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.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
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."
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."
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."
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
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."
"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."
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, December 7, 2009
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."
"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."
Monday, November 30, 2009
Negligent Clemency
Such a new tort would allow clemency to continue. But, it would compensate the future victims of the carelessness of the politicians.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
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.
This is coming to the US.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
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"
"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"
Sunday, November 15, 2009
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."
"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."
Thursday, November 5, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
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."
"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."
Sunday, September 20, 2009
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.
"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.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Biased Left Wing Judge Empowers Disability Bullies with Huge Fine of Store Trying to Prevent Shoplifting
This is the profile of the judge. This is the beginning of ruinous attacks on all productive entities by the criminal cult enterprise to defund them and to enrich lawyers and their parasitic clients. This girl may have been among those falsely diagnosed as having autism to generate useless services and privileges. Now anyone acting disabled may team shoplift in stores with the deterrence of store security by disability bullies. This judge should be investigated for her bias. She should be made to resign as a left wing ideologue and a bully. Do the same with the state lawyer, and the plaintiff herself. The store should countersue the lot and obtain total e-discovery especially on the girl herself.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Perhaps the Lawyer Might be Indirectly Blamed. Rent Seeking is Everywhere
The Supremacy is watching below from his office tower. A stopped bus opens a door, and the door strikes a bicyclist in the bicycle lane in the shoulder. Oh, my God.
Three police cars arrive. Two ambulances. Two fire department service vehicles. This doofis is standing, holding his shoulder. Meanwhile traffic on this two lane street is backed up for miles, because the police naturally close off both lanes. The guy tries to walk away. The ambulance people force him onto a flat board, and immobilize his neck. They carry him away. I am sure all this equipment and staff cost over $1000. They likely took him to an Emergency Room. There, he must have received a $5000 evaluation. I am sure that he hired a lawyer, and will receive much rehabilitation, follow up care, and compensation in the $1000's or $10's of 1000's.
The lawyer may just a pretext for the enthusiastic rent seeking of every body else.
Three police cars arrive. Two ambulances. Two fire department service vehicles. This doofis is standing, holding his shoulder. Meanwhile traffic on this two lane street is backed up for miles, because the police naturally close off both lanes. The guy tries to walk away. The ambulance people force him onto a flat board, and immobilize his neck. They carry him away. I am sure all this equipment and staff cost over $1000. They likely took him to an Emergency Room. There, he must have received a $5000 evaluation. I am sure that he hired a lawyer, and will receive much rehabilitation, follow up care, and compensation in the $1000's or $10's of 1000's.
The lawyer may just a pretext for the enthusiastic rent seeking of every body else.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Catechism Content of the Common Law in Modern Times
None of these terms is permissible in the law of our secular nation, and they are prohibited by the Establishment Clause.
46-47: Starting from creation, that is from the world and from the human person, through reason alone one can know God with certainty as the origin and end of the universe, as the highest good and as infinite truth and beauty.
[Reason is the ability of man to perceive the Trinity and God. Reasonable is the most frequent, core concept of American jurisprudence. One wonders why 100 other words were not selected. Man fell from the Garden of Eden after committing original sin. His intellect, logic are easily fooled by the mortal sins, by jealousy, lust, avarice, greed, selfishness. Only reason is the path to moral conduct. The best guide to moral decision making is the New Testament, the story and words of Jesus Christ. The reasonable person standard in the common law may therefore be lawyer code for Jesus Christ.]
Latin version is the official Catholic Church Catechism, and was published in 1997. Every paragraph has a number.
Sins. Spiritual, against God, against neighbor, and self.
Location of sins. Thoughts. Deeds. And in omission.
Classified by their gravity. From Scripture, experience, and the Tradition of the Church.
Mortal sin analysis has three "elements." These land the person in hell for eternity (1861).
1) grave matter (for example, those specified in the Ten Commandments);
2) full knowledge in advance
3) committed with "complete consent."
Repetition of venial sins reinforces itself. The Seven Deadly Sins lead to others, and are gateway to mortal sin (1863). They include, pride, avarice (greed), envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth (1866).
One may be an accomplice to sin, and be responsible for the sin of another, by direct participation, ordering it, approving it, praising it, or doing nothing to prevent it, or failing to protect the sinner after the fact (1868).
46-47: Starting from creation, that is from the world and from the human person, through reason alone one can know God with certainty as the origin and end of the universe, as the highest good and as infinite truth and beauty.
[Reason is the ability of man to perceive the Trinity and God. Reasonable is the most frequent, core concept of American jurisprudence. One wonders why 100 other words were not selected. Man fell from the Garden of Eden after committing original sin. His intellect, logic are easily fooled by the mortal sins, by jealousy, lust, avarice, greed, selfishness. Only reason is the path to moral conduct. The best guide to moral decision making is the New Testament, the story and words of Jesus Christ. The reasonable person standard in the common law may therefore be lawyer code for Jesus Christ.]
Latin version is the official Catholic Church Catechism, and was published in 1997. Every paragraph has a number.
Sins. Spiritual, against God, against neighbor, and self.
Location of sins. Thoughts. Deeds. And in omission.
Classified by their gravity. From Scripture, experience, and the Tradition of the Church.
Mortal sin analysis has three "elements." These land the person in hell for eternity (1861).
1) grave matter (for example, those specified in the Ten Commandments);
2) full knowledge in advance
3) committed with "complete consent."
Repetition of venial sins reinforces itself. The Seven Deadly Sins lead to others, and are gateway to mortal sin (1863). They include, pride, avarice (greed), envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth (1866).
One may be an accomplice to sin, and be responsible for the sin of another, by direct participation, ordering it, approving it, praising it, or doing nothing to prevent it, or failing to protect the sinner after the fact (1868).
Perhaps, Eyewitness Testimony Should Be Banned
It is so unreliable as to violate the procedural due process of the parties to a fair trial.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Similarities Between Law and Medicine
1) Essential utility services.
2) Inherent Conflict of Interest - Enrichment from the trouble of others.
3) Students come from upper part of the college class, but are not geniuses.
4) Education. Requires 80 hours a week of study to do well. Changes the person by suffering.
5) Evidence.
6) Earn roughly four times the average wage. Feared, and respected.
7) Guilds engaging in rent seeking. Health and the law belong to the public. Their licensing is a monopoly privilege with other people's property.
8) Duties to patient or client are highly privileged, even at the expense of the interests of others, because they are essential to fundamental rights of the patient/client.
2) Inherent Conflict of Interest - Enrichment from the trouble of others.
3) Students come from upper part of the college class, but are not geniuses.
4) Education. Requires 80 hours a week of study to do well. Changes the person by suffering.
5) Evidence.
6) Earn roughly four times the average wage. Feared, and respected.
7) Guilds engaging in rent seeking. Health and the law belong to the public. Their licensing is a monopoly privilege with other people's property.
8) Duties to patient or client are highly privileged, even at the expense of the interests of others, because they are essential to fundamental rights of the patient/client.
Friday, July 24, 2009
"Dumbass" is a Lawyer Term of Art
It refers to a modern person with an astronomical IQ, such as 300. The person enters law school, and gets subjected its criminal cult enterprise indoctrination. The person emerges a mental cripple with the following beliefs:
1) minds can be read;
2) the future of rare accidents may be foreseen;
3) twelve strangers off the street, after excluding all with knowledge, can detect the truth by using their gut feeling, when all they have detected is likability;
4) the standard of prudent conduct are to be set by a fictional person, to make them objective, and they have no inkling, it is a fictional person because "reasonable" technically refers to the New Testament, and the fictional person is really Jesus Christ.
The indoctrination and its impact are so great that the person refuses to believe the indoctrination has changed him nor even taken place.
1) minds can be read;
2) the future of rare accidents may be foreseen;
3) twelve strangers off the street, after excluding all with knowledge, can detect the truth by using their gut feeling, when all they have detected is likability;
4) the standard of prudent conduct are to be set by a fictional person, to make them objective, and they have no inkling, it is a fictional person because "reasonable" technically refers to the New Testament, and the fictional person is really Jesus Christ.
The indoctrination and its impact are so great that the person refuses to believe the indoctrination has changed him nor even taken place.
Eugene: Legal Documents are Not Writings, They Are Products Needing Protection by Patents
Here are 12 reasons why. Although, it says, lawsuit, these points apply to all lawyer products designed to act on others, rather than to communicate with others.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Paruresis a Disability
I have that.
Not only do I demand that any drug screening be performed by catheterization, I demand a disabled parking placard to be closer to the bathroom at malls. I further demand a badge. With it, I should be able to make all current occupants leave the bathroom and to close it to others, until I am done. Otherwise, I am very upset and will file a complaint with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
That kid on the sex registry for peeing outside may have a valid ADAA beef against the state.
Not only do I demand that any drug screening be performed by catheterization, I demand a disabled parking placard to be closer to the bathroom at malls. I further demand a badge. With it, I should be able to make all current occupants leave the bathroom and to close it to others, until I am done. Otherwise, I am very upset and will file a complaint with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
That kid on the sex registry for peeing outside may have a valid ADAA beef against the state.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Shop for a Legal Malpractice Lawyer
This poor child should be made whole for the damage done by his lawyer's carelessness.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Tactics Never Tried in Medical Malpractice Defense
1) If opposing experts testify in good faith (sincerely) about the standard of professional due care, a scientific controversy exists. The resolution of a scientific controversy is outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.1 Only additional scientifically valid data may resolve a scientific controversy. It is not within the court’s ability to obtain scientific evidence nor to resolve a scientific controversy. Under the Frye doctrine2 used by Pennsylvania courts, the standard must be generally accepted. Under the Daubert doctrine3, used in federal court, the testimony must have adequate methodology, and other indicia of reliability. By definition, opposite opinions violate Daubert standards.
The court may must dismiss the lawsuit if 1) the experts disagree over the standard of due care; 2) agree about the standard, but whether the doctor’s treatment met it; 3) agree about the standard, that the doctor failed to meet it, but disagree over whether the deviation from standards caused the injury or merely preceded it. The jury may judge a claim where opposing experts agree about the standard of care, that if the doctor’s treatment deviated from it, it would have caused the injury, but disagree about the material facts of the treatment (if it happened, when it happened). The jury has the ability to determine what happened, then using the agreement of experts over material opinions about the standard, the hypothetical causation, but disagreement about the facts of treatment.
The court may also accept a claim the standard of care and of causation is within the knowledge of the jury, such as wrong site surgery, or that has no defense expert.
If one of the opposing experts is shown to be testifying in bad faith, the other side should demand a mistrial, and all legal and court cost be assessed to the personal assets of the expert testifying in bad faith, to deter.”
Notes:
1. Sancho v. U.S. Department of Energy. F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 4370009 (D. Hawai’i) (Lack of subject matter jurisdiction in a claim that turning on a particle accelerator could create a black hole swallowing the earth). At: http://eejlaw. com/c/Sancho_ v_DOE.pdf . May be raised at any point of case. May be raised by the court itself. Court has ability to answer legal questions not scientific ones. Its decsions are at the point of a gun, and may distort clinical practice if an unscientific opinion prevails. The jury has no ability to judge the science, especially after all with any knowledge have been excluded in voir dire. The jury will favor the more personally likable expert, or apply one of may cognitive biases. These results of lack of subject matter jurisdiction violate the procedural due process right of the civil defendant to a fair hearing.
2. Frye Decision at http://www.dauberto ntheweb.com/ frye_opinion. htm. “...the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Opposite testimony on the standard of care implies lack of “general acceptance.” The experts are there to help the jury apply the standard of care to the facts. If they disagree, they are not helping but confusing the jury.
3. Daubert Decision at http://supct. law.cornell. edu/supct/ html/92-102. ZS.html. “Many considerations will bear on the inquiry, including whether the theory or technique in question can be (and has been) tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, its known or potential error rate, and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation, and whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community. The inquiry is a flexible one, and its focus must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.”
2) The plaintiff expert should produce a minimum of 5 personal charts, from within 1 year of the damage to the plaintiff, treating a condition similar to that of the plaintiff. If these 5 personal charts do not confirm the expert's management is the same as that in the report, then the testimony is not in good faith. If the expert cannot produce 5 charts of a case similar to that of the plaintiff, his testimony should be disqualified as an expert. If the expert is impeached or disqualified, a mistrial should be called, and all legal and court costs should be assessed to the personal assets of the misleading expert.
3) Outcome bias, and all other cognitive biases should be ruled out by the expert certifying the merit of the claim. If these biases are found at trial, a mistrial should be declared, and all legal costs should be assessed to the personal assets of the expert that signed the certificate of merit.
4) This measure may be going on now, but not enough. The entire list of the plaintiff experts written and testimonial output should be read word for word. Every item that contradicts a point in the report or deposition transcript should be listed. These contradictions impeach the credibility of the expert and should serve to have the judge disqualify the expert. Again, a mistrial should get declared and all legal costs should be assessed to the personal assets of the lying expert.
5) Data Mining by IMS and equivalent companies. One may get a national count or a regional count of prescriptions, with patient characteristics for about $5000. If hundreds or thousands of doctors have given a drug to thousands or millions of patients, even off label, that is the single best definition of the standard of care. If the plaintiff expert states, the use of this medication is not within the standard of care, that is an opinion. It is impossible to perjure oneself about an opinion. The latter may be impeached by inconsistent statements. However, in the presence of data from prescription databases showing many doctors prescribing the same as the defendant, then the plaintiff expert has contradicted a fact. Defense counsel should be asked to call for a mistrial, and to assess all legal costs to the assets of the plaintiff expert. It is permissible for the plaintiff expert to say, many doctors prescribe the same way as the defendant, but I disagree with that practice. That assertion is not a lie, and is an opinion. The opinion is immunized by the Free Speech Clause and by a Supreme Court decision. The assertion of a false fact is not. The appellate courts have upheld state laws banning data mining. These decisions will likely get appealed.
Defense lawyers employed by insurance companies will always refuse to try these defenses. The defendant is urged to hire a personal lawyer who specializes in legal malpractice to thoroughly bully and terrorize the insurance company defense attorney. These defenses will deter future false testimony by experts, and drastically cut into the need for malpractice insurance and for malpractice defense attorneys.
The court may must dismiss the lawsuit if 1) the experts disagree over the standard of due care; 2) agree about the standard, but whether the doctor’s treatment met it; 3) agree about the standard, that the doctor failed to meet it, but disagree over whether the deviation from standards caused the injury or merely preceded it. The jury may judge a claim where opposing experts agree about the standard of care, that if the doctor’s treatment deviated from it, it would have caused the injury, but disagree about the material facts of the treatment (if it happened, when it happened). The jury has the ability to determine what happened, then using the agreement of experts over material opinions about the standard, the hypothetical causation, but disagreement about the facts of treatment.
The court may also accept a claim the standard of care and of causation is within the knowledge of the jury, such as wrong site surgery, or that has no defense expert.
If one of the opposing experts is shown to be testifying in bad faith, the other side should demand a mistrial, and all legal and court cost be assessed to the personal assets of the expert testifying in bad faith, to deter.”
Notes:
1. Sancho v. U.S. Department of Energy. F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 4370009 (D. Hawai’i) (Lack of subject matter jurisdiction in a claim that turning on a particle accelerator could create a black hole swallowing the earth). At: http://eejlaw. com/c/Sancho_ v_DOE.pdf . May be raised at any point of case. May be raised by the court itself. Court has ability to answer legal questions not scientific ones. Its decsions are at the point of a gun, and may distort clinical practice if an unscientific opinion prevails. The jury has no ability to judge the science, especially after all with any knowledge have been excluded in voir dire. The jury will favor the more personally likable expert, or apply one of may cognitive biases. These results of lack of subject matter jurisdiction violate the procedural due process right of the civil defendant to a fair hearing.
2. Frye Decision at http://www.dauberto ntheweb.com/ frye_opinion. htm. “...the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Opposite testimony on the standard of care implies lack of “general acceptance.” The experts are there to help the jury apply the standard of care to the facts. If they disagree, they are not helping but confusing the jury.
3. Daubert Decision at http://supct. law.cornell. edu/supct/ html/92-102. ZS.html. “Many considerations will bear on the inquiry, including whether the theory or technique in question can be (and has been) tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, its known or potential error rate, and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation, and whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community. The inquiry is a flexible one, and its focus must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.”
2) The plaintiff expert should produce a minimum of 5 personal charts, from within 1 year of the damage to the plaintiff, treating a condition similar to that of the plaintiff. If these 5 personal charts do not confirm the expert's management is the same as that in the report, then the testimony is not in good faith. If the expert cannot produce 5 charts of a case similar to that of the plaintiff, his testimony should be disqualified as an expert. If the expert is impeached or disqualified, a mistrial should be called, and all legal and court costs should be assessed to the personal assets of the misleading expert.
3) Outcome bias, and all other cognitive biases should be ruled out by the expert certifying the merit of the claim. If these biases are found at trial, a mistrial should be declared, and all legal costs should be assessed to the personal assets of the expert that signed the certificate of merit.
4) This measure may be going on now, but not enough. The entire list of the plaintiff experts written and testimonial output should be read word for word. Every item that contradicts a point in the report or deposition transcript should be listed. These contradictions impeach the credibility of the expert and should serve to have the judge disqualify the expert. Again, a mistrial should get declared and all legal costs should be assessed to the personal assets of the lying expert.
5) Data Mining by IMS and equivalent companies. One may get a national count or a regional count of prescriptions, with patient characteristics for about $5000. If hundreds or thousands of doctors have given a drug to thousands or millions of patients, even off label, that is the single best definition of the standard of care. If the plaintiff expert states, the use of this medication is not within the standard of care, that is an opinion. It is impossible to perjure oneself about an opinion. The latter may be impeached by inconsistent statements. However, in the presence of data from prescription databases showing many doctors prescribing the same as the defendant, then the plaintiff expert has contradicted a fact. Defense counsel should be asked to call for a mistrial, and to assess all legal costs to the assets of the plaintiff expert. It is permissible for the plaintiff expert to say, many doctors prescribe the same way as the defendant, but I disagree with that practice. That assertion is not a lie, and is an opinion. The opinion is immunized by the Free Speech Clause and by a Supreme Court decision. The assertion of a false fact is not. The appellate courts have upheld state laws banning data mining. These decisions will likely get appealed.
Defense lawyers employed by insurance companies will always refuse to try these defenses. The defendant is urged to hire a personal lawyer who specializes in legal malpractice to thoroughly bully and terrorize the insurance company defense attorney. These defenses will deter future false testimony by experts, and drastically cut into the need for malpractice insurance and for malpractice defense attorneys.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Juries
Lie detector machines have some usefulness and validation. Yet, their results are excluded from testimony. The idea that a group of annoyed strangers can detect the truth by using their gut feelings or can settle disputes in advanced technical fields is a psychotic delusion of the lawyer. The lawyer has excluded any with knowledge, making matters worse.
In the Middle Ages, the jurors had good knowledge of the case. They had walked the disputed property line 10 years before. They knew the criminal since childhood. Together they contributed the wisdom of the crowd. The lawyer has perverted these advantages grasped 1000 year ago, and excludes those with knowledge and even those married to those with knowledge. There is no point to having a jury, if only ignoramuses are allowed by the biased lawyer on the bench.
The sole valid jury vote is the secret first vote. It should be the only one allowed. After that, the jury vote reflects the opinion of the biggest loud mouth. The rest of the jurors only want to go home, will go along with any decision that will end their ordeal. If there is a lawyer on the jury, he can reverse the majority vote in the direction of his biased opinion. Under such circumstances, the legislature could set a high threshold of a super majority of the jury for guilty verdict, e.g. 9 of 12.
The jurors should be compensated at their standard salary rate, and there should be no one excused, not even the President of the United States. This is a version of dragooning. The theft of their services is a regulatory taking violating the Fifth Amendment, and I do not care what case law says. The case law was set by judges dependent on free jury services. Their conflict of interest makes all their appellate decisions unlawful and corrupt. Someone asked about compensating a housewife. Employment discrimination laws cover that scenario. What salary would be required to replace her services for her 8 hour workday of a juror? I think you could find someone to do child care, cook, shop, clean, for around $10 an hour, times 8 hours (time on jury duty for a day), so about $80 a day. As to breast feeding, no employment laws cover that. Some employers allow it at work, and it is not disruptive. Others do not. Some of the issues are here. It is not settled in the workplace, so it is not settled in the court. If allowing babies at work replaces maternity leave, it is quite advantageous to the employer.
The defense should be permitted to tell the truth. But for the plaintiff complaint, their lives would not have been interrupted.
Who are the peers in "a jury of one's peers?" One's peers are one's fellow citizens in town. So, random assignments to cases would be the fairest. That would end the churning cases, and appeals on discriminatory juries. It would end voir dire, the questioning of juries. The latter has never been proven effective for the lawyers. They just add hours and days to their billed time.
In the Middle Ages, the jurors had good knowledge of the case. They had walked the disputed property line 10 years before. They knew the criminal since childhood. Together they contributed the wisdom of the crowd. The lawyer has perverted these advantages grasped 1000 year ago, and excludes those with knowledge and even those married to those with knowledge. There is no point to having a jury, if only ignoramuses are allowed by the biased lawyer on the bench.
The sole valid jury vote is the secret first vote. It should be the only one allowed. After that, the jury vote reflects the opinion of the biggest loud mouth. The rest of the jurors only want to go home, will go along with any decision that will end their ordeal. If there is a lawyer on the jury, he can reverse the majority vote in the direction of his biased opinion. Under such circumstances, the legislature could set a high threshold of a super majority of the jury for guilty verdict, e.g. 9 of 12.
The jurors should be compensated at their standard salary rate, and there should be no one excused, not even the President of the United States. This is a version of dragooning. The theft of their services is a regulatory taking violating the Fifth Amendment, and I do not care what case law says. The case law was set by judges dependent on free jury services. Their conflict of interest makes all their appellate decisions unlawful and corrupt. Someone asked about compensating a housewife. Employment discrimination laws cover that scenario. What salary would be required to replace her services for her 8 hour workday of a juror? I think you could find someone to do child care, cook, shop, clean, for around $10 an hour, times 8 hours (time on jury duty for a day), so about $80 a day. As to breast feeding, no employment laws cover that. Some employers allow it at work, and it is not disruptive. Others do not. Some of the issues are here. It is not settled in the workplace, so it is not settled in the court. If allowing babies at work replaces maternity leave, it is quite advantageous to the employer.
The defense should be permitted to tell the truth. But for the plaintiff complaint, their lives would not have been interrupted.
Who are the peers in "a jury of one's peers?" One's peers are one's fellow citizens in town. So, random assignments to cases would be the fairest. That would end the churning cases, and appeals on discriminatory juries. It would end voir dire, the questioning of juries. The latter has never been proven effective for the lawyers. They just add hours and days to their billed time.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Bad Cult Uses Good Tactics Against the IRS
Many thanks to Prof. Howard M Friedman and his great site.
Here.
1) Massive number of lawsuits simultaneously. "It gained church status from the IRS by, "...an extraordinary campaign of public pressure backed by thousands of lawsuits.... The church filed about 200 lawsuits against the IRS, seeking documents to prove IRS harassment and challenging the agency's refusal to grant tax exemptions to church entities. Some 2,300 individual Scientologists also sued the agency, demanding tax deductions for their contributions. "Before you knew it, these simple little cookie-cutter suits … became full-blown legal cases," Rathbun said."
2) Attack IRS conduct with documents obtained by the Freedom of Information Act. "Armed with IRS records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, Scientology's magazine, Freedom, featured stories on alleged IRS abuses: lavish retreats on the taxpayers' dime; setting quotas on audits of individual Scientologists; targeting small businesses for audits while politically connected corporations were overlooked. Scientologists distributed the magazine on the front steps of the IRS building in Washington."
3) Whistleblower group. "A group called the National Coalition of IRS Whistleblowers waged its own campaign. Unbeknownst to many, it was quietly created and financed by Scientology."
4) Advertising. "...full-page ads in USA Today criticizing the IRS."
The federal government is in failure. It attacks innocence and protects evil (but not in the case of the Church of Scientology). It is supposed to protect the public. It protects itself only, if at all. Such counter-measures have full moral and intellectual justification to deter it.
Here.
1) Massive number of lawsuits simultaneously. "It gained church status from the IRS by, "...an extraordinary campaign of public pressure backed by thousands of lawsuits.... The church filed about 200 lawsuits against the IRS, seeking documents to prove IRS harassment and challenging the agency's refusal to grant tax exemptions to church entities. Some 2,300 individual Scientologists also sued the agency, demanding tax deductions for their contributions. "Before you knew it, these simple little cookie-cutter suits … became full-blown legal cases," Rathbun said."
2) Attack IRS conduct with documents obtained by the Freedom of Information Act. "Armed with IRS records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, Scientology's magazine, Freedom, featured stories on alleged IRS abuses: lavish retreats on the taxpayers' dime; setting quotas on audits of individual Scientologists; targeting small businesses for audits while politically connected corporations were overlooked. Scientologists distributed the magazine on the front steps of the IRS building in Washington."
3) Whistleblower group. "A group called the National Coalition of IRS Whistleblowers waged its own campaign. Unbeknownst to many, it was quietly created and financed by Scientology."
4) Advertising. "...full-page ads in USA Today criticizing the IRS."
The federal government is in failure. It attacks innocence and protects evil (but not in the case of the Church of Scientology). It is supposed to protect the public. It protects itself only, if at all. Such counter-measures have full moral and intellectual justification to deter it.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Lower Health Care Cost by 50% by Getting Rid of the Lawyer, Number One Enemy and Threat to Clinical Care
1) There is 2% in medical malpractice insurance cost. Most of it ends up in the pockets of lawyers, filing weak cases to score in the lawsuit lottery.
2) There is 10% defensive medicine.
3) There is 20% spent on worthless end of life care that tortures dying old people, solely motivated by a need to protect oneself from litigious, scapegoating, greedy, family members.
4) There is at least 20% for unproven, gold plated worthless regulation and accreditation standards. As the authorities impose phony standards of care from evidence based medicine, shouldn't the authorities prove that every new standard imposed at the point of a gun has been proven to achieve better patient outcomes. This requires pilot studies and controlled experiments in every larger settings. All new standards are garbage science until proven otherwise. These accrediting and licensing authorities should be sued every time they impose their garbage standards.
5) There is 10% overhead for insurance disputes and billing. This includes about 2% ($31 billion) just to deal with insurance forms, reviewed here (requiring free registration). The lawyer has immunized these HMO companies from any accountability. Even valid claims of insurance bad faith will fail. They are now huge, mature industries. They no longer need unfair and unjustified immunities. Strong lobbying efforts should end their unconstitutional immunities. The first lawsuit should be for the free labor, and its resulting unjust enrichment, pre-authorizations being for their benefit, that they intentionally forced from doctors, something like $trillion.
6) There is the cost of medical errors, perhaps up to 5%. Every medical error is caused by the lawyer. Instead of thorough investigations and system changes to prevent them, errors are covered up because they will take down the entity when lawyers get a hold of the reports. Such reports are testimony against interest, an exception to the hearsay rule. Every word will be blown up in a poster or Power Point in front of the jury, and read aloud, over and over.
7) There is the retention of incompetent, unethical, and dangerous staff, costing another 5%, because employment lawyers would destroy the place if they were fired.
8) There is more self-care. People are fully capable of learning how to diagnose and treat a higher level of disorders than cuts and colds. Make many non-addictive medications available over the counter, most of which are safer than those available one, in use and in overdose. People should be able to read about the management of a minor, non-lethal ailment, its medication management, then to take a low dose of a medication over the counter. The package insert should be written at the sixth grade level.
9) The biggest untapped mine of medical advance, at no additional cost, is the off label use of many medications. End the draconian punishments for off label promotion by drug companies. And fund a lot of research into exploiting the medication we have now. One person's horrible side effect is another's life saver. Headache patients accidentally died from unknown internal bleeding caused by aspirin. The blood thinning side effect has saved countless heart attack patients.
Get rid of the oppression and plunder of the pestilential land pirate, and health cost would be 50% lower, have higher quality, with errors nearly gone. And, you would have enough money left to buy the uninsured top of the line executive grade health insurance.
2) There is 10% defensive medicine.
3) There is 20% spent on worthless end of life care that tortures dying old people, solely motivated by a need to protect oneself from litigious, scapegoating, greedy, family members.
4) There is at least 20% for unproven, gold plated worthless regulation and accreditation standards. As the authorities impose phony standards of care from evidence based medicine, shouldn't the authorities prove that every new standard imposed at the point of a gun has been proven to achieve better patient outcomes. This requires pilot studies and controlled experiments in every larger settings. All new standards are garbage science until proven otherwise. These accrediting and licensing authorities should be sued every time they impose their garbage standards.
5) There is 10% overhead for insurance disputes and billing. This includes about 2% ($31 billion) just to deal with insurance forms, reviewed here (requiring free registration). The lawyer has immunized these HMO companies from any accountability. Even valid claims of insurance bad faith will fail. They are now huge, mature industries. They no longer need unfair and unjustified immunities. Strong lobbying efforts should end their unconstitutional immunities. The first lawsuit should be for the free labor, and its resulting unjust enrichment, pre-authorizations being for their benefit, that they intentionally forced from doctors, something like $trillion.
6) There is the cost of medical errors, perhaps up to 5%. Every medical error is caused by the lawyer. Instead of thorough investigations and system changes to prevent them, errors are covered up because they will take down the entity when lawyers get a hold of the reports. Such reports are testimony against interest, an exception to the hearsay rule. Every word will be blown up in a poster or Power Point in front of the jury, and read aloud, over and over.
7) There is the retention of incompetent, unethical, and dangerous staff, costing another 5%, because employment lawyers would destroy the place if they were fired.
8) There is more self-care. People are fully capable of learning how to diagnose and treat a higher level of disorders than cuts and colds. Make many non-addictive medications available over the counter, most of which are safer than those available one, in use and in overdose. People should be able to read about the management of a minor, non-lethal ailment, its medication management, then to take a low dose of a medication over the counter. The package insert should be written at the sixth grade level.
9) The biggest untapped mine of medical advance, at no additional cost, is the off label use of many medications. End the draconian punishments for off label promotion by drug companies. And fund a lot of research into exploiting the medication we have now. One person's horrible side effect is another's life saver. Headache patients accidentally died from unknown internal bleeding caused by aspirin. The blood thinning side effect has saved countless heart attack patients.
Get rid of the oppression and plunder of the pestilential land pirate, and health cost would be 50% lower, have higher quality, with errors nearly gone. And, you would have enough money left to buy the uninsured top of the line executive grade health insurance.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Cali Court of Appeals Limits Doctor Liability to Third Parties
Greenberg v Superior Court of Orange County
The doctor changed medication of his Asperger Syndrome patient. The patient killed a bunch of people and himself. The estates sued the doctor for medical malpractice, not for failure to warn. There was no specific threat made by the patient.
The doctor had no duty to the infinite number of potential patient victims.
The doctor changed medication of his Asperger Syndrome patient. The patient killed a bunch of people and himself. The estates sued the doctor for medical malpractice, not for failure to warn. There was no specific threat made by the patient.
The doctor had no duty to the infinite number of potential patient victims.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Experts
A doc blogs about his medmal case, already concluded.
1) Experts are subject to outcome bias, as is everyone else, including juries and judges. The same procedures will be rated as within standard of care if the outcome is good in a case presentation, and outside the standard if the outcome is bad with exactly the same steps. Outcome bias is a bias, as racism is. It violates the procedural due process of civil defendants to a fair trial, a right established by the Supreme Court. No one has ever used this tactic in a trial or in an appeal. The bias is so well proven that any defense lawyer not asserting it took place should be terrorized by the legal malpractice expert employed as personal lawyer by the defendant.
2) I strongly urge the defendant to have his personal lawyer bully his insurance hack loser traitor lawyer force the opposing expert to produce his own charts on similar cases as the one in the lawsuit. These charts should have been within a year of the injury to the patient, since the standard of care has a short half life. There should be many. If the expert cannot produce his own charts, move for a mistrial, and all costs to the personal assets of the plaintiff, the plaintiff lawyer, and plaintiff expert. The lying expert is not really an expert if he has not done the same work as the defendant. That move will likely exclude all academic assholes. They do not see patients, being scholars, and are totally junior to the defendant, including in IQ.
3) The defendant himself should parse every word uttered by the plaintiff expert. That includes all publication, all reports, and all charts. If a single utterance contradicts any statement in the report, in the sworn deposition, in the sworn testimony, have the personal lawyer terrorize the insurance hack loser into moving for the judge to charge the expert with perjury, and refer the expert to the District Attorney for criminal charges, criminal contempt, and a mistrial, again with all costs to the personal assets of the lying expert. To deter.
Why does one need a personal lawyer to terrorize the vile insurance hack loser? Because the traitor does not want to permanently damage the plaintiff side. This vile traitor owes his job to the lying plaintiff not to the defendant. He will never willingly hurt the other side, because the plaintiff side is delicate, and runs at the first sign of painful resistance. The case costs them $50K to bring. If they see losing that amount, and a crushing resistance, they run away, and never come back.
The innocent defendant has a moral duty to clinical care to never settle, and to actively seek the personal destruction of the plaintiff, the plaintiff lawyer, and the plaintiff expert. If they commit suicide so much better the remedy, that one being permanent. It would be well deserved. Every penny they consume comes from the care of other patients, to maintain their Roman Orgy lifestyles.
4) If opposing experts testify in good faith, then a scientific controversy exists. It cannot get resolved by rhetoric, and jury preference. It may only be resolved by additional scientific evidence from validated research. The court should automatically dismiss the case. So only cases that are within the knowledge of the jury, or have expert support for only one side are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. Any case allowing a debate between opposing experts violates the procedural due process right of the civil defendant to a fair hearing.
We need some new approaches to the plaintiff experts. There is no recourse against them outside the trial. The defendant is an expert himself, and should be used to the maximum in the case. One should refer unprofessional conduct to the licensing board of each state in which he is licensed. Send in one complaint a week to a separate board. Each generates an investigation. Do the same with complaints to professional societies, and to the employer. Let the expert live with uncertainty for years if necessary. Generate legal fees if any complaint sticks.
Experts have absolute immunity for their opinions. This is based on the First Amendment, on a Supreme Court decision, and on universally accepted public policy. To encourage service to the court. It applies to the defense expert, and to the defendant when testifying. I think it is fair.
There is a lot of recourse within the trial, with the judge. This is never used, because it would end the medmal business. So the defense attorney must be forced. He may resign before allowing these.
1) Demand charts of the plaintiff experts for similar patients. If there are no recent charts, as in the past two years, seek disqualification of the expert. He is not an expert, then. Reading from a book does not make anyone an expert.
2) The defendant must read every word uttered by the plaintiff expert anywhere. If any asserted fact is not true, the witness is guilty of perjury or criminal contempt of court. So, double check all experience. Say, he testifies he spent 2 years in a fellowship, but left after one. That is a false fact, not opinion. Say, he testifies he read a certain document, but obviously knows nothing about it. That is a false fact. If an opinion contradicts an opinion in testimony or report, let the defense lawyer know to impeach the plaintiff expert. “Doctor, in which passage were you lying?”
3) I would like to see total e-discovery of all plaintiff parties, including the plaintiff, the plaintiff lawyer, and all plaintiff experts. Get all personal computers, get all social networking names and aliases, seeking improper motives in the lawyers, and bias in the plaintiff and in the plaintiff expert.
4) Have the defense expert go through the plaintiff expert report. And use this checklist of biases to characterized every conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Some defense attorney will have the courage to call for a mistrial because these biases violate the procedural due process rights found for the civil defendant. Most medmal cases are weak and represent an expression of outcome bias. The latter also explains the disparities in insurance rates between specialties. Neurosurgeons do not make more mistakes than dermatologists. Their bad outcome generates more revenge motivation than those of dermatologists. White Coat correctly identified the scapegoating motive of the claim. It is unlawful. The defense attorney must ask for a mistrial and all costs to the personal assets of the plaintiff lawyer. Will never happen unless the defense attorney is threatened with personal destruction by another lawyer.
1) Experts are subject to outcome bias, as is everyone else, including juries and judges. The same procedures will be rated as within standard of care if the outcome is good in a case presentation, and outside the standard if the outcome is bad with exactly the same steps. Outcome bias is a bias, as racism is. It violates the procedural due process of civil defendants to a fair trial, a right established by the Supreme Court. No one has ever used this tactic in a trial or in an appeal. The bias is so well proven that any defense lawyer not asserting it took place should be terrorized by the legal malpractice expert employed as personal lawyer by the defendant.
2) I strongly urge the defendant to have his personal lawyer bully his insurance hack loser traitor lawyer force the opposing expert to produce his own charts on similar cases as the one in the lawsuit. These charts should have been within a year of the injury to the patient, since the standard of care has a short half life. There should be many. If the expert cannot produce his own charts, move for a mistrial, and all costs to the personal assets of the plaintiff, the plaintiff lawyer, and plaintiff expert. The lying expert is not really an expert if he has not done the same work as the defendant. That move will likely exclude all academic assholes. They do not see patients, being scholars, and are totally junior to the defendant, including in IQ.
3) The defendant himself should parse every word uttered by the plaintiff expert. That includes all publication, all reports, and all charts. If a single utterance contradicts any statement in the report, in the sworn deposition, in the sworn testimony, have the personal lawyer terrorize the insurance hack loser into moving for the judge to charge the expert with perjury, and refer the expert to the District Attorney for criminal charges, criminal contempt, and a mistrial, again with all costs to the personal assets of the lying expert. To deter.
Why does one need a personal lawyer to terrorize the vile insurance hack loser? Because the traitor does not want to permanently damage the plaintiff side. This vile traitor owes his job to the lying plaintiff not to the defendant. He will never willingly hurt the other side, because the plaintiff side is delicate, and runs at the first sign of painful resistance. The case costs them $50K to bring. If they see losing that amount, and a crushing resistance, they run away, and never come back.
The innocent defendant has a moral duty to clinical care to never settle, and to actively seek the personal destruction of the plaintiff, the plaintiff lawyer, and the plaintiff expert. If they commit suicide so much better the remedy, that one being permanent. It would be well deserved. Every penny they consume comes from the care of other patients, to maintain their Roman Orgy lifestyles.
4) If opposing experts testify in good faith, then a scientific controversy exists. It cannot get resolved by rhetoric, and jury preference. It may only be resolved by additional scientific evidence from validated research. The court should automatically dismiss the case. So only cases that are within the knowledge of the jury, or have expert support for only one side are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. Any case allowing a debate between opposing experts violates the procedural due process right of the civil defendant to a fair hearing.
We need some new approaches to the plaintiff experts. There is no recourse against them outside the trial. The defendant is an expert himself, and should be used to the maximum in the case. One should refer unprofessional conduct to the licensing board of each state in which he is licensed. Send in one complaint a week to a separate board. Each generates an investigation. Do the same with complaints to professional societies, and to the employer. Let the expert live with uncertainty for years if necessary. Generate legal fees if any complaint sticks.
Experts have absolute immunity for their opinions. This is based on the First Amendment, on a Supreme Court decision, and on universally accepted public policy. To encourage service to the court. It applies to the defense expert, and to the defendant when testifying. I think it is fair.
There is a lot of recourse within the trial, with the judge. This is never used, because it would end the medmal business. So the defense attorney must be forced. He may resign before allowing these.
1) Demand charts of the plaintiff experts for similar patients. If there are no recent charts, as in the past two years, seek disqualification of the expert. He is not an expert, then. Reading from a book does not make anyone an expert.
2) The defendant must read every word uttered by the plaintiff expert anywhere. If any asserted fact is not true, the witness is guilty of perjury or criminal contempt of court. So, double check all experience. Say, he testifies he spent 2 years in a fellowship, but left after one. That is a false fact, not opinion. Say, he testifies he read a certain document, but obviously knows nothing about it. That is a false fact. If an opinion contradicts an opinion in testimony or report, let the defense lawyer know to impeach the plaintiff expert. “Doctor, in which passage were you lying?”
3) I would like to see total e-discovery of all plaintiff parties, including the plaintiff, the plaintiff lawyer, and all plaintiff experts. Get all personal computers, get all social networking names and aliases, seeking improper motives in the lawyers, and bias in the plaintiff and in the plaintiff expert.
4) Have the defense expert go through the plaintiff expert report. And use this checklist of biases to characterized every conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Some defense attorney will have the courage to call for a mistrial because these biases violate the procedural due process rights found for the civil defendant. Most medmal cases are weak and represent an expression of outcome bias. The latter also explains the disparities in insurance rates between specialties. Neurosurgeons do not make more mistakes than dermatologists. Their bad outcome generates more revenge motivation than those of dermatologists. White Coat correctly identified the scapegoating motive of the claim. It is unlawful. The defense attorney must ask for a mistrial and all costs to the personal assets of the plaintiff lawyer. Will never happen unless the defense attorney is threatened with personal destruction by another lawyer.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Judge Sotomayor: Remarks Not Elsewhere
Type 1 Diabetes: The complete medical record must be produced. Diabetes carries a high risk of mental illness, and of cognitive impairment. Republicans should demand that she have neuropsychological testing prior to her confirmation hearing.
Diabetes may defund the Supreme Court, a horrible agency of oppression. She should go for a pancreas transplant at a $ million. It usually requires a kidney transplant also. The meds add up to $100K a year. Her prolonged absences would have the Supreme Court at an even number, which is an excellent idea. I would enjoy seeing weasel, Justice Kennedy, go hat in hand to request supplemental funding for the Court from his dog masters, in the Congress. Chattel are subject to eminent domain. She should apply Kelo to a corpse, and take the organs. That would be a great application of Kelo. If someone questions it, such as CJ Roberts, sue him under the ADAA. Disability, as defined under the 2009 ADAA, should be added to the list of her entitled and lawyer privileged statuses.
Catholic Cardinal Spellman High School: She should have no trouble with the supernatural core doctrines of the law, taken from the Catechism. For example, the fact that the Reasonable Person may be lawyer code for Jesus Christ, should give her no problem whatever.
Princeton University, Yale Law School: Absolute, automatic disqualifiers. All Ivy grads are Hate America freaks.
They should be excluded from all responsible government positions per se. I do not distinguish by political affiliation. They are all the same. They may have high IQ's, but all believe in growing government. None has common sense. And as far as the real world of people, they are grossly mentally retarded. Someone misled them into thinking their judgment is better than that of others. The government does nothing well because of their incompetence, and their running it. See the Presidents of the 20th Century, uninterrupted, unmitigated catastrophes for our nation.
Their educations and academic achievements are lesser than those of grads of the Big Ten. None has an original thought because they are book worms, and they had no real world responsibility. They hire away people who have achieved, and then they rot there. She may qualify as a law prof, however.
Divorce: Find the man that could live with this horrible person for more than a short time. Then, publicize the entire marriage and its dissolution. The Supremacy blog is trying to get a copy of the divorce record.
Horrible Bronx Accent, Horrible Bronx Attitudes: Racist. Politically Correct Abomination. Did I say, a Politically Correct Identity Politics Abomination, Personally Obnoxious, Bully, and Rude, Member of Racist Extremist Anti-American Organization. In the Bronx, jurors would rather see 100 guilty men go free than to accept the testimony of a police officer. Torts are a method of wealth transfer from the few productive entities there to lawyers, with some crumbs going to low ethics plaintiffs. That Bronx mentality will be forced on the nation now. A horrible, ungrateful, threatening complainer, a nightmare for our nation.
La Raza: The judge is a member of an organization that wants to forcefully return the Southwest to its owner, Mexico. It is a racist organization similar in its views to white supremacist organizations like the KKK.
Diabetes may defund the Supreme Court, a horrible agency of oppression. She should go for a pancreas transplant at a $ million. It usually requires a kidney transplant also. The meds add up to $100K a year. Her prolonged absences would have the Supreme Court at an even number, which is an excellent idea. I would enjoy seeing weasel, Justice Kennedy, go hat in hand to request supplemental funding for the Court from his dog masters, in the Congress. Chattel are subject to eminent domain. She should apply Kelo to a corpse, and take the organs. That would be a great application of Kelo. If someone questions it, such as CJ Roberts, sue him under the ADAA. Disability, as defined under the 2009 ADAA, should be added to the list of her entitled and lawyer privileged statuses.
Catholic Cardinal Spellman High School: She should have no trouble with the supernatural core doctrines of the law, taken from the Catechism. For example, the fact that the Reasonable Person may be lawyer code for Jesus Christ, should give her no problem whatever.
Princeton University, Yale Law School: Absolute, automatic disqualifiers. All Ivy grads are Hate America freaks.
They should be excluded from all responsible government positions per se. I do not distinguish by political affiliation. They are all the same. They may have high IQ's, but all believe in growing government. None has common sense. And as far as the real world of people, they are grossly mentally retarded. Someone misled them into thinking their judgment is better than that of others. The government does nothing well because of their incompetence, and their running it. See the Presidents of the 20th Century, uninterrupted, unmitigated catastrophes for our nation.
Their educations and academic achievements are lesser than those of grads of the Big Ten. None has an original thought because they are book worms, and they had no real world responsibility. They hire away people who have achieved, and then they rot there. She may qualify as a law prof, however.
Divorce: Find the man that could live with this horrible person for more than a short time. Then, publicize the entire marriage and its dissolution. The Supremacy blog is trying to get a copy of the divorce record.
Horrible Bronx Accent, Horrible Bronx Attitudes: Racist. Politically Correct Abomination. Did I say, a Politically Correct Identity Politics Abomination, Personally Obnoxious, Bully, and Rude, Member of Racist Extremist Anti-American Organization. In the Bronx, jurors would rather see 100 guilty men go free than to accept the testimony of a police officer. Torts are a method of wealth transfer from the few productive entities there to lawyers, with some crumbs going to low ethics plaintiffs. That Bronx mentality will be forced on the nation now. A horrible, ungrateful, threatening complainer, a nightmare for our nation.
La Raza: The judge is a member of an organization that wants to forcefully return the Southwest to its owner, Mexico. It is a racist organization similar in its views to white supremacist organizations like the KKK.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Discussion of Latin Legal Utterance as Violation of Establishment Clause
Latin for Lawyers is recommended. Professor Bill Poser disagreed that Latin represented the endorsement of a church. The Supreme Court held that a moment of silence endorsed a non-specific religion in a public school setting. Their hypocrisy at allowing their own use of Latin is extreme.
The Comments were shut off before allowing me to point out that much of the content of the analysis of crime came from the catechism. In this Wikipedia description of mortal sin in the Catholic Church, one can see great similarities to criminal law analysis.
There are "elements." The harm is grave. There is no ignorance of the law in the conscience. There is intent. There are mitigating circumstances, such as insanity.
The Comments were shut off before allowing me to point out that much of the content of the analysis of crime came from the catechism. In this Wikipedia description of mortal sin in the Catholic Church, one can see great similarities to criminal law analysis.
There are "elements." The harm is grave. There is no ignorance of the law in the conscience. There is intent. There are mitigating circumstances, such as insanity.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Reversal of the Feres Doctrine
Weasels will now second guess and defund battlefield surgeons seeking to save our wounded warriors.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
American Law Institute Meeting
ALI. Membership makes a convenient arrest list when it comes time to take out the lawyer hierarchy.
Any judge quoting any report is in insurrection against the Constitution. This is a parallel law making body, telling legislatures how to write laws, and telling judges what the law is. These are internal traitors.
If they are not law makers, they are guideline makers. They have a duty to do no harm. Any litigant injured by their carelessness should sue on behalf of a class. They should also sue the individual members, and their employers, for negligent hiring, and for failure to supervise. I would bet the employers have assets close to $trillion.
Good case for the right tort lawyer.
The ALI is not a mere quasi-governmental organization. It is a supra-governmental organization. It tells legislatures and courts what to do. Most of its reporting is not reporting. It is the expression of the bias of the reporter, mostly Commie, left wing academic and judge wackos, rent seeking values, to generate massive procedures, to prevent the real punishment of criminals, to add inscrutability to the law, to do stealthy industrial policy to redistribute wealth from the productive to the lawyer, and to force people to hire a lawyer. Their reporting is full of concepts that cannot be shown to exist in nature. It is Medieval supernatural garbage.
Short of a tort action, it might be interesting to get an injunction to open comments on its horrible, criminal lover rules to the public, to crime victims, to the police that must live with its criminal lover, left wing academic, biased reporting.
Any judge quoting any report is in insurrection against the Constitution. This is a parallel law making body, telling legislatures how to write laws, and telling judges what the law is. These are internal traitors.
If they are not law makers, they are guideline makers. They have a duty to do no harm. Any litigant injured by their carelessness should sue on behalf of a class. They should also sue the individual members, and their employers, for negligent hiring, and for failure to supervise. I would bet the employers have assets close to $trillion.
Good case for the right tort lawyer.
The ALI is not a mere quasi-governmental organization. It is a supra-governmental organization. It tells legislatures and courts what to do. Most of its reporting is not reporting. It is the expression of the bias of the reporter, mostly Commie, left wing academic and judge wackos, rent seeking values, to generate massive procedures, to prevent the real punishment of criminals, to add inscrutability to the law, to do stealthy industrial policy to redistribute wealth from the productive to the lawyer, and to force people to hire a lawyer. Their reporting is full of concepts that cannot be shown to exist in nature. It is Medieval supernatural garbage.
Short of a tort action, it might be interesting to get an injunction to open comments on its horrible, criminal lover rules to the public, to crime victims, to the police that must live with its criminal lover, left wing academic, biased reporting.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The False Criminal Conviction of the Innocent Defendant is a Tort
The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard means there is roughly about an 80% chance the defendant is guilty. The roughly 20% innocence rate on death row corresponds well with that level of certainty. That standard applies to other criminal trials, and to plea bargains, no?
All torts immunities should end, those of the prosecutor, and those of the vile cult criminal on the bench. That a such an appallingly high failure rate, condemning innocents to death, is statutory means;
1) the tortfeasors have scienter;
2) the tortfeasors are doing nothing about it in any systematic manner; meaning they are taking no care whatsoever;
3) the indictment, and the guilty verdict are chattels, making them defective products, and product liability applies;
4) in its successful intended use, the false conviction will harm the innocent defendant, and strict liability applies;
5) the class of similarly situated, falsely convicted defendants justify a class declaration;
6) because freedom, earning ability, property have been taken away, because all criminal sanctions are procedures on the body, the deprivation of procedural due process rights is a constitutional tort, as well as a strict product liability tort, compounding the malfeasance, imagine a unlawful kidnapping.
If these torts take out a state, that would eliminate the cult criminals from the legislature and from the executive office. If the voters want to owe $billions, let them re-elect cult criminals to these highly responsible positions.
If the lawyer believes, torts deter and result in great improvements in products and in services, the criminal justice system is overly ripe for this remedy.
All torts immunities should end, those of the prosecutor, and those of the vile cult criminal on the bench. That a such an appallingly high failure rate, condemning innocents to death, is statutory means;
1) the tortfeasors have scienter;
2) the tortfeasors are doing nothing about it in any systematic manner; meaning they are taking no care whatsoever;
3) the indictment, and the guilty verdict are chattels, making them defective products, and product liability applies;
4) in its successful intended use, the false conviction will harm the innocent defendant, and strict liability applies;
5) the class of similarly situated, falsely convicted defendants justify a class declaration;
6) because freedom, earning ability, property have been taken away, because all criminal sanctions are procedures on the body, the deprivation of procedural due process rights is a constitutional tort, as well as a strict product liability tort, compounding the malfeasance, imagine a unlawful kidnapping.
If these torts take out a state, that would eliminate the cult criminals from the legislature and from the executive office. If the voters want to owe $billions, let them re-elect cult criminals to these highly responsible positions.
If the lawyer believes, torts deter and result in great improvements in products and in services, the criminal justice system is overly ripe for this remedy.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Excellent: Sue the Disciplinary Counsel for Whitewashing Cases
This system is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers. It is not humanly possible to self-regulate. I hope this brave lawyer prevails.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
If the Rate of Innocence in Death Penalty Cases is Around 20%, What is the Innocence Rate in Plea Bargains?
This is a mass constitutional tort. It is a crime against humanity, since it likely exceeds 20%.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Iraq v Beaty
This is the beginning of the methodology of lawfare. Litigation replaces combat to take down an international adversary. It was done to North Korea, bringing it to the negotiating table by seizing only $25 million in assets. The North Koreans had to request that airline tickets be bought by the US for them to attend a session.
Question for the rent seeking lawyer. What will happen when a Baghdad civil court assesses damages against the US for destroying buildings, for killing relatives, and for disrupting business by its relentless bombardments?
Question for the rent seeking lawyer. What will happen when a Baghdad civil court assesses damages against the US for destroying buildings, for killing relatives, and for disrupting business by its relentless bombardments?
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Pre-Law Courses Would Help
1) Psychology for Law Students. Punishment is the sole tool of the law. It has technical aspects that judges do not know. Naturally, much of the law seeks to control psychopathology, and that would be included in the year long course.
2) Philosophy of Science for Law Students. This is a big subject. However, Evidence, the law school subject, has almost no relation to “evidence,” the requirement for scientific conclusions. Those two should merge. Included would be exposure to the concepts of reliability of measurements, which means repeatability. Repeatability is the real meaning of justice. The students would be trained in its basic math.
3) Western Civ 101 for Law Students. It would emphasize Aristotle and the High Middle Ages, especially St. Thomas of Aquinas. The aim would be to inoculate students against cult indoctrination. They would recognize the origin of the core supernatural doctrines, and start to challenge their church origins. These are unlawful in our secular nation. They would be told of the monk origins of the IRAC. They would start to protest these in class.
4) Ethics for Law Students. Aside from the standard philosophy course, students would be introduced to the concept of lawmaking as human experimentation on a mass scale, and the care that requires. This is to medicalize the law profession. OK. Propose the ADA. Test in small jurisdictions. Measure the outcomes, including the unintended consequences, such as a bunch of businesses are gone, and employment for the disabled has disappeared. Reach a minimum of safety and effectiveness. Then propose the legislation.
This human rights approach to law making ends judicial review, since the court has no resources for such clinical trials. Judicial review is unlawful, anyway, and insurrection against the Constitution. When lawyers make mistakes, they can be whoppers by their power. The Civil War after Dred Scott.
Prof. Randazza adds:
5) Writing. The writing should be clear to the ordinary person. I would add any lawyer utterance above the sixth grade level fails to give notice. In the case of the criminal law, writing that is hard to follow violates the principle of legality.
2) Philosophy of Science for Law Students. This is a big subject. However, Evidence, the law school subject, has almost no relation to “evidence,” the requirement for scientific conclusions. Those two should merge. Included would be exposure to the concepts of reliability of measurements, which means repeatability. Repeatability is the real meaning of justice. The students would be trained in its basic math.
3) Western Civ 101 for Law Students. It would emphasize Aristotle and the High Middle Ages, especially St. Thomas of Aquinas. The aim would be to inoculate students against cult indoctrination. They would recognize the origin of the core supernatural doctrines, and start to challenge their church origins. These are unlawful in our secular nation. They would be told of the monk origins of the IRAC. They would start to protest these in class.
4) Ethics for Law Students. Aside from the standard philosophy course, students would be introduced to the concept of lawmaking as human experimentation on a mass scale, and the care that requires. This is to medicalize the law profession. OK. Propose the ADA. Test in small jurisdictions. Measure the outcomes, including the unintended consequences, such as a bunch of businesses are gone, and employment for the disabled has disappeared. Reach a minimum of safety and effectiveness. Then propose the legislation.
This human rights approach to law making ends judicial review, since the court has no resources for such clinical trials. Judicial review is unlawful, anyway, and insurrection against the Constitution. When lawyers make mistakes, they can be whoppers by their power. The Civil War after Dred Scott.
Prof. Randazza adds:
5) Writing. The writing should be clear to the ordinary person. I would add any lawyer utterance above the sixth grade level fails to give notice. In the case of the criminal law, writing that is hard to follow violates the principle of legality.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
The Reasonable Person
Prof. Solum: You are a victim and a perpetrator of law school cult indoctrination. It made you forget 10th Grade World History and Western Civ 101.
Most of our core legal doctrines come unchanged from Henry of Bratton's Case book. He was a student of St. Thomas.
They believed that intellect was unreliable source of justice, morality. It was misled by the Fall from Eden and the Seven Deadly Sins.
The more reliable guide to moral decisions is Reason. The most reliable guide to Reason is the New Testament according to St. Thomas. If this is true, the Reasonable Person may really be 13th Century judge code for Jesus Christ. You learned this stuff when you studied the High Middle Ages. Law school indoctrination made you forget high school and freshman year of college. The reason this indoctrination took place is that supernatural doctrines violate the Establishment Clause.
The reasonable person has to be a fictional character in order to be objective. The use of a fictional character violates Due Process and Equal Protection because it is made up on the spot during the trial, and is subjective to the judge and jury. Idiosyncrasy is unfair, and violates Procedural Due Process.
In Henry's 13th Century, the idea of Reason was a good technical advance in the law. It was cutting edge modern application of Aristotle and St. Thomas Today, nothing from the 1200's is acceptable for practice in the real world. Today, that word is oppressive, unlawful, and unconstitutional.
Most of our core legal doctrines come unchanged from Henry of Bratton's Case book. He was a student of St. Thomas.
They believed that intellect was unreliable source of justice, morality. It was misled by the Fall from Eden and the Seven Deadly Sins.
The more reliable guide to moral decisions is Reason. The most reliable guide to Reason is the New Testament according to St. Thomas. If this is true, the Reasonable Person may really be 13th Century judge code for Jesus Christ. You learned this stuff when you studied the High Middle Ages. Law school indoctrination made you forget high school and freshman year of college. The reason this indoctrination took place is that supernatural doctrines violate the Establishment Clause.
The reasonable person has to be a fictional character in order to be objective. The use of a fictional character violates Due Process and Equal Protection because it is made up on the spot during the trial, and is subjective to the judge and jury. Idiosyncrasy is unfair, and violates Procedural Due Process.
In Henry's 13th Century, the idea of Reason was a good technical advance in the law. It was cutting edge modern application of Aristotle and St. Thomas Today, nothing from the 1200's is acceptable for practice in the real world. Today, that word is oppressive, unlawful, and unconstitutional.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Guideline Makers Have a Duty to Do No Harm
See the reasoning in Meneely v. S.R. Smith, Inc., 101 Wn. App. 845, 5 P.3d 49 (2000).
Below are a list of summaries of a conference on the Restatement Third of Torts. This is a form of private lawmaking. If a defendant is harmed by one of these guidelines, they should discuss filing cross claims against the American Law Institute, its officers, its members, and their employers. It should also be researched if republishers of these harmful guidelines may also get named. Professor Sheila B. Scheuerman, Associate Professor of Law, Charleston School of Law reprints and links to them without criticism. Perhaps, she endorses these views. The TortsProf Blog is a partisan, biased, pro-lawyer rent seeking blog.
Land Possessor Liability.
Intentional and Strict Liability.
Risk Creation and Foreseeability.
Duty.
As to physician duties to third parties. I want to organize a conference where doctors discuss changing the parameters of attorney-client privilege. There are lots of health implications to attorney-client privilege. Lawyers hang out with criminals. They learn of past crimes, facts of ongoing investigations, and of intended future crimes. Attorney-client privilege covers up the truth and is detrimental to the public health. Any of you arrogant dirtbags have a problem ending attorney-client privilege for any public health advantage?
In the case of violent, irresponsible drug addicts, it is a federal crime to reveal a fact without getting a court order. No mention of federal law by the rent seeking dirtbags. One guess. Which privilege has been considered to be more absolute? Client-lawyer or patient-doctor, and by the Supreme Court, and repeatedly having the privilege prevail over even statute, in accordance with the Ninth Amendment?
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.
Negligence.
Causation.
The ultimate causation is the Big Bang. After that, there is chaos and random chance. There are no causes anymore.
In the past 50 years, accidents have come to be seen as the result of a convergence of factors into one place, time and set of people, around 12 for many catastrophic ones. If one of these is prevented, the entire accident may not happen. So subtract any of these factors, and there may be no car crash, rain, bad wipers, sleepy driver, corner cutting in road construction due to politician and inspector bribery 50 years ago, curve too sharp by modern standards, on a road built in the 1920's with county lack of funds to rebuild due to poor tax base, due to closing of plant after lawyers in a Southern state with an all minority jury sued the owners for causing an injury to a drunken ladder climber, hungry deer, brakes due for service, poor education and low wage of defendant, so car is old and does not have 12 air bags. Subtract one and there is no accident at that time to that plaintiff.
The main cause of the plunder of the productive party with deep pockets is the forbearance of the criminal cult enterprise hierarchy, represented by the ALI. The main cause of this forbearance is the enrichment of the members of this criminal cult enterprise. It has nothing to do with Causation. As the above professor said, there is no such fact as a cause. It is a made up pretext for the purpose of lawyer rent seeking.
Below are a list of summaries of a conference on the Restatement Third of Torts. This is a form of private lawmaking. If a defendant is harmed by one of these guidelines, they should discuss filing cross claims against the American Law Institute, its officers, its members, and their employers. It should also be researched if republishers of these harmful guidelines may also get named. Professor Sheila B. Scheuerman, Associate Professor of Law, Charleston School of Law reprints and links to them without criticism. Perhaps, she endorses these views. The TortsProf Blog is a partisan, biased, pro-lawyer rent seeking blog.
Land Possessor Liability.
Intentional and Strict Liability.
Risk Creation and Foreseeability.
Duty.
As to physician duties to third parties. I want to organize a conference where doctors discuss changing the parameters of attorney-client privilege. There are lots of health implications to attorney-client privilege. Lawyers hang out with criminals. They learn of past crimes, facts of ongoing investigations, and of intended future crimes. Attorney-client privilege covers up the truth and is detrimental to the public health. Any of you arrogant dirtbags have a problem ending attorney-client privilege for any public health advantage?
In the case of violent, irresponsible drug addicts, it is a federal crime to reveal a fact without getting a court order. No mention of federal law by the rent seeking dirtbags. One guess. Which privilege has been considered to be more absolute? Client-lawyer or patient-doctor, and by the Supreme Court, and repeatedly having the privilege prevail over even statute, in accordance with the Ninth Amendment?
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.
Negligence.
Causation.
The ultimate causation is the Big Bang. After that, there is chaos and random chance. There are no causes anymore.
In the past 50 years, accidents have come to be seen as the result of a convergence of factors into one place, time and set of people, around 12 for many catastrophic ones. If one of these is prevented, the entire accident may not happen. So subtract any of these factors, and there may be no car crash, rain, bad wipers, sleepy driver, corner cutting in road construction due to politician and inspector bribery 50 years ago, curve too sharp by modern standards, on a road built in the 1920's with county lack of funds to rebuild due to poor tax base, due to closing of plant after lawyers in a Southern state with an all minority jury sued the owners for causing an injury to a drunken ladder climber, hungry deer, brakes due for service, poor education and low wage of defendant, so car is old and does not have 12 air bags. Subtract one and there is no accident at that time to that plaintiff.
The main cause of the plunder of the productive party with deep pockets is the forbearance of the criminal cult enterprise hierarchy, represented by the ALI. The main cause of this forbearance is the enrichment of the members of this criminal cult enterprise. It has nothing to do with Causation. As the above professor said, there is no such fact as a cause. It is a made up pretext for the purpose of lawyer rent seeking.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Legalize Adult Pleasures, But License the Buyer
The case for total prohibition is argued at National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA). It was founded by Joseph Califano, a Harvard Law School indoctrinated lawyer. The lawyer depends on criminalization for a living, and has an irremediable conflict of interest. The estimated, mostly in health, costs is put at $485 billion in 2005.
*****
President Obama will be the first stoner President. This election saw little criticism of that past drug use, not even by his Republican opponent, a fan of a few adult pleasures himself. Indeed, Obama seems so mellow, he should release the result of his urine screening for illegal drugs. The nation has or is ready to legalize just about all adult pleasures. The problem? We cannot have a duplication of the consequences of smoking and alcohol abuse. How can we make adult pleasure policy logical, coherent, yet prevent a health catastrophe?
As a rule, 90% of people can enjoy most adult pleasures without destructive consequences. Of those who have smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for 50 years, only 1 in 7 will get lung cancer. Experience in other countries implies, availability by legalization will increase not just use, but also addiction, and the health and social consequences, but among the 10% who cannot control the use. In our country, we have seen that opening a casino increases gambling addiction four fold within 50 miles, worse in adolescents. Making adult pleasures illegal has caused great damage to our economy by exporting money to our enemies, by not generating jobs, by not collecting taxes, by costly massive imprisonment, by diverting police from violent offenders, by dropping the value of close in, downtown property for herding crime into usually minority areas, by making large numbers of people lawbreakers, by the hypocrisy of legal alcohol and tobacco, killing 500,000 people a year, and by causing allies to almost become failed states by the enrichment of drug cartels. About half the people in the drug trade die by murder. There is little left to deter them.
How can the majority of users causing no problem be left alone to enjoy their pleasures in moderation, while restricting those prone to addiction, causing problems? Try licensing the buyer.
Licensing the buyer would increase freedom, yet, restrict people not controlling themselves. It would end the hypocrisy of the legality of alcohol and tobacco that kill 100's of 1000's of people a year. There would be no more costly and ineffective Wars on Whatever. Prisons would empty, making room for vicious predators, now attacking people with near immunity. It would grow the economy by an amount now going to terrorists and organized crime gangs, perhaps a $trillion. It would increase tax revenues and may end budget deficits.
At eighteen, one gets an adult pleasure license. Those who already went to rehab at age fourteen would not, nor would those with proven behavioral or mental problems. Everyone asking to buy a drink would have the license verified, like a credit card. The police report a drunk driving offense. The license gets a point. The girlfriend officially reports, she got roughed up when the person was drinking. Another point. An emergency room doctor reports the person fell down the steps, broke an arm, and is legally drunk. The third and final point is registered. The license gets pulled.
Anyone serving alcohol to this unlicensed person is held totally responsible for any future consequence in criminal law and in torts. So, he beats up the girlfriend while drunk again. The buyer goes to jail, and the liquor store clerk does, for the same sentence. The person kills a pedestrian driving drunk. Because serving an unlicensed person is a felony, the death of the pedestrian is a felony murder. The liquor store clerk could get the death penalty. The owner of the liquor store could be held responsible in a lawsuit.
This change should have the support of the majority, and should not get rammed through, as Prohibition was. The change should be tried in small venues, to test for unintended consequences. Then a Constitutional Amendment should enact the change.
What about abuses of the license by government? The Amendment should limit the price of the license to the actual cost to government, such as $1 to verify each purchase. Those who do not indulge in adult pleasures pay nothing for the license.
All records of adult pleasure purchases should be destroyed after 3 months. Only investigators of crimes should have access to them prior to their Amendment mandated destruction, with a court order, after showing probable cause for the search.
Legalization is here, in the case of gambling, cigarettes, alcohol. Prostitution and marijuana smoking are rarely prosecuted. This proposal advocates tighter controls by licensing, to hold back the damage tsunami.
*****
President Obama will be the first stoner President. This election saw little criticism of that past drug use, not even by his Republican opponent, a fan of a few adult pleasures himself. Indeed, Obama seems so mellow, he should release the result of his urine screening for illegal drugs. The nation has or is ready to legalize just about all adult pleasures. The problem? We cannot have a duplication of the consequences of smoking and alcohol abuse. How can we make adult pleasure policy logical, coherent, yet prevent a health catastrophe?
As a rule, 90% of people can enjoy most adult pleasures without destructive consequences. Of those who have smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for 50 years, only 1 in 7 will get lung cancer. Experience in other countries implies, availability by legalization will increase not just use, but also addiction, and the health and social consequences, but among the 10% who cannot control the use. In our country, we have seen that opening a casino increases gambling addiction four fold within 50 miles, worse in adolescents. Making adult pleasures illegal has caused great damage to our economy by exporting money to our enemies, by not generating jobs, by not collecting taxes, by costly massive imprisonment, by diverting police from violent offenders, by dropping the value of close in, downtown property for herding crime into usually minority areas, by making large numbers of people lawbreakers, by the hypocrisy of legal alcohol and tobacco, killing 500,000 people a year, and by causing allies to almost become failed states by the enrichment of drug cartels. About half the people in the drug trade die by murder. There is little left to deter them.
How can the majority of users causing no problem be left alone to enjoy their pleasures in moderation, while restricting those prone to addiction, causing problems? Try licensing the buyer.
Licensing the buyer would increase freedom, yet, restrict people not controlling themselves. It would end the hypocrisy of the legality of alcohol and tobacco that kill 100's of 1000's of people a year. There would be no more costly and ineffective Wars on Whatever. Prisons would empty, making room for vicious predators, now attacking people with near immunity. It would grow the economy by an amount now going to terrorists and organized crime gangs, perhaps a $trillion. It would increase tax revenues and may end budget deficits.
At eighteen, one gets an adult pleasure license. Those who already went to rehab at age fourteen would not, nor would those with proven behavioral or mental problems. Everyone asking to buy a drink would have the license verified, like a credit card. The police report a drunk driving offense. The license gets a point. The girlfriend officially reports, she got roughed up when the person was drinking. Another point. An emergency room doctor reports the person fell down the steps, broke an arm, and is legally drunk. The third and final point is registered. The license gets pulled.
Anyone serving alcohol to this unlicensed person is held totally responsible for any future consequence in criminal law and in torts. So, he beats up the girlfriend while drunk again. The buyer goes to jail, and the liquor store clerk does, for the same sentence. The person kills a pedestrian driving drunk. Because serving an unlicensed person is a felony, the death of the pedestrian is a felony murder. The liquor store clerk could get the death penalty. The owner of the liquor store could be held responsible in a lawsuit.
This change should have the support of the majority, and should not get rammed through, as Prohibition was. The change should be tried in small venues, to test for unintended consequences. Then a Constitutional Amendment should enact the change.
What about abuses of the license by government? The Amendment should limit the price of the license to the actual cost to government, such as $1 to verify each purchase. Those who do not indulge in adult pleasures pay nothing for the license.
All records of adult pleasure purchases should be destroyed after 3 months. Only investigators of crimes should have access to them prior to their Amendment mandated destruction, with a court order, after showing probable cause for the search.
Legalization is here, in the case of gambling, cigarettes, alcohol. Prostitution and marijuana smoking are rarely prosecuted. This proposal advocates tighter controls by licensing, to hold back the damage tsunami.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Empirical Support for One-Two-Three Violent Offenses and Dead
The majority of murderers and manslaughterers had prior records. Had they been deceased, a murder would have been prevented.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Law School Reform
Prof. Douglas A. Berman, Ohio State University, referred to a preliminary plan to delineate suggestions to improve law education, LEARN (Legal Education Analysis & Reform Network).
Here is a list of subjects the responsible insiders did not think about.
1) Every lawyer who has ever expressed himself on this subject, has said, he learned nothing in law school that he could use day 1 of being a lawyer. They have to get the advice of their secretaries on what to do. In all other fields, the grads emerge as just less experienced colleagues, because they have done the real work under supervision, and not as total novices cruising on summer intern experience.
2) The project proposes some audio-visual enhancements. No. Brick and mortar schools are dead down to kindergarten. The building and the mediocre staff is a total waste. The best kindergarten art teacher in the nation will get to teach kindergarten art to all the kindergarten students of the nation. There is not a hint these Deans have any awareness of such. All buildings, all paper, all on site work must be ruthlessly eradicated.
3) The indoctrination into supernatural, unlawful, core doctrines must stop. I do not want to argue this point. I invite the students to apply their personal experience to the following table. See for yourself which column best applies to law school. Contact me if anyone wants further discussion on this point.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/cults_in_our_midst/cults_in_our_midst2.html
4) The education is biased. The textbooks are Mein Kampfs for plaintiffs and for criminals. There is no balance about the severe damage the lawyer does to the nation. The lecturers are extreme left wingers. This bias makes the profession heinous. The law education is basically hate speech, devoid of facts or evidence for its biased teaching.
5) No fundamental questioning of assumptions is permitted, such as the profession is a criminal cult enterprise. One may only criticize the profession along lines that will generate more jobs, for example feminist, homosexual, terrorist, animal rights advocacy. OK, because they promote lawyer rent seeking, however bitter or strident the complaints by crybaby, overly lawyer entitled, parasites. Question the damages done to the country, and one is shunned.
6. Obsoleteness. Nothing from 1250 AD or 1870 AD is acceptable in current practice (except for the opnion of OW Holmes). There would be no lawsuit if any other product or service provider were to use practice from those days. There would be arrest to protect public safety.
7. Lawyers run the government. They are 100% responsible for all social problems, for the economic crisis, and the stagnation of our nation, instead of its pulling ahead by 9% a year. They run the government and very badly. They need to leave the government or get banned from it. If this debate does not happen in law school, where will it happen?
8. Prelaw courses should be required. These include Psychology 101. Punishment is the sole tool of the law. Technical aspects exist. Few judges or lawyers know them. I would start a Psych 101 For Lawyers Course. It would emphasize law relevant psychology other than operant conditioning. It would heavy on perception, psychopathology, cognition, with an emphasis on memory. I would suggest Sociology but the faculties are so biased to the left as to make them more damaging than useful. Another would be the philosophy of science, so that the term, evidence, in law and in science may merge. Consider testing the content of such courses on the LSAT, replacing some of the testing of the least wrong answer about a passage of inscrutable BS.
9. Explicit, Black Boxed Warning about Grads. No graduate of law school is fit to be a judge, a legislator, or to hold any responsible policy position in the executive branch. The Rent Seeking Theory and Cult Indoctrination cause an irremediable conflict of interest. Furthermore, judging is a nearly unrelated profession to lawyering, analogous to engineer and construction worker.
10. Eliminate 3L. Replace it with mandatory rotating internship in a general law firm or government agency. After that, have 3 years of practice in a specialty firm for specialists. These should take a specialty exam at the end of the three years, as a marker of minimal quality for the public.
Here is a list of subjects the responsible insiders did not think about.
1) Every lawyer who has ever expressed himself on this subject, has said, he learned nothing in law school that he could use day 1 of being a lawyer. They have to get the advice of their secretaries on what to do. In all other fields, the grads emerge as just less experienced colleagues, because they have done the real work under supervision, and not as total novices cruising on summer intern experience.
2) The project proposes some audio-visual enhancements. No. Brick and mortar schools are dead down to kindergarten. The building and the mediocre staff is a total waste. The best kindergarten art teacher in the nation will get to teach kindergarten art to all the kindergarten students of the nation. There is not a hint these Deans have any awareness of such. All buildings, all paper, all on site work must be ruthlessly eradicated.
3) The indoctrination into supernatural, unlawful, core doctrines must stop. I do not want to argue this point. I invite the students to apply their personal experience to the following table. See for yourself which column best applies to law school. Contact me if anyone wants further discussion on this point.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/cults_in_our_midst/cults_in_our_midst2.html
4) The education is biased. The textbooks are Mein Kampfs for plaintiffs and for criminals. There is no balance about the severe damage the lawyer does to the nation. The lecturers are extreme left wingers. This bias makes the profession heinous. The law education is basically hate speech, devoid of facts or evidence for its biased teaching.
5) No fundamental questioning of assumptions is permitted, such as the profession is a criminal cult enterprise. One may only criticize the profession along lines that will generate more jobs, for example feminist, homosexual, terrorist, animal rights advocacy. OK, because they promote lawyer rent seeking, however bitter or strident the complaints by crybaby, overly lawyer entitled, parasites. Question the damages done to the country, and one is shunned.
6. Obsoleteness. Nothing from 1250 AD or 1870 AD is acceptable in current practice (except for the opnion of OW Holmes). There would be no lawsuit if any other product or service provider were to use practice from those days. There would be arrest to protect public safety.
7. Lawyers run the government. They are 100% responsible for all social problems, for the economic crisis, and the stagnation of our nation, instead of its pulling ahead by 9% a year. They run the government and very badly. They need to leave the government or get banned from it. If this debate does not happen in law school, where will it happen?
8. Prelaw courses should be required. These include Psychology 101. Punishment is the sole tool of the law. Technical aspects exist. Few judges or lawyers know them. I would start a Psych 101 For Lawyers Course. It would emphasize law relevant psychology other than operant conditioning. It would heavy on perception, psychopathology, cognition, with an emphasis on memory. I would suggest Sociology but the faculties are so biased to the left as to make them more damaging than useful. Another would be the philosophy of science, so that the term, evidence, in law and in science may merge. Consider testing the content of such courses on the LSAT, replacing some of the testing of the least wrong answer about a passage of inscrutable BS.
9. Explicit, Black Boxed Warning about Grads. No graduate of law school is fit to be a judge, a legislator, or to hold any responsible policy position in the executive branch. The Rent Seeking Theory and Cult Indoctrination cause an irremediable conflict of interest. Furthermore, judging is a nearly unrelated profession to lawyering, analogous to engineer and construction worker.
10. Eliminate 3L. Replace it with mandatory rotating internship in a general law firm or government agency. After that, have 3 years of practice in a specialty firm for specialists. These should take a specialty exam at the end of the three years, as a marker of minimal quality for the public.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Statute and Regulation Do Not Require Scientific Validity: Supreme Court
This subject was recently reviewed by an attorney who prefers to remain anonymous.
We have few scientifically certain criteria of legislation, and as it often is difficult to mark the line where what is called the police power of the states is limited by the Constitution of the United States, judges should be slow to read into the latter a nolumus mutare as against the lawmaking power. Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 104, 110 (1911)
To be able to find fault with a law is not to demonstrate its invalidity. It may seem unjust and oppressive, yet be free from judicial interference. The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations,-illogical, it may be, and unscientific. But even such criticism should not be hastily expressed. What is best is not always discernible; the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned. Mere errors of government are not subject to our judicial review. It is only its palpably arbitrary exercises which can be declared void under the 14 Amendment; and such judgment cannot be pronounced of the ordinance in controversy.Metropolis Theater Co. V. City of Chicago, 228 U.S. 61 (1913)
Although there is no conclusive proof of a connection between antisocial behavior and obscene material, the legislature of Georgia could quite reasonably determine that such a connection does or might exist. In deciding Roth, this Court implicitly accepted that a legislature could legitimately act on such a conclusion to protect "the social interest in order and morality." Roth v. United States, 354 U.S., at 485
We do not demand of legislatures `scientifically certain criteria of legislation. (Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 642 -643 (1968))
But, it is argued, there are no scientific data which conclusively demonstrate that exposure to obscene material adversely affects men and women or their society. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that, absent such a demonstration, any kind of state regulation is "impermissible." We reject this argument. It is not for us to resolve empirical uncertainties underlying state legislation, save in the exceptional case where that legislation plainly impinges upon rights protected by the Constitution itself. (PARIS ADULT THEATRE I v. SLATON, 413 U.S. 49 (1973))
." Although there is no conclusive proof of a connection between antisocial behavior and obscene material, the legislature of Georgia could quite reasonably determine that such a connection does or might exist. In deciding Roth, this Court implicitly accepted that a legislature could legitimately act on such a conclusion to protect "the social interest in order and morality." Roth v. United States, 354 U.S., at 485
These anti-scientific views are obsolete, given our changing values.
Here are counter examples. Rejecting scientific racism as unscientific,
Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. 11 Any language [347 U.S. 483, 495]in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected. [Ref 11 is K. B. Clark, Effect of Prejudice and Discrimination on Personality Development (Midcentury White House Conference on Children and Youth, 1950); Witmer and Kotinsky, Personality in the Making (1952), c. VI; Deutscher and Chein, The Psychological Effects of Enforced Segregation: A Survey of Social Science Opinion, 26 J. Psychol. 259 (1948); Chein, What are the Psychological Effects of [347 U.S. 483, 495] Segregation Under Conditions of Equal Facilities?, 3 Int. J. Opinion and Attitude Res. 229 (1949); Brameld, Educational Costs, in Discrimination and National Welfare (MacIver, ed., (1949), 44-48; Frazier, The Negro in the United States (1949), 674-681. And see generally Myrdal, An American Dilemma (1944).] BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, 727 (M.D. Pa. 2005)
Substantial scientific uncertainties limit our ability to assess each of these factors and to separate out those changes resulting from natural variability from those that are directly the result of increases in anthropogenic GHGs. MASSACHUSETTS ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL. 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
We have few scientifically certain criteria of legislation, and as it often is difficult to mark the line where what is called the police power of the states is limited by the Constitution of the United States, judges should be slow to read into the latter a nolumus mutare as against the lawmaking power. Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 104, 110 (1911)
To be able to find fault with a law is not to demonstrate its invalidity. It may seem unjust and oppressive, yet be free from judicial interference. The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations,-illogical, it may be, and unscientific. But even such criticism should not be hastily expressed. What is best is not always discernible; the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned. Mere errors of government are not subject to our judicial review. It is only its palpably arbitrary exercises which can be declared void under the 14 Amendment; and such judgment cannot be pronounced of the ordinance in controversy.Metropolis Theater Co. V. City of Chicago, 228 U.S. 61 (1913)
Although there is no conclusive proof of a connection between antisocial behavior and obscene material, the legislature of Georgia could quite reasonably determine that such a connection does or might exist. In deciding Roth, this Court implicitly accepted that a legislature could legitimately act on such a conclusion to protect "the social interest in order and morality." Roth v. United States, 354 U.S., at 485
We do not demand of legislatures `scientifically certain criteria of legislation. (Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 642 -643 (1968))
But, it is argued, there are no scientific data which conclusively demonstrate that exposure to obscene material adversely affects men and women or their society. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that, absent such a demonstration, any kind of state regulation is "impermissible." We reject this argument. It is not for us to resolve empirical uncertainties underlying state legislation, save in the exceptional case where that legislation plainly impinges upon rights protected by the Constitution itself. (PARIS ADULT THEATRE I v. SLATON, 413 U.S. 49 (1973))
." Although there is no conclusive proof of a connection between antisocial behavior and obscene material, the legislature of Georgia could quite reasonably determine that such a connection does or might exist. In deciding Roth, this Court implicitly accepted that a legislature could legitimately act on such a conclusion to protect "the social interest in order and morality." Roth v. United States, 354 U.S., at 485
These anti-scientific views are obsolete, given our changing values.
Here are counter examples. Rejecting scientific racism as unscientific,
Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. 11 Any language [347 U.S. 483, 495]in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected. [Ref 11 is K. B. Clark, Effect of Prejudice and Discrimination on Personality Development (Midcentury White House Conference on Children and Youth, 1950); Witmer and Kotinsky, Personality in the Making (1952), c. VI; Deutscher and Chein, The Psychological Effects of Enforced Segregation: A Survey of Social Science Opinion, 26 J. Psychol. 259 (1948); Chein, What are the Psychological Effects of [347 U.S. 483, 495] Segregation Under Conditions of Equal Facilities?, 3 Int. J. Opinion and Attitude Res. 229 (1949); Brameld, Educational Costs, in Discrimination and National Welfare (MacIver, ed., (1949), 44-48; Frazier, The Negro in the United States (1949), 674-681. And see generally Myrdal, An American Dilemma (1944).] BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, 727 (M.D. Pa. 2005)
Substantial scientific uncertainties limit our ability to assess each of these factors and to separate out those changes resulting from natural variability from those that are directly the result of increases in anthropogenic GHGs. MASSACHUSETTS ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL. 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
