judge said he has heard enough evidence to anticipate what might be presented at trial. He noted abortion is legal and told attorneys he found it difficult to consider the shooting of Tiller in the back of a church on a Sunday morning, with no overt act by Tiller himself, as an act spurred by an imminent threat of death or bodily harm."

Statute Drafting is Human Experimentation. New Statutes Should be Thoroughly Pilot Tested.

Every current and proposed statute should be proven safe and effective, or be void. Safe and effective is at the core of due process. So a law imposing the death penalty for witchcraft violates Fifth Amendment Due Process.

First, prove a harm from a crime, either physical, economic, or permanently emotional. Merely upsetting acts are protected by the First Amendment. Peeing in the street would be harmful, in generating cleanup costs, spreading disease, etc. Private prostitution produces mutual benefit, pleasure and earning. If the person objects to forced prostitution, that is covered by kidnapping and enslavement laws. Consent should remain a defense.

Second, prove that criminal sanctions reduce the rate and the cost of harm to a greater extent than the cost of enforcement, and apply the least restrictive sanction. If a torts approach can be shown to work, enable that in the statute. So if speeding must end, does a police car in the bushes reduce the average speed on the road, or does a speed camera, generating emailed fines to all speeders reduce the average speed? Prove that a reduction in the average speed results in a benefit, such as fewer accidents. Prove that the value of the accidents prevented exceeds that of the enforcement camera and that of the total of the fines collected.

Third, test each law, its enforcement methods, and unintended consequences in small jurisdictions. They apply to a state. If still effective and beneficial, then make the law federal or mandatory in every state by the usual constitutional methods.

Lastly, set out the dose-response curve. If a remedy is too small or weak, it does not work. If it is excessive, it becomes toxic. For example, I would boycott the shops on the road with the automatic speeding tickets. We want to find out that bankrupting effect when tried at the county level, and not after the remedy is national.

The Problem of Innocence in the Death Penalty Debate. Legitimate or Pretextual?

Abolitionists use the rate of innocence on death row as a justification to suspend the death penalty. Governors have suspended the death penalty due to this problem of innocence.


Failure of Criminal Procedure

The idea of executing an innocent person is abhorrent. It represents the failure of the lawyer management of the criminal law. The lawyer is using 13th Century methods and Rules of Evidence. It is possible, no trial has any scientific validity. Daubert standards do apply to the criminal trial. Biggest myth? The adversarial process is a method to reach an answer to a problem. That is from Scholasticism and the 13th Century. There are no reliability statistics, let alone validation statistics for the criminal trial.

To compound the problem of the peole later found innocent, about a quarter had falsely confessed. For all we know, they may even have believed they were guilty after a working over by the police. Even confessions have no validity.

Inconsistency of Abolitionists

If the death penalty should stop because of the rate of innocence, then so should all other procedures with flaws. The abolitionists should not get on any train, plane, bicycle, car or bus. These kill 1000 times as many innocent people as the death penalty kills guilty people, and 5000 times as the death penalty kills innocent people. These cars kill innocent people without any due process. They do so by butchery methods of slicing and dicing bodies with sharp metal edges.

Hypocrisy and Economic Conflict of Interest

The abolitionists use the innocents on death row as a pretext to stop the death penalty for the guilty. Why would anyone advocate for gangbangers, mobsters, and serial killers? Most abolitionists are left wing ideologues. These criminals generate massive government make work for the constituency of the left, government dependent workers.

Solving the Problem of Judges in Failure

As to judges,

1) no lawyer should be allowed on the bench; judging is a difficult, separate, nearly unrelated profession;

2) end all self-dealt judge immunity from professional malpractice; force them to carry insurance; automatically remove the uninsurable judge; if the underwriting risk is unacceptable, the risk to public safety is as well;

3) any engaging in judicial review is violating Article I Section 1 of the US constitution or its state equivalent; arrest them; try them; hang the insurrectionists;

4) stop oppressing judges, and allow them to be inquisitorial;

5) end one of three major mistakes in the Constitution, the life time appointment, allowing an Alzheimerocracy;

6) any uttering Latin, any using supernatural doctrines, any using concepts or methods from Scholasticism is violating the Establishment Clause; apply the remedy in 3);

7) the adversarial system was a Scholasticist method for getting at a correct answer; it has no reliability statistics, let alone any scientific validity; it does not withstand any Daubert analysis; it generates massive lawyer fees, all of which are wasted and worthless, insuring no rights, nor increasing any chance of greater correctness of outcome.

Rules of Engagement Help the Enemy

Afghanistan could be lost from political correctness. It would become a haven for terror attacks on our homeland. The lawyers and their military collaborators responsible for these rules should be hunted down, arrested, tried and executed. The list of these internal traitors should be compiled now.

"Rules of engagement killing U.S. soldiers. You won't believe how politics handcuff troops in Afghanistan
Posted: December 13, 2009
7:26 pm Eastern

F. Michael Maloof
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – New military rules of engagement ostensibly to protect Afghan civilians are putting the lives of U.S. forces in jeopardy, claim Army and Marine sources, as the Taliban learns to game plan based the rules' imposed limits.

The rules of engagement, or ROEs, apply to all coalition forces of the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Their enactment is in response to Afghan President Hamid Karzai's complaints over mounting civilian deaths apparently occurring in firefights.

Despite the fact that the newly arrived U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, imposed the more restrictive ROEs to minimize the killing of innocent civilians, however, the Taliban is well aware of them and has its own forces acting in ways to counteract them.

The impact of new restrictions has created increasing frustration and concern among U.S. Army and Marine Corps troops who now are compelled to follow these rules despite the danger of letting the Taliban live to fight again another day.

Critics see the new ROEs being more oriented toward defensive rather than offensive operations, as evidenced by recent charges of murder against two U.S. Army snipers because they had targeted a Taliban commander who reportedly wasn't holding a weapon.

The actual ROEs are said to be classified U.S. and NATO secrets, but based on individual soldier accounts, those restrictions include the following:

* No night or surprise searches

* Villagers are to be warned prior to searches

* Afghan National Army, or ANA, or Afghan National Police, or ANP, must accompany U.S. units on searches

* U.S. soldiers may not fire at insurgents unless they are preparing to fire first

* U.S. forces cannot engage insurgents if civilians are present

* Only women can search women

* Troops can fire on insurgents if they catch them placing an IED but not if insurgents walk away from where the explosives are."

An Alternative Criminal Justice System, Not Supported by Lawyers

Crimes should be categorized by the harm done. All crime should be strict liability crime, to avoid the unlawful, church derived proof of intent. Then all sentencing should be based on the person, since incapacitation is the sole useful, mature, and valuable aim of the criminal law. This is the view from the taxpayer and owner of the law. The victims and defendants have other interests, but they can buy their own justice systems to pursue those.

Sentencing could look very different. A murderer could be sent home on probation. A shoplifter could be executed. The simplest way to decide on sentencing is to count the convictions and the reliably assessed conduct of the defendant. So the shoplifter's mother is interviewed. She reports, he is the head of an organized illegal alien gang, and has ordered the execution of many people, and is responsible for the homicide of innocent bystanders by his incompetent bomb placements. These statements are corroborated by detectives.

The shoplifting charge stands in for his 100's of crimes, and is an opportunity for incapacitation. He is not being incapacitated for shoplifting but for his character. The death penalty would no longer be viewed as a punishment nor as a deterrent. It would be viewed as social self-defense and expulsion from our world after wearing out its welcome (damages above $6 million is a good line to draw, from the economist derived market value approach to valuing a human life).

This is a scheme that places a priority on public safety. If it does not work, it should be jettisoned. It may work by attrition.

The judiciary should conduct the guilt phase, in an ordinary trial.

The executive would be responsible for the sentencing and for any public safety harm stemming from setting the defendant loose. The sentencing decisions should be made blinded to the race, gender and other characteristics of the defendant. I don't know whether age should be removed from consideration. Age is second to recidivism as a predictor of future crime. Forget the interview of the defendant. That is a waste of time. The victims of the released criminal should be able to sue the officials and the agency that negligently released him. A standard of professional care could apply here rather than a strict liability approach. Otherwise no one would be released.

Every crime statute should be validated as seeking to prevent a big harm, or repealed. Desuetude should repeal the statute automatically. Legal hoaxing violates the Equal Protection Clause. And the false notice of desuetude is a regulatory taking by forcing legal costs.

The lawyer would remain as an advocate at every stage of this scheme. He could not serve as judge, nor as decision maker in the sentencing phase.

The validation of any scheme whether from 1828 or from 2028, is the drop in crime victimization, the sole mature aim of the criminal law. If a scheme does not work, enhance or replace it every 10 years.

Military Lawyers Continue to Second Guess Our Warriors, Protecting the Enemy

They embed themselves into tactical units. They cancel orders to bomb terrorist locations and targets. This is unbearable betrayal of our nation by disloyal cult criminals. They only care about the rent, and not about our national safety.

"Two Navy SEALs accused in the mistreatment of an Iraqi suspect in the 2004 slayings of four U.S. contractors were arraigned in military court Monday, and one SEAL said he was gratified by support from the public and some members of Congress.

The judge scheduled courts-martial next month for Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe of Perrysburg, Ohio, and Petty Officer 1st Class Julio Huertas of Blue Island, Ill. A third SEAL will be arraigned later.

The SEALs have received an outpouring of public support on the Internet, and a California congressman has led a campaign urging Defense Secretary Robert Gates to intervene. About three dozen protesters, including the mother of one of the slain contractors, stood outside the Norfolk Naval Station gate Monday morning holding signs of support.

McCabe is accused of striking the detainee in the midsection, dereliction of duty for failing to safeguard the detainee, and lying to investigators. He deferred entering a plea until his Jan. 19 trial.

McCabe told reporters he was confident he would be exonerated."

Negligent Clemency

Such a new tort would allow clemency to continue. But, it would compensate the future victims of the carelessness of the politicians.

When the Left PC Crowd Runs the Government. the Murder Rate Soars

"It's all Scandinavian talk in an Iraqi reality. Rio is completely schizophrenic. Everybody's very PC – all this violence is seen as coming from some injustice. At the same time, they'd like the favelas to be atomised, à la Buck Rogers, with a Disintegrator."

This is coming to the US.

An Example of Judge Self-Dealt Immunity

Here.

This judge must removed. He has no basis for this decision in any statute.

Lawyer Slams Psychologists for Participation in Interrogation

This is a biased hate speech piece, and not journalism. These psychologist deserve the gratitude of the nation for the information obtained that prevented attacks. The lawyer should be considered a collaborator with the enemy.

"Psychologists participated in every stage of the program’s development and implementation.2 First, they assisted in providing its legal justification. The United Nations Convention against Torture and corresponding federal statutes define torture as “an act intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.”3,4 Severe mental pain or suffering is “the prolonged mental harm” caused by the “infliction or the threat of infliction of severe physical pain or suffering.” Psychologists sanctioned all utilized techniques. For example, the report observes that the CIA “informed us that your on-site psychologists, who have extensive experience with the use of waterboard in Navy training, have not encountered any significant long-term mental health consequences from its use.”

Second, those same psychologists sculpted the program’s basic structure. Initially, the CIA retained independent contractor and Air Force psychologist James Mitchell to “research and write a paper on al-Qaeda’s resistance to interrogation techniques.” Then, Mitchell paired with a Department of Defense psychologist and “developed a list of new and more aggressive EITs.”

Third, psychologists crafted individual intake evaluations that assessed mental status and forecast successful techniques. Consider, for example, the psychological profile of al-Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah. The profile observed that his strengths included “ability to focus, goal-directed discipline, intelligence, [and] emotional resilience.” The report predicted interrogation success because Zubaydah “believes [that] the ultimate destiny of Islam is to dominate this world. . . . Thus, there is the chance that he could rationalize that providing information will harm current efforts but represent only a temporary setback.”

Finally, psychologists attended and supervised interrogation sessions. Consider, again, the case of Zubaydah. Federal Bureau of Investigation agent Ali Soufan, who, according to Newsweek, “had a reputation as a shrewd interrogator who could work fluently in both English and Arabic,” conducted the initial interrogation in Guantánamo Bay. Although Soufan’s interrogation was productive, producing information that led to the arrest of Richard Reid, the would-be “shoe bomber,” the CIA brought in Mitchell. Mitchell ratcheted up the interrogation by stripping Zubaydah and barraging him with loud, rock music. When a coffin, apparently for a mock burial, arrived and Soufan objected, the CIA terminated his employment.5"

Hire a Lawyer, Avoid the Death Penalty

This shows the death penalty of today does not have a criminal justice aim. It has a lawyer rent seeking aim.


"Death penalty opponents charge that wealthy defendants who can hire legal counsel are exempt from capital punishment, but that indigent defendants who receive court-appointed counsel are frequently condemned to death. The critique is based on sensational stories, but anecdotes cannot establish a causal relationship. To explore the issue systematically, the current research examines the impact of legal counsel on the District Attorney’s decisions to seek the death penalty and juries’ decisions to impose death sentences against adult defendants indicted for capital murder in Harris County (Houston), Texas from 1992 to 1999 (n=504). Harris County is the largest jurisdiction in the nation to use the appointment method rather than the public defender method to deliver indigent capital defense, though by no means the only such jurisdiction. The empirical comparison of hired counsel to appointed counsel in Harris County reveals three central findings: (1) Defendants who hired counsel for the entire case were never sentenced to death; (2) Defendants who hired counsel for a portion of the case were substantially less likely to be sentenced to death; (3) Hiring counsel is not the province of the wealthy, as almost all of the capital murder defendants in this study were poor. Though not the focus of the research and a finding that must be considered tentative, the data also reveal that defendants who hired counsel for the entire case were much more likely to be acquitted. To be clear, the findings are not an indictment of appointed attorneys, but rather an indictment of the structural deficiencies inherent in the appointment method. The research concludes with a call for Harris County—the capital of capital punishment—to establish a Public Defender Office with a specific Capital Defender Office. Though not a panacea, the public defender method comes much closer to the adversarial ideal of evenly matched partisans doing battle to produce justice."

Hand Wringing Over Totally Painless Executions in Ohio

Senator, If you can use a stamp, you can carry out an execution. This method is endorsed by a bunch of tort lawyers.

http://www.hsinjurylaw.com/library/dangerousdefective-drugsfentanyl-patchconnected-with-deaths-overdoses.cfm

Peel and apply 10 Duragesic (fentanyl) patches anywhere on the body. The latter may be tied down, squirming, and uncooperative. Does not matter. Just stick the patches on. Make it 20 patches. The prisoner may enjoy an opiate high on the way out.

Add 20 clonidine patches in between to enhance the Duragesic patches.

No hand wringing for these victims in the walls of the house of a registered sex offender. These registries are worthless lawyer paper shuffling. These worthless lawyer remedies register and ruin a 10 year old kid pissing on a wall. They fail to slow down a serial killer. This failure mirrors that of the criminal law, with a high false negative and a high false positive, jailing many innocent defendants, and allowing the overwhelming majority of predators to escape punishment and to continue to victimize the public. Escaped victim explains the Sowell method. Punch the lady in the face and drag her into the house.

Failure to Diagnose the Most Common Medmal Claim

The best prevention? Defensive medicine.

The Unpopularity of Lawyers

Walter Olsen links to Orin Kerr on this subject. Australian Lawyer lists the standard reasons. No one is saying the following substantive points, because the reasons stem, not from corporate propaganda, and not from the unbearable demeanor of the lawyer, but from substantial problems.

1) The Content of the Law. Leave aside its gibberish, inscrutable language. The content is garbage. All of it is human experimentation. None has scientific validation, nor even brief pilot testing in small jurisdiction to show safety and effectiveness. The core doctrines are from the Catholic Catechism, supernatural, and so subjective, they are used to further the interest of the lawyer and of no one else.

2) The Incompetence of the Law. Every self-stated goal of every law subject is in utter failure. People see the lawyer run the criminal law, and endure massive criminal victimization with Fallujah like conditions in minority areas. The lawyer is herding crime into their areas. The lawyer gives absolute immunity to 90% of crime. He then attacks anyone seeking to defend the neighborhood, including the police. Crime is one failure, but there is failure in family law, contract law. Torts are just a scam.

3) The Overgrowth of the Law for Rent Seeking Purposes. People see incompetents in the government tell them how to run their business, generate massive litigation, massive paper work. These go uncompensated. They resent the slavery and the land piracy.

Lawyer Explains "Cy Pres Comme Possible" as a Lawyer Scheme

What she does not say is that the entire subject of torts is a false pretext to transfer assets from the productive to the parasitic. I suggest ending all lawyer self-dealt immunities to bring this scheme to the schemers.

"A common law doctrine, it originated in the area of charitable trusts where its application is justifiable — and least susceptible to abuse. A typical example is a trust established by a now deceased grantor to benefit a local library that no longer exists. What does the trustee do with the money? A court can order the funds rededicated to one or more nearby libraries, thus respecting the decedent’s evident purpose cy pres comme possible (“as near as possible”). Sensible enough. But like everything else that had a legitimate original purpose, sharks got hold of the doctrine, took it where it doesn’t belong (with the aid of liberal judges) and are engaging in feeding frenzies.

Cy pres crept into that most pernicious of bench-bar collusions: class action settlements. In large part, class action litigation is a judicially sanctioned shakedown industry. We’ve heard the countless stories of clever hustlers with J.D. degrees raking in millions putting together an arrangement whereby a mass of strangers is invited to consider drowning in paperwork for an award of $10. And the deal usually involves giving others room at the trough — class and fund administrators, special masters and other court-appointed parasites. Class action consent decrees are too frequently entered into by corporations for reasons wholly unrelated to the merits of the suit. Government defendants are worse offenders. Particularly in race discrimination class actions, politicians can easily collude with plaintiffs to produce consent decrees to get around laws they don’t like and gain what a jury would never give them."

Physician Bashing on KevinMD, Again

Left wing ideologue and Commie collaborator Kevin Cho allowed this garbage on his blog.

"Hospital leaders should follow these same examples for all members of their teams regardless of perceived value.

* Expected behaviors should be clearly delineated.
* Consequences for divergence from these behaviors should also be delineated.
* The type of punishment should be in line with the severity of the infraction.
* Consequences should increase in a step-wise fashion for repetitive infractions.
* Clear communication should occur at each and every instance."

Naturally, left wing ideologues get to determine what is disruptive behavior, and no dissent will be tolerated. Feminist nurses will report jokes to intimidate doctors. There will be an atmosphere of total reporting, instead of direct communication and work disagreements out between staff. The reason? Investigations generate jobs for left wing ideologues.

This protocol is from the AMA and JCAHO, as well. I would appreciate it if any physician subjected to this lawyer oppression of doctors defending clinical care would let me know. Rudeness will be used as a pretext to bully doctors, and to deny care to their patients. The snitch, the hospital, the guideline makers, all should be fully deterred with litigation against them as individuals. Even in the days the KGB had commissars of political correctness in every military and industrial unit, people made jokes. The lawyer is running a tighter ship than the KGB. All physician running dogs and collaborators with this scheme are enemies of clinical care.

Judging Is a Separate Profession, and Should Have Separate Training and Licensing

I asked my hair cutter how she got her license. She attended classes for 2000 hours. She took a long written exam with dermatology board exam style questions. She then had to cut the hair of three types of people for a licensing official.

Is judging as hard as cutting hair? I think so. So why are amateurs, losing political hacks, and lawyer dumbasses (a lawyer term of art, not an epithet), given the responsibility of judges for the transfer of $billions at the point of a gun from the productive to the parasitic lawyer and its parasitic client? Why are such amateur incompetents allowed to put people to death with an appalling error rate?

These incompetents, amateurs, and losers then deal themselves immunity, because they consider their decisions above accountability to the appalling, massive number of victims of their carelessness, incompetence, and idiocy.

I suggest that judging be made a separate profession from the criminal cult enterprise of the lawyer profession. The latter is in utter failure in every goal of every law subject. The lawyer profession should actually be excluded from all benches by a Constitutional Amendment. Judging is too important for irresponsible incompetents, and dumbasses.

Judging should be a separate licensed profession. Candidates should go to judge school. They should be older, and have experienced taking responsibility for decision making. For example, retired military and other who have run operations should be selected for judicial temperament. They attend 2 years of classes. The primary message should be, "Obey the law, do not make the law." The third year, they should judge cases under the supervision of experienced judges. They graduate. They take a judge licensing examination made up, administered, and supervised by the judiciary itself, to avoid a separation of powers beef.

Only licensed judges would be allowed to run for election or to get appointed by the Executive. Again, all lawyers would be excluded from entering judge school. Being a lawyer disqualifies the person because it is an advocacy profession. Judges should be allowed to get their own evidence. Today, they can be impeached if they drive by an accident scene on their own time.

Judges should be held liable for deviations from professional standards of due care for judges in their level of court. They should be protected from retaliatory, frivolous, and weak cases. It should be an intentional tort per se for a lawyer to file a case that gets dismissed on first pleading. Judges should carry liability insurance to make whole the victims of their carelessness. As their mistakes accumulate, their premiums will increase. The judge that makes a lot of mistakes will be driven out of office by unaffordable insurance costs.

Some content that would differ from a law school curriculum.

Punishment is the sole tool of the law. Judges would study psychology and sociology as the basic sciences of the law, rather than become indoctrinated in the supernatural, Catechism, wrongful doctrines of Scholasticism, taught in law schools, in insurrection against the Establishment Clause.

They would be taught the scientific version of the word evidence, scientific methods required to accumulate evidence, and the concept of reliability and validity, how they are established. They should learn modern views of accidents and catastrophes.

Inquisitorial judging should be allowed, with the judge as employee of the public, and not to become a Chinese virgin empress not allowed to do anything for herself. The spoon feeding of a judge allows the lawyers to control the trial, a public taxpayer funded affair.