Tuesday, September 30, 2008
2) Run by Ebay or Amazon or equivalent with adequate verification of identity. People without credit cards may use a password and user name provided upon registration.
3) On the internet.
4) Polling places can be a laptop in a library, drugstore, church, or sidewalk. Parties may provide these in their favorable areas.
5) Amazon or Ebay in charge of keeping ballot secret. Neutral party may oversee and verify adequacy of confidentiality.
6) Same day registration. Either one is a citizen or nor. That may be verified electronically instantaneously.
The more people vote, the greater the validation of elected official actions.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
That makes the law review article private law making.
If opposing experts testify in good faith, that is a scientific dispute. It is outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. Only additional scientifically valid data can resolve a scientific dispute, and not rhetoric. Such resolution lies outside the competence of the court.
If a case has opposing experts, it should be dismissed. Or else, one of the experts is not testifying in good faith, and should be punished.
Only cases that are within the knowledge of the jury or that have only one, unopposed expert should go forward. An example of a case within jury knowledge is a case of wrong site surgery.
The Supreme Court, in a case about punitive damages, held that civil defendants have a procedural due process right to a fair notice and hearing. It also holds, "The answer is that state courts cannot authorize procedures that create an unreasonable and unnecessary risk of any such confusion occurring. Although States have some flexibility in determining what kind of procedures to implement to protect against that risk, federal constitutional law obli-gates them to provide some form of protection where the risk of mis-understanding is a significant one."
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
"Professor Tribe was born in Shanghai, his grandparents survivors of the Eastern European pogroms and his parents refugees from the turmoil of World War II and the Holocaust. He attended Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He began teaching at Harvard Law School in his mid-20s and has been a professor of constitutional law there for some 40 years. He has written many books and texts on constitutional law. His latest book, The Invisible Constitution (Inalienable Rights), is receiving solid reviews."
So much for the standard masking ideology.
SC circulated before the start of the festivities. He randomly spoke to two Ivy trained lawyers who happened to do white collar criminal defense work. That subject must be getting popular. What are the odds of consecutive defense people who did not know each other? One had a PhD in History. He did not know the word, reasonable, meant, in accordance with the New Testament. This is not from esoteric research. It is from Western Civ 101. Yet, no lawyer in the country seems to know that, even specialists in Medieval history. Quite an achievement of the cult indoctrination, to make people forget 10th Grade World History and freshman Western Civ. I asked him what he thought of this. If I were his client, I would insist on the personal destruction of all adverse parties, including the federal thug, and the judge allowing its rampage. Demand total e-discovery of their personal computers, one for improper motive and the other for bias. It was then he had somewhere else to go, "This is not legal advice, but you should never do that. The lawyer will be replaced by a higher up with even more destructive power. It is totally unprofessional to act that way." "Thanks, and take it easy," I replied.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Media Bias by Omission. Pharmalot Bias and Censorship of Dissent and the Contagion of Lawyer Advocacy Methods
Ed Silverman, the reporter, allows people on his blog, who bash drug companies to make thinly veiled death threats, use foul language, and harsh personal remarks against people who disagree with the theme of the blog, "drug companies are evil."
Ed Silverman refuses to allow any questioning about the ad revenues of his newspaper from health insurance companies. These are funding a campaign to attack the promotion of brand name medications. People like Senator Grassley receive generous funding from health insurance companies. He and this blog are putting researchers through the wringer for taking drug company fees, and failing to report them.
Ed Silverman will not address his duties under the journalist code of ethics.
"— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage."
He removed comments that question the racial motivation of these campaigns. Because dark skinned people are more likely to quietly accept the denial of health sustaining brand medications by insurance providers, the Medicaid program is being targeted, along with its doctors who prescribe to dark skinned people exactly the same medications that they do to white people.
The lawyer advocacy culture of providing facts that supports only one's side and seeking to exclude any rebuttal has spread to the media. It expresses its bias by omission. Simultaneously, it maintains the appearance of virtue, saying, everything we say is true. It is a form of hypocrisy and bad faith learned from the lawyers.
The Supreme Court has held that civil defendants have procedural due process rights, that include the right to a fair hearing. Outcome and hindsight biases violate this right. cannot be overcome. Abnormal appearance may inflame the jury or induce outcome bias, in jurors, judges, witnesses, and even in experts. The plaintiff lawyer has intentionally selected cases to pursue based on appearance. Cancel this established tactic to induce unjust outcome bias.
An appellate court has affirmed such an exclusion. A victimized appearance may inflame the jury (1) and may induce hindsight and outcome biases (2) in any party in the case, including jurors, judges, witnesses, and even experts (3). Such bias and jury inflaming effects violate the procedural due process rights of the civil defendant to a fair hearing (4). Such a right has been upheld by the (5).
If the plaintiff has an appearance implying victimization, the doctor defendant may ask the defense attorney to have the plaintiff excluded from court during trial, and from being videotaped in a deposition for court replay (6). If the behavior of the plaintiff is challenging or disruptive, the doctor defendant may have defense lawyer move to force his appearance in court or on videotape deposition.
If the plaintiff lawyer points to the absence of the plaintiff, a mistrial should be requested, with costs assessed to the personal assets of the lawyer, and not of the firm. The defense should not give notice of this plan, but spring it as a gotcha. We should also request criminal contempt charges with jail time for negating the judge's decision. If the motion fails, it still preserves an appellate point, that can go the . The cases of the SC have all addressed . The cited case forbade exemplary damages payable for damage to people not party to the case. Its reasoning was such damages represented a taking without opportunity to oppose, a violation of procedural due process. If you have one due process right, do you have all of them? These include the right to not be subjected to established biases. No one has used cognitive biases as an appellate point. If you cannot find a cognitive bias in every tort case, you are not trying.References
1. Rule of Evidence Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence…. "Unfair prejudice" means a tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis or to divert the jury's attention away from its duty of weighing the evidence impartially.
4. http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Due_process# Procedural_ due_process
5. http://www.supremec ourtus.gov/ opinions/ 06pdf/05- 1256.pdf . applies to civil defendants.
6. Green v. North Arundel Hospital , 126 Md. App. 394, 730 A.2d 221 (1999). upholds exclusion of plaintiff on respirator from any appearance at trial. "…his presence would be overwhelmingly prejudicial, that he required continuing nursing care and extensive medical equipment, and that the equipment would generate noise and distract the jury. Although acknowledging that Darwin 's presence might be relevant to the issue of damages, NAHA asserted that his presence was irrelevant to the issue of liability."