New Book on 1L's Under Stress

I have not read the book of Prof. McClurg. I would be shocked if he told the truth about 1L. The lawyer profession is organized as a criminal cult enterprise. Its central tenets are supernatural and derived from Medieval church Scholasticist concepts. These are ridiculous to the modern ear.

So indoctrination is the only way to force modern students to accept this Medieval garbage. Not only is this anti-scientific garbage, all the central doctrines violate the Establishment Clause by their origin from a church. The IRAC is from Peter Abelard and Alexander of Hales, monks of the High Middle Ages. Worst, they were French.

So, a culture of terror is set up, with intimidation of students by humiliation. It makes them too afraid for their futures to question the content.

Next, the content is gibberish in massive quantity. To do well or to even pass the student must study gibberish about 80 hours a week. This workload serves to isolate students from normal people, and outside activities. The risk is that too much outside contact may serve to bring the content into question.

Other criminal cult elements include confession, self-criticism, a hierarchical structure, draconian discipline not for lawyers injuring the public, but for lawyers posing the slightest challenge to the lawyer hierarchy, reordering the thinking and the language of already very intelligent people, alienating them from others.

This article discusses the Watchtower people, but apply to law school. See what can be easily recognized.

http://www.freeminds.org/psych/beel.htm

I invite 1L to run down this summary chart of the criteria defining various forms of mind control. The column most congruent with law school, I think, is indoctrination.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/cults_in_our_midst/cults_in_our_midst2.html

Rough indoctrination methods best explains the stress of 1L. However, this indoctrination is so good, no one knows it has even taken place. After passing 1L, intelligent, modern students come to believe minds may be read, the future of rare accidents forecast, the standards of conduct of a fictional character, that 12 strangers off the street, excluding anyone with any knowledge, can detect the truth by their gut feelings. Lastly, the real meaning of the word, reasonable, has been covered up. It means, in accordance with the New Testament. It stands apart from logic, intellect, that were misled by the Fall from the Garden of Eden, and by deadly sins.

Opposing Experts Preclude Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Violate the Right to a Fair Hearing

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. 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.

If a criminal case depends on expert testimony, and has an opposing expert, it is impossible to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof. If both experts are testifying in good faith, and the standard is to be have 80% plus certainty, the jury has no way to judge the testimonies, except by the likability of the expert. Such an effect violates defendant's due process right to a fair trial.

Indicia of Unlawful Church Origin of Common Law

And, thus a violation of the Establishment Clause.

1) Latin phrases (e.g. mens rea, actus reus, bone fide, causa mortis, certiori, corpus delecti, de facto, de jure, de minimus, de novo, dicta, en banc, ex parte, ex relatione, forum non conveniens, habeus corpus, in camera, in forma pauperis, infra, in loco parentis, in pari delecto, in pari materia, in personam, in rem, inter vivos, ipso facto, jus, lex loci, malum in se, malum prohibitum, mandamus, modus operandi, nexus, nisi prius, per curiam, per se, per stirpes, primae facie, pro se, pro tanto, quantum meruit, quasi, quid pro quo, res gestae, res ipsa loquitur, res judicata, respondit superior, stare decisis, ultra vires).

2) Judge's high bench. This is St. Dominic Presiding at an Auto a Fe, from a 1490 painting by Pedro Berruguette. Aside from the high bench, one notes the 7 "justices, and one chief justice," to confer the appearance of consensus and accepted virtue on the hateful decisions.




3) Court building and courtroom architecture resembling a church.



4) Gavel.

5) Judges' robes.



6) Stentorian, pretentious, self-important tones of the judge, to scare the peasants. Most judges are has been politicians who lost an election or lawyers failed in private practice. Most are buffoons.

7) Rising of assembly upon entrance of judge.

8) Oaths.

9) Supernatural core doctrines, including, mind reading (intent), future forecasting (foreseeability), truth detection by the use of gut feelings (of juries), dependence on a fictional character for standard of conduct (allowing judge self-interest and judge bias to set conduct for all). The biggest violation is any use of the word, reasonable, which means, in accordance with the New Testament.

10) Inquisition like business plan. The Inquisition did go after heretics, Jews, Moslems. Most had assets that were seized and given to the Church. There was an intense conflict of interest in the Inquisition and in lawyer torts.

11) Parsing documents word for word.

12) The formats of the Bar exam and of legal briefs.

13) Sovereign legal immunity which can only be logically justified by the King's speaking with the Word of God, otherwise is impossible. For example, the Prussian Emperor could be sued by his plumber for not paying a bill. The Imperial Attorney would appear to defend the case. Sovereign immunity was invented by the French monks that administered England.

14) The legal analysis of crime. 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.

15) The adversarial system of arriving at a verdict. Disputation was a method of Scholasticism to arrive at a reliable conclusion. The lawyer of the 13th Century picked up that method for their needs.