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.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
