Supremacy Claus

Profit Seeking Firms are Right to Feel Demoralized by the Rent Seeking of Others

2011-10-10T09:27:00.002-04:00

Money and politics
Ask what your country can do for you

Oct 1st 2011

MUCH as some businesses whine about government intrusion, others do pretty well out of it. An index based on the amount of lobbying that American firms do has outperformed the broader market since its creation in 2008; data going back to 1998 show that it has done better over the longer term, too.

The index is produced by Strategas, an investment-research firm. A first effort, to rank firms on the amount they spend on lobbying, was no use: it just corresponded with the largest firms. Strategas now looks at the intensity of lobbying—expenditure as a percentage of assets—to create an index of 50 firms that is revised quarterly.

In aggregate the results have been stunning, comparable to the returns of the most blistering hedge fund. The index has outperformed the S&P500 by 11% a year since 2002 (see chart). There have been bumps along the way: the index fell sharply in 2008 and again this summer, when debt-ceiling brinkmanship raised the prospect of government austerity. But at other times, it seems remarkable that companies would do anything but lobby. A particularly vivid example was in 2004, when an aggressive corporate campaign prompted Congress to grant a one-off tax holiday for American companies to repatriate foreign earnings. The outright return on lobbying costs, according to one of the various studies that served as inspiration for the Strategas index, was $220 for each $1 spent.

"It's Not for the Money" Unethical?

2011-07-28T08:35:00.004-04:00

"The attorney handling the case is Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and now of Freedom Watch, who said money is not the issue.

"This case is filed as a matter of principle," he said. "We need more Bradlee Deans in the world and hateful left wing television commentators must be made to respect not only his mission but the law."

Torts has the aim of compensating the plaintiff for damages. Any other purpose should be considered an improper purpose. Such an utterance justifies a complaint to the ethics agency, a motion for dismissal with all costs assessed to the assets of the plaintiff attorney and plaintiff, and a civil suit for misuse of a civil procedure. An improper purpose is an element of most states' misuse of a civil procedure laws.

Maximum Sentence for Norway Shooter

2011-07-24T08:11:00.001-04:00

21 years.

Thank the lawyer for 1) slap on the wrist, and what abolitionists really want for the USA;

2) Disarming law abiding citizens, so they cannot shoot back;

3) allowing paranoids to kill thousands a year. Now the shooter qualifies for involuntary commitment.

The Google Mistrial

2011-05-29T09:11:00.002-04:00

Go to page 71.

Asking the judge to question jurors in the middle of the trial may emerge as a new tactic to get a mistrial declared.

"...But the ubiquity of instant, electronic communication
and mobile applications for social networking sites such
as Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and LinkedIn allows
jurors to research the issues in the cases on which they
serve, as well as to immediately interact with others. So,
how does this play out?
In a Fort Lauderdale, Florida, drug trial in March 2009,
a juror informed the judge seven weeks into the trial that
she overheard a fellow juror talking about researching
the case. The judge interviewed all 12 jurors, and after a
majority admitted searching Google for the defendant’s
name and medical terms, the judge declared a mistrial.
Other instances of Google “research”—including juror
use of Google’s Earth Street View to examine crime
scenes—have occurred with such frequency in recent
years that legal experts have coined the phrase, “Google
mistrial.” John Schwartz, As Jurors Turn to Web, Mistrials
Are Popping Up, N.Y. Times, Mar.17, 2009. In February
2009, an Arkansas juror used his handheld mobile device
to post messages on Twitter during court proceedings,
including the following tweet: “I just gave away twelve
million dollars of somebody else’s money.” Id. The judge
denied the defense counsel’s motion for a new trial, and
the decision has been appealed. Id.
A January 28, 2010, memorandum to all federal district
judges from U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson—
chair of the Committee on Court Administration and
Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the
United States—endorsed a set of suggested jury instructions
that district judges should consider to deter jurors from using electronic technology to research or communicate
about trials on which they serve.
The proposed model instructions cover juror conduct
through a judge’s acceptance of a jury’s verdict:
You should not consult dictionaries or reference materials,
search the Internet, websites, blogs, or use any
other electronic tools to obtain information about
this case or to help you decide the case…. You may
not communicate with anyone about the case on your
cell phone, through e-mail, Blackberry, iPhone, text
messaging, or on Twitter, through any blog or website,
through any Internet chat room, or by way of any
other social networking websites, including Facebook,
MySpace, LinkedIn, and YouTube."

New Series: Ideas from Sentencing Law and Policy Blog

2011-04-22T21:35:00.003-04:00

This blog is a rare one that has not banned the Supremacy. The Supremacy rarely uses bad language, rarely makes personal remarks. Blogs will tolerate personalized death threats, links to bestiality sites, to foreign pharmacies, vicious personal remarks. What lawyer blogs do not tolerate is the questioning of the fundamentals of their criminal cult enterprise beliefs, which are supernatural. Supernatural legal doctrines are unlawful in our secular nation. Prof. Berman, the owner, has bravely resisted massive calls for the banning of the Supremacy. The charge now? Repetitiveness. Well the idiocy and illegality of the lawyer profession is repetitive, so its loving criticism has to be repetitive. In any case, Prof. Berman is an expert at provoking debate and thought. So the Supremacy will begin listing some of the ideas evoked by this blog.

Connick Decision: Insurmountable Obstacle to Prosecutor Liability

2011-03-30T03:43:00.002-04:00

"Held: A district attorney’s office may not be held liable under §1983 for failure to train its prosecutors based on a single Brady violation. "

If tort liability is a substitute for violence, the obverse is true in formal logic. Immunity justifies violence.

Immunity is a form of unauthorized stealthy industrial policy because it grows the entire enterprise, and liability deters the entire enterprise, not just a defendant.

The sole justification for sovereign immunity in the common law is that the Sovereign speaks with the Voice of God. That is a psychotic delusion and not a valid reason to allow immunity of any government entity.

Because the sole tool of the court is punishment, it qualifies for strict liability. Professional standards of due care is sufficient, however.

Finally, the court will say it has no time for lawsuits. The welder's time is far more valuable than that of the coffee swilling, lazy, do nothing government workers on the Supreme Court.

Immunity may also be a factor in the failure of every self stated goal of every law subject. Accountability may prod the intelligent lawyer into being more competent and productive. The rule of law is an essential utility product. Its utter failure is a huge drag on the progress and development of the nation.

An amendment should be passed to end the immunity of all government agencies, including prosecutors, courts, and regulators. To deter.

Dealing with Denial of Care by Insurance Doctor Reviewer

2011-03-08T05:21:00.003-05:00

The doctor is a traitor to clinical care, and a clueless dunce. Evidence based medicine is the medicine of 7 years ago, after academia has caught up with their research paper shuffling. It represents deviations from current standards of due care, but a convenient pretext to deny care by traitors to clinical care.

Appeals are totally rigged against spending by insurance, and phony time consuming procedures.

Here are other ideas to get approval.

1) Keep submitting or calling about approval. Eventually, a low level reviewer will randomly approve the request. Most of the decision are inappropriate and driven by personal profit from denial of care. This doctor should tell us whether he gets bonuses from company profits.

2) Have a standard letter to be signed by a patient. When these insurance company collaborators deny adequate care, send a formal request for an investigation by the licensing board. If the doctor is out of state, not licensed in the state of the patient, the denial of care is a medical act, requiring a license. Submit a request for an investigation into the unauthorized practice of medicine.

If the doctor is licensed in the state of the patient, but qualified outside the specialty of the prescriber, ask for an investigation into practice outside the scope of training and knowledge.

If the reviewer is licensed in state, and deny care within his own specialty, ask for an investigation into a medical act taken without direct evaluation of the patient, on an unknown patient. Records are not transcipts, so they are not adequate substitutes for a thorough evaluation in person by the reviewer.

3) If there will be a difference in pay, refer to the Department of Justice for a violation of the Stark Amendment and Anti-Kickback statutes.

To deter.

Proposed New Profitable Prison Industry - Making Barbiturates for Execution Injections

2011-02-12T23:15:00.003-05:00

European governments are pressuring drug manufacturers to cut off the states from their barbiturate supplies. This is to impose their abolitionist views on the United States and an attack on US and on state sovereignty.

There are likely many meth amphetamine manufacturers with chemistry training in some state prisons. Barbiturates represent mid-19th Century technology, and should not be challenging to produce. Because no health claims are being made for these products, but they are to be used as intentional poisons, FDA oversight should be avoided.

Here is an example of a recipe: for making a kilogram at a time. DEA oversight seems appropriate to prevent diversion of any supplies or output by prisoners, guards, etc.

Commentary on the Child Porn Law Entry Below this One

2011-01-06T07:30:00.002-05:00

If a law has an aim, and it can be shown to result in the opposite of that aim, shouldn't the law be void? If mere expert testimony must meet certain standards of reliability under Daubert or Frye, shouldn't a far more prescriptive and coercive utterance such as a law meet even higher standards of reliability? For example, an expert testifies to some standard of practice in a torts trial. That expert is telling all practitioners in that jurisdiction the minimum required from them as a standard, under pain of civil liability. He is bossing all practitioners. The Supreme Court has set standards of reliability for such prescriptive testimony. Here is a legal resource on that standard of testimony:

http://www.daubertontheweb.com/

Now, the criminal law is far more prescriptive, bosses the entire population not just practitioners, and carries penalties that are harsh. (From the introduction of Section 2251, "Whoever, in the course of an offense under this section, engages in conduct that results in the death of a person, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for not less than 30 years or for life."

Then, shouldn't a law meet even more stringent criteria of reliability than mere influential expert testimony? If a law is meant to reduce child abuse by punishing its visual depiction and possession of such, but the opposite has taken place, shouldn't the law be voided as toxic and harmful itself. Here. Organized crime profits from high prices, and is the biggest beneficiary of the child pornography. Most of the child porn is produced in Eastern Europe, and one wonders about jurisdiction questions if the law is to prevent child abuse. May a US law have its biggest impact on foreign territory?

The law was passed in 1977. Since then, child sexual abuse has doubled, according to this review.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/statsinfo/nis3.cfm#national

In studies, porn consistently reduces the incidence of sexual crimes, including the sexual abuse of children.

http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/02/study-making-pornography-more-accessible-may-curb-child-abuse/

According to this academic institute, pics of children playing in a bathtub can be indicative of pornography, kids at the beach, splashing, and fully clothed in swimwear, can be indicative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copine_scale

One suspects feminist lawyers and rent seeking. However, beyond that suspicion, shouldn't a law be scientifically valid or overturned? The law against child porn is an example, but this question applies to all law making. The Supreme Court has surprisingly or not surprisingly addressed scientific validity of laws or regulations only once to my knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency

And the Supreme Court ruled that a law need not be scientifically valid to be upheld (What the ...!@#?), allowing the EPA to classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant. It is allowing faith based law making, even in the face of evidence of opposite effects to the intent of the statute.

Study: Child Porn Reduces Child Abuse

2010-12-04T05:03:00.003-05:00

Review of other studies here.

The federal law is reviewed here.

It is indisputable that prosecution for child porn viewing is a big lawyer business.

The policy justification for this law is that buying child porn results in more production. Production is child sexual abuse. To be charitable, that conclusion is not a settled scientific question.

Should laws meet Daubert standards? If a law does not, should it be declared unconstitutional? The law may be based upon or emanate from an expression of religious faith, in violation of the Establishment Clause. Or, it may be based on false, anti-scientific assumptions, violating the procedural due process right of the defendant to a fair hearing.

See here. See the article here.

Study: Making Pornography More Accessible May Curb Child Abuse
By Alice Park Thursday, December 2, 2010 |

Whether pornography is an expression of free speech or a form of exploitation remains a hotly debated issue, and new research may only stir up the controversy further.

Scientists led by Milton Diamond at the University of Hawaii found that easing access to sexually explicit material may help lower sexual abuse of youngsters. Diamond's group compared rates of various crimes, including sexual abuse, murders, assaults and thefts, both before and after the fall of the communist regime in the Czech republic. Before a more liberal government gained power in the country in 1989, all forms of sexually explicit material, including magazines such as Playboy, were banned, and all nudity was considered pornographic. (More on Time.com: Will Polygamy Be Legalized in Canada?)

The new government, however, passed a law allowing some expressions of nudity, including child porn, and when Diamond and his group compared rates of child sexual abuse both before and after the communist regime was in power, they found that there were fewer cases of abuse after pornography became more accessible.

The data support previous work that found similar trends when pornography laws were relaxed in Japan and Denmark. Coupled with the fact that rates of other crimes did not change in the same time period in the Czech Republic, Diamond speculates that the reason for the decline in child sexual abuse could be due to the fact that potential offenders were able to substitute child pornography for sexual acts themselves. (More on Time.com: Is Banning Pro-Pedophilia Books the Right Answer?)

But not all child abuse experts buy that theory, and take issue with the idea that child pornography, in any form, could be considered an antidote to sexual abuse. “The study and its findings are provocative,” says Dr. Cindy Christian, chair of the Committee for Child Abuse and Neglect for the American Academy of Pediatrics and chair of Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, “but as a pediatrician I would never condone any child pornography even in order to protect other children from child sexual abuse.

Proportioality in the Arithmetic of Sentencing for Fraud and Other Financial Crimes

2010-11-24T22:08:00.001-05:00

I have argued that someone who steals $6 million is destroying a constructive economic life, or whatever the consensus value of life is being used. Therefore, the defendant should be executed, summarily, since there is no controversy about the amount.

What about stealing $850,000? That is about an eighth of a human life. If the life expectancy is around 80 years these days, the defendant should serve an eighth of a human life or 10 years. During that time, he should be as productive as possible at whatever occupation, make as much money as he can. Say, he makes $425,000 as a hedge fund trader from prison. He may repay that amount and have his sentence reduced by a half. This person is not being incapacitated because of his physical danger to others, but because of his lack of good judgment and morals. He should do well in the structured setting of the prison.

MERSA - Al Qaeda Weapon of Mass Destruction

2010-11-23T10:02:00.003-05:00

Given today's pat down procedures, Al Qaeda can recruit people with MERSA, or infect a suicide bomber with MERSA. Then, just have them travel continually. The TSA gloved inspectors would spread MERSA to dozens of people each time. Then Al Qaeda would laugh and send a thank you note to the TSA.

The Trial Itself Violates the Daubert Standard

2010-11-21T22:16:00.003-05:00

The trial itself has no scientific validation. It comes from the Scholasticist method of disputation, as a method of arriving at the answer of a difficult question. The rules of evidence violate multiple tenets of formal logic, critical thinking theory, and most do not meet Daubert standards. Then you have a jury. In 1275 AD it was a good advance. The jurors had knowledge. They brought the wisdom of the crowd. Those benefits have been removed. You now have twelve strangers who will be using their gut feelings to detect the truth, when lie detectors are prohibited. They will detect likability, if lucky, and no more. The lawyer is excluding people with knowledge, and even people married to people with knowledge.

Next, the lawyer hobbles the most experienced person in court, the judge. This is the oldest lawyer, who may have done the jobs of the lawyers, and has the biggest experience. If he so much as drives by the crime scene, you will crush the judge. Why? The trial is a fictional play. Any attempt to introduce real facts cannot be tolerated.

The criminal law, is in utter failure. It has a high false negative rate (1 in 10 major crimes is prosecuted). It has a high false positive rate (there is 1 exoneration for every 5 executions). It uses methods from the 13th Century, when anyone else trying to would be arrested as a threat to public safety.

Here is one potential remedy. I propose to exclude all lawyers from all benches, legislative seats and responsible policy positions in the executive. Waiting for that to come about, an intermediate remedy would be to end all self-dealt immunities. Prosecutors and judges should be held to professional standards of due care. They qualify for strict liability because their sole product is punishment. However, that would be too draconian and would ruin them.

There is no justification for prosecutorial or judge immunity from either defendant nor from future crime victims. I find it funny when ALI types dispute this idea as a potential cause of litigation explosion.

To Get the Legislative Intent

2010-11-05T04:00:00.000-04:00

If a law has recently been enacted, most of its drafters and supporters should still be alive. If term is ambiguous, has anyone ever interviewed the living enacters as to the real intent of legislature, as opposed to divination and mind reading?

If this has never been done, is there any procedural or constitutional obstacle to such a tactic? Naturally, both sides should be allowed to do an interview and to present their results, before a tribunal.

Complaints About 1L Miss the Biggest Problems

2010-10-23T18:11:00.001-04:00

The problem is deeper. The content of the education is unacceptable, even unlawful. I understand the student is not getting prepared for the shredder that is practice later. One may think of the education as learning a language. One learns the grammar and vocabulary. Then later, one practices conversations and writings, on the outside with strangers. Those are shocking later. The comments address that shortcoming. This is a marginal and small problem.

Here is the big problem, and where the profession ends up damaging the nation.

Modern, very intelligent students are forced, against their wills, through intimidation, to accept supernatural doctrines and methods from medieval philosophy of Scholasticism, with its church origin. These were OK for 1275 A.D. They are ridiculous today. They explain the utter failure of every self-stated goal of every law subject. There is no practice from 1275 AD that is in any way acceptable in any other field. One could not even build cathedrals as they did. It would not be cathedral building malpractice. The police would arrest anyone attempting to as a threat to the public safety.

The student will resist these absurd, ridiculous core doctrines. That is where the intimidation, and the depressing cult indoctrination methodology comes in.

The student is force fed the ideas that minds can be read, that the future is foreseeable, that 12 strangers can detect the truth by using their gut feelings, after excluding all with knowledge (canceling the advantages of the medieval jury). Most important is to accept the central word of the law, reasonable. Why not a hundred alternative words? Beneficial, intelligent, common sensical, healthful, what my calm, caring friend would do, etc.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains. Man fell from the Garden of Eden, and intellect was subject to mistakes from the tendencies and temptations leading to mortal sins (prohibitions in the 10 Commandments). The sole reliable guide to moral decision making is the New Testament. And St. Thomas spends a great deal of effort in a deposition like proof. What is the technical meaning of reason in this context? It is the ability to perceive God. Reason best relies on the New Testament. That book is the story of Jesus. The reasonable person may very well be a hidden, disguised Jesus, and what he would do as described by the New Testament. The reasonable person must remain fictitious. Why? To be objective, of course. This reserves the seat of the reasonable person for Jesus.

This content is disturbing, ridiculously, laughably false, and intelligent students must be forced to accept it by intimidation. Thus the high pressure and other cult methods ongoing in law school. This includes taking 80 hours a week in exhausting, socially isolating study of minutiae, most of it, cult garbage.

That is the content. What about the structure? Disputation is the best method to arrive at some answer, according to the Scholasticists. So we get the adversarial system. There is no scientific evidence to support any part of the legal process. Disputation is chosen because the intellectual leaders were French or lived in France.

IRAC came from Sic et Non by Peter Abelard and friends of his. You see the tightest, best IRAC reading St. Thomas.

The medieval rules of evidence are ridiculous, and result in a high rate of false convictions.

The profession has also adopted the business model and methods of the Inquisition, ongoing by 1275 AD. The Inquisition was excellent, and lasted 800 years. It ended when, again the French, beheaded and expelled 10,000 church officials during the French Revolution. The lawyer picked it up, without missing a beat. The regulations were infinite. The penalties draconian. The targets were sincerely grateful when a plea bargain was offered, enriching the church, and saving the life of the accused.

The coercive cult methods. The ridiculous core doctrines. The organized crime style of making money. The devastation to the interests of the nation. The total failure of every self-stated goal. That would make for some dissatisfaction, even among those who will get rich off it.

Why Do Some Jurisdictions Have Low Crime Rates Despite Poverty?

2010-09-26T10:07:00.003-04:00

Crime persists when crime pays, and grows when it pays well. The US endures over 20 million FBI Index felonies (murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault; property crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft; and arson), and has only 2 million prosecutions. There is a 90% chance of not being prosecuted after committing these major crimes. If prosecuted, there is over a 90% chance of being charged with a lesser, or even fictitious lesser crime in a plea bargain. In this plea bargain, there is less than a 10% chance of going to prison, depending on the damage caused by the original crime. Thus, when non-violent criminals are set to be released due to prison overcrowding, there is no way to know the released inmate is dangerous, because he may have pled to a non-violent offense.

Prices equalize rapidly today. So the cost of a minimum standard of living for an America lifestyle is the same over the world. So, maintaining a family on $1000 a year is as difficult in India as it is in the US. Such stress pushes people into interdependence and gives the family greater value as a survival tool. Thus the rate of bastardy is lower in places with severe poverty.

One may generalize that the police is not harder working nor more competent than in wealthier areas. The productivity of the police cannot be a factor in areas of extreme poverty.

That leaves only one factor. The amount of self help is much greater than in wealthy areas.

To Improve the Jury Method, Get Medieval

2010-09-11T23:20:00.000-04:00

The jury is a methodology, like timing a car with a radar gun. It must be proven accurate. Its management must be standardized under the edict of the Equal Protection Clauses. Like a radar gun, it must be maintained, calibrated and retested for accuracy every day.

Unlike the radar gun, this tool is used by the lawyer to put people to death, and to transfer $trillions, and to have untold but important effects on the economy, the culture and the behavior of the public.

How can it be improved?

1) Selection should reflect statistical principles. If it to represent the population at large, random selection from the entire population is essential. That means, no one can get out of it. And the selection is random.

2) Stop excluding people with knowledge either of the subject matter or of the parties. If you had no recordings, having a juror who walked the boundaries of the property 10 years earlier at the time of transfer is invaluable in a property dispute. Nothing has changed. If you have someone who ran with the defendant and knows all his secrets is OK to have on the jury. Why do doctors' wives have to be forced off in a medmal case. Her bias could go either way, and the risks cancel each other.

3) Only the first secret ballot represents a valid finding. Subsequent ballots represent the opinion of a big loudmouth bully and the desire of the rest to just go home. There should be one ballot, and a supermajority requirement reflecting the burden of proof certainty.

4) Stop the slavery. Pay people their standard daily earnings, up to some high maximum.

5) Stop the hobbling of the jury. Allow note taking. Allow questioning of witnesses by juries, for example, they may want to say to an expert, "Doctor, we have no idea what you mean. Could you rephrase your opinion in simpler language?" Or would lawyers prefer they keep that feeling to themselves?

6) Allow the strengths. They have the wisdom of the crowd. They have balance. Group think and pressure is where extreme views get polished, and become less extreme.

NYT Columnist: Restore Economic Growth or Threaten Pax Americana

2010-09-06T00:24:00.006-04:00

Pax Americana is best for the entire world because of the soft, non-colonial nature of American policy. Many nations taking advantage of it have thrived. I recall an example. India and Pakistan massed troops at their border, and both made angry statements. The leader of India received a call from an American corporate head. War was not compatible with further investment by American industry. No war took place, and troops went home, this time.

In order to grow faster, the self-dealing lawyer profession must be crushed. It does not mean tort reform or limits on anti-scientific regulation. It means reducing the legal load by a half or more.

1) Judges who attack productive sectors of our economy should be arrested by federal marshals, tried for collaboration with the enemy, and executed for treason. The same goes for state attorney generals.

2) The economic burden of crime must be ended by executing all repeat violent offenders, until violent crime is reduced by 99%. Their protectors in the legal profession get arrested for treason, tried and executed.

3) The $trillion stolen by the lawyer lawyer profession must end, by shrinking the lawyer profession to a more appropriate 700,000 from 1.3 million. Do so by closing law schools, starting with the extreme left wing Top Tier, headed mostly by Hate America left wing extremists. Transfer that stolen loot to research and development, across the board. About 20% of our economy should consist of high end, innovative, brain work.

Op-Ed Columnist
Superbroke, Superfrugal, Superpower?
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: September 4, 2010

In recent years, I have often said to European friends: So, you didn’t like a world of too much American power? See how you like a world of too little American power — because it is coming to a geopolitical theater near you. Yes, America has gone from being the supreme victor of World War II, with guns and butter for all, to one of two superpowers during the cold war, to the indispensable nation after winning the cold war, to “The Frugal Superpower” of today. Get used to it. That’s our new nickname. American pacifists need not worry any more about “wars of choice.” We’re not doing that again. We can’t afford to invade Grenada today.

Ever since the onset of the Great Recession of 2008, it has been clear that the nature of being a leader — political or corporate — was changing in America. During most of the post-World War II era, being a leader meant, on balance, giving things away to people. Today, and for the next decade at least, being a leader in America will mean, on balance, taking things away from people.

And there is simply no way that America’s leaders, as they have to take more things away from their own voters, are not going to look to save money on foreign policy and foreign wars. Foreign and defense policy is a lagging indicator. A lot of other things get cut first. But the cuts are coming — you can already hear the warnings from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. And a frugal American superpower is sure to have ripple effects around the globe.

“The Frugal Superpower: America’s Global Leadership in a Cash-Strapped Era” is actually the title of a very timely new book by my tutor and friend Michael Mandelbaum, the Johns Hopkins University foreign policy expert. “In 2008,” Mandelbaum notes, “all forms of government-supplied pensions and health care (including Medicaid) constituted about 4 percent of total American output.” At present rates, and with the baby boomers soon starting to draw on Social Security and Medicare, by 2050 “they will account for a full 18 percent of everything the United States produces.”

Problems with Juries of Today

2010-09-05T12:58:00.000-04:00

My problems with the jury are not solved by my verdicts.

1) No knowledge of complex technical and personal issues. Impossible to impart an engineering or police education in a few hours. Stop excluding those with knowledge.

2) No secrecy after the first ballot, and vulnerability to bullying, so everyone can go home.

3) The potential nullification of the nullification by just one loudmouth. Put a lawyer on the jury. He can move 11 other votes to reverse the self-evident verdict (done in real life, and described in private communication).

4) Physiologic measures of deception are banned by the Rules of Evidence (lie detector results). Yet, gut feelings of know nothing strangers about what is true are OK. This is cuckoo lawyer delusion.

5) Lawless taking of juror time without adequate compensation. Like shanghaiing sailors in a San Fran saloon in 1868. You fall through a trap door, someone hits you over the head. You wake up 100 miles out to sea on the way to China. And all you wanted was a drink (like all you wanted was to vote, and now your are on a target list).

6) Excusing from duty or excluding in voir dire all educated people. The selection should be completely randomized, and no one should be excused. That is necessary if the idea is to get a selection representing the general population. This makes the jurors grumpy, and biases them against the defendant, "But for your irresponsible, selfish, criminal conduct, I would not have to lose 2 weeks pay. Thanks a lot a-hole."
Judges should be put on the jury shanghai list.

7) Not allowed to take notes. Not allowed to ask questions in middle of trial, for example, "I didn't hear that. Can you, please, repeat it?"

In 1275 AD, the jury was a marvel of innovation and justice. It allowed people with knowledge. It permitted the wisdom of the crowd effect. It worked in bringing verdicts to where the mean of the population's ethics was, as opposed to eccentric bizarre, idiosyncratic feelings of judges. The lawyer hobbled and eliminated these positive features to better control the trial, a false charade designed to generate fees.

E-Discovery of Prosecutors and Judges by Innocent Defendants

2010-08-27T12:08:00.003-04:00

I have advocated that the innocent defendant demand his defense attorney do total e-discovery on the prosecutor and on the judge. The first is to check for an improper motive. The judge's is to check for bias. The federal government may be the biggest subscriber to child porn sites. The prosecutor will say any is for work or research, but then that is what all the perps say.

"A cleavage-crazed criminal court judge - who fathered a son with a young Legal Aid lawyer - quit after officials found a massive porn stash on his work computer, sources said Thursday."

Delicious: Court Toilet off by an Inch,

2010-08-03T07:41:00.003-04:00

Gotcha. What a way to defund all courts. Anyone feel unjustly treated in a divorce action, don't get a gun, get a tape measure.

Down The Toilet? Courthouse Restroom Repairs Cost Oconee County $1.1 Million
The building was cited for 93 violations of the Americans With Disabilites Act.
By Chris Cato
Published: July 23, 2010
Updated: July 23, 2010 - 12:16 PM
WALHALLA, S.C. --

Talk about flushing money down the toilet.

Violations of the Americans With Disabilites Act, most of those dealing with handicap access to restrooms, will cost Oconee County taxpayers more than a million dollars to repair.

Shortly after the county's new $8 million courthouse opened in 2003, the US Department of Justice slapped it with 93 violations of ADA requirements. County officials say the DOJ found the violations during a random inspection -- not as the result of any complaints by the disabled public.

"We still haven't had any complaints from the disabled," says Lake Julian, Oconee County's Director of Facilities Maintenance.

He says many of the violations seem "minor" and could be found at any public building in the country.

"But they are violations and we know we have to come into compliance," says Julian.

For instance, ADA requires toilets to measure 18 inches from the center of the bowl to the wall. Julian says several of the toilets in the courthouse measure 19 inches. Also, some of the stalls are four-feet wide, whereas ADA requires them to be five feet. And mirrors are 41 inches from the floor, whereas ADA requires 40 inches.

The mirrors are an easy fix. The toilets are not -- because they are mounted into the wall.

"If they were mounted in the floor like the one at your house, you could just put in an offset flange and slide it over one inch to be in compliance," says Julian. "But since it's mounted into the wall, all of the plumbing runs up through the wall."

Which means the entire wall will have to be torn out and all of the plumbing shifted over -- one inch.

Sex Offenders in Lawyer Neighborhoods

2010-07-18T10:48:00.001-04:00

I live in a neighborhood where lawyers live. There were two sex offenders. One lives there, one works there.

I put in a neighborhood where lawyers work. There were 68 sex offenders.

Partner Sues Two Associates for Defamation in Report of Sexual Harassment

2010-07-17T12:51:00.002-04:00

I would like to see all immunities end, including those of judges, legislator. If liability substitutes for violence, then immunity justifies violence.

Questions You Will Never Hear Asked of Prof. Kagan at her Hearing to Confirm Her to be on the Supreme Court

2010-06-27T22:56:00.002-04:00

Do you consider it possible to read minds of impulsive, intoxicated people long after a crime?

What is the main purpose of the criminal law, indeed of government? Do you believe we are achieving that purpose?

You were dean of a top law school. Do you believe education or indoctrination was taking place at your school? Is it possible to make intelligent modern people believe in supernatural doctrines without indoctrination techniques?

If the words, intent, element, culpability and others could be shown to come from the Catholic Church catechism sections on mortal sin, would their use in a trial or any legal utterance violate the Establishment Clause? If these could not shown to exist in nature, but are fictitious, pretextual, church inventions, would that violate the Establishment Clause?

Are you aware of any data showing current methods, such as plea bargaining, trials, and jury verdicts have any validity or even any reliability (repeatability)?

After the first secret ballot of the jury, don't all subsequent votes reflect the views of the most domineering member, and the rest who want to go home?

Explain the justification for impeaching an experienced judge for looking into the facts of a case on his own.

Can you explain why crime rates are so low where the lawyer lives, and so high where the lawyer works? Can you explain why there are 20 million serious crimes a year, and 2 million prosecutions?

Do you pledge to edit your decisions to the sixth grade reading level?

Do you plan to continue to sign the death warrants of millions of viable babies in third term abortions, without parental consent?

Are you a homosexual, a lesbian? Do the tyrannical tendencies of such individuals affect their fitness to serve on the court for the next several decades?

If over 100,000 missing persons reports cannot be resolved each year, is it possible, the murder rate is really 70,000 and not 17,000?

Where is it you have trouble grasping, the deceased have a low recidivism rate, and those with life without parole have been granted absolute immunity for all crimes after the first murder.

Please, read out loud Article I Section 1 of our constitution. Does judicial review violate that section in any way?

Please, Do Not Call a Defendant Non-Violent Unless ...

2010-06-24T17:20:00.000-04:00

Because most sentences result from plea bargaining, the original charge should be used to categorize the charge as violent or non-violent. Inherent in plea bargaining is the lessening of the charge for which the prosecutor has evidence.

Unless people are counting original charges and not the formal charges landing the defendant in prison, calling a prisoner non-violent is misleading.

Sexting Cannot be a Crime

2010-05-21T13:59:00.002-04:00

Unless burning down one's house without an insurance claim is. Unless killing one self is. Unless crashing one's care on purpose is. Why the ACLU is taking a complex privacy approach, is a mystery, unless it is to generate lawyer jobs.

When a Lawyer Does the Right Thing, I Admit It, and Express Approval

2010-05-18T19:54:00.002-04:00

The French always lead culture. They said, Communism was dead in 1984, it was only five years later. They taught the English lawyer inscrutable lawyer language as a tool of power and profit. They had an Enlightenment, we fulfilled it in our American Revolution. Let's hope this is a harbinger of greater resistance to the enemies of our civilization.

Lessons of the Mentally Ill in Jails

2010-05-18T00:32:00.001-04:00

Prison is inpatient treatment. The pretty good management of the mentally ill, constituting a third of all beds of jails, proves something. Inpatient care can be adequately provided, as it is in most urban jails, for a tenth the cost of hospitalization. The gold plating of inpatient care is to appease oppressive but worthless lawyer driven requirements of accreditation and to prevent second guessing in medmal litigation.

Second, the fact that prohibition of restrictive procedures impairs prison officials less than health care setting officials results in great strides in the reduction of the suicide rate in jails, but not in hospitals.

http://www.ncianet.org/suicideprevention/publications/prisonsuicide.pdf

Some of the same methods can be applied to prison murders and rapes, to markedly reduce them by the same percentage.

Government Goons Intimidate Grandmas Singing God Bless America

2010-04-30T07:50:00.002-04:00

That is the Left method. The facts abandoned the Left 100 years ago. All they have for persuasion is force. This has an effect of pre-chilling future speech for the elderly frail patriots. Their organization should seek an injunction to prevent police intimidation at the next rally.

Alternative Explanations for the Low Crime Rate

2010-04-25T23:17:00.003-04:00

1) Sentencing guidelines adopted by the federal and state governments incapacitated a larger fraction of the male population. The number of downward deviations from guidelines has not grown much. The making of guidelines discretionary for judges took place 5 years ago. It usually takes 10 years for a law to have its full impact. This factor should be assessed in 5 more years.

2) Obesity.

3) Video Addiction.

4) Marijuana consumption.

5) More sex, at a younger age.

Trial May Violate the Establishment Clause and Other Clauses

2010-04-25T11:34:00.000-04:00

The adversary system violates the Establishment Clause. It comes from the disputation method of reaching some answer in Scholasticism. OK in 1270 AD, out of the question as an investigatory method today.

1) Imagine a Koran based jurisprudence. I read their hornbook. 90% of it is pretty good. Still, it would be appalling and unlawful to have legal procedures taken from there. There is a lot of church in the court, the architecture, the robes, the gavel, the high bench, the oaths, the standing upon judge entering the room, the pews, the stentorian tones, the high ceilings, the dressing up as if going to church on Sunday.

2) They got an answer, alright, but 100% of the time, it was incorrect by today's standards. There are no validity statistics to support this bonehead method. There are not even reliability (repeatability) statistics to support it.

3) Twelve strangers, using their gut feelings to detect the truth, will detect only likability, of the defendant, the witnesses, the lawyers, the judge's expressions of preference.

4) Rarity. Because over 95% of cases are settled by an agreement, the trial is a privilege of the rich. The trial, in practice, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment for everyone coerced into a plea agreement.

5) To avoid the expense of a trial, the prosecution will use progressively coercive and intimidating tactics to get a plea agreement, even one completely unrelated to the original charge. Such coercion violates the presumption of innocence and subjects the defendant to extra-judicial punishment.

6) The person with the most experience in the court is the judge. He is prohibited from investigating for himself. Should he drive to the scene of the crime, just to get an idea, he will be impeached. This is so the lawyer gets its trial billing. The trial is therefore to generate income, not to arrive at any truth. The argument against inquisitorial judges is that they are biased in favor of the prosecution. They will relate better to police of their race, age, and sex. If evidence of such bias can be found, the judge should be impeached.

7) The jury brings the wisdom of the crowd. This benefit is completely negated by 1) excluding any juror with knowledge; 2) allowing open voting and debate after the first secret ballot, all subsequent votes reflecting the decision of the juror who is loudest, and the rest wanting only to go home. There should be only one secret jury vote.

Foresseability Reconsidered, but Distinguished Professor Remains Clueless

2010-03-31T01:52:00.006-04:00

Speaking of David Owen, Carolina Distinguished Professor of Law, University of South Carolina School of Law. Most tort law professors are biased in favor of the plaintiff side, where they are supposed to be neutral source of learning for their students. Most tort law textbooks read like Mein Kampfs for the plaintiff bar.

I understand, foreseeability was an attempt to limit defendant liability, since a type of strict liability existed prior to its introduction. Problems.

1) Foreseeability has its origin in Scholasticism. It is a power of God to foresee the future and to be able to change it. It is a supernatural power and any mention of it in a legal utterance violates the Establishment Clause. Not even the Medieval Church believed, man could foresee accidents, only the modern lawyer.

2) The foreseeability of future accidents or injuries is like that of the winning lottery ticket in the Pick 5. If the professor believes defendants should foresee rare accidents, then he should provide the winning lottery numbers for tonight. He is more likely to get those correct than to foresee a car crash in the most dangerous intersection in the nation. I can foresee the sun will rise in the East because it has done so a million times before, without exception, meeting this criterion of being more frequent than 51% of the time. I can foresee that more than 50% of people who jump from the fourth floor will because that has happened in the past and has great repeatability.

3) The burden of proof in torts is to reach the preponderance of the evidence, namely 51% likely to be correct. It is impossible to meet that burden if the chance of having the accident is not above 51% likelihood. So if it can be shown that, under the same conditions, an accident will take place 50% of the time, but less than 51% if the time, the burden of proof is impossible to meet.

If Torts Replace Violence, Does Immunity Morally and Intellectually Justify Violence?

2010-03-30T07:41:00.004-04:00

A criminal defendant was falsely convicted and sued the prosecutor for withholding exculpatory evidence. He admitted the immunity of prosecutors. However, he charged the supervisors negligently trained the prosecutors, an administrative function, no part of the duties of an officer of the court.

In an unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held training was all part of the acts of the office, and rejected any liability. Prosecutors therefore have absolute immunity.

This is an appalling injustice. These are absolutely incompetent government slackers who need liability to motivate an improvement in what they do. They fail to prosecute the overwhelming majority of crimes. When they decide to prosecute, there is an unknown but large fraction of innocence. If the prosecutor embarrasses the office, he is an at will employee. He will likely lose his job after a suitable face saving interval.

So this is the question. If torts liability replaces violence, does immunity morally and intellectually justify violence?

Answering Mike Farrell and the Extreme Death Penalty Abolitonist

2010-02-28T11:26:00.001-05:00

Dissent gets zero tolerance on that blog. They will not post any comment even asking questions of the blogger. That is because the facts abandoned the left 100 years ago.

Only incapacitation justifies the death penalty. Farrell needs to come here to hear the problems with LWOP.

1) License to kill. All crime after the first murder have absolute immunity. The license is far superior to that of James Bond, always second guessed by politicians.

2) Dose-Response Curve. You cannot obstruct a treatment then claim it does not work.

3) Transportation. It kill three orders of magnitude more innocent people than the death penalty. By the abolitionist logic, all transportation should stop, including being a pedestrian which kills 2 orders of magnitude more innocents than the death penalty.

4) Illegality of deterrence. One may not punish a defendant for the speculative future crimes of unknown parties. That violates procedural due process rights to notice and to a fair hearing.

5) Punishment is a waste of time and expense. These folks have shown themselves to be incapable of learning from their beatings, their arrests, their accidents. Furthermore, punishment may come from the Bible, and violate the Establishment Clause.

6) Cruelty of LWOP and of the average death. Let prisoners choose to accurately assess which remedy is crueler. Most innocent people (90%) will have a rough, prolonged, agonizing, humiliating filled with painful but pointless medical procedures. The latter are caused by the threats of lawyers to sue the doctor who refuses to do them. Thank the lawyer for the painful death without dignity that awaits most of us. Why is the murderer entitled to get a perfectly painless version? Thank the rent seeking lawyer, again.

Targeted Killing Debate

2010-02-21T17:52:00.002-05:00

The lawyer has granted national leaders immunity. It is OK to drop bombs on peasant weddings, perhaps by horrible mistake. However, it is unlawful to assassinate a leader seeking the eradication of one's nation. According to these collaborators, the killing of 7 million Germans is lawful, but the attempt on the life of Adolf Hitler would be unlawful if done when he was visiting Italy. It would infringe on the "sovereignty" of Italy.

Facebook Loving Criticism of Teacher is Protected Speech

2010-02-17T06:42:00.003-05:00

The lawyer expert toward the bottom of the story says, threats are a different story.

Here is an analysis of a call to kill a Supreme Court Justice by Ann Coulter. It concludes that Supreme Court decisions require an imminence and physical likelihood before such threats can be prosecuted or even be considered unethical.

http://www.legalethicsforum.com/blog/2006/02/what_can_and_sh.html

That analysis applies to criminal prosecution and lawyer discipline. Whether it applies to school discipline is not clear. The Court wants to defer to educational authorities to maintain school discipline.

Federal Regulators Must Pay Legal Costs After Dismissal of Claim

2010-02-17T04:24:00.004-05:00

Innocent defendants should use this case as a guide to deterring the federal government.

""The EEOC has presented the court with anecdotal evidence to show that some members of CRST's management occasionally violated CRST's anti-sexual harassment policy by failing to respond appropriately to sexual harassment in the workplace," wrote the judge in April. "However, the EEOC has not compiled the failings of CRST's managers in any meaningful way to show that CRST has a pattern or practice of tolerating sexual harassment in its workplace."

That was a "big finding," said Mathias. "Once the pattern and practice allegation was gone, you had 200 or so claims with nothing in common, no unifying characteristic."

The EEOC's argument, said Reade, "boils down to little more than bald assertions." The EEOC's litigation strategy, she added, "was untenable: CRST faced a continuously moving target of allegedly aggrieved persons, the risk of never-ending discovery and indefinite continuance of trial."

In an order last August, Reade dismissed the remaining claims of 67 women after finding the agency had "wholly abandoned its statutory duties" towards them by not conducting any investigation of their allegations.

In the fee application, Jenner said its attorneys and staff billed a total of 18,005.75 hours on the case and sought $7,121,569.25 at rates ranging from $151 to $825 per hour for this work. Simmons attorneys and support staff billed a total of 2,507.66 hours at rates ranging from $95 to $295 per hour and sought a total of $502,977.02 for their work.

Reade on Feb. 9 said several factors warranted a large award: The company's counsel successfully obtained a dismissal of the entire case; the case involved hundreds of allegedly aggrieved individuals and there was potentially massive liability to CRST.

She awarded the amount requested by Simmons for its work, but reduced Jenner's request to $3,501,394.63 after comparing the firm's rates to market rates prevailing in the local community. She also awarded reasonable out-of-pocket expenses totaling $463,071.25. In an earlier order, the court had granted CRST $92, 842.21 in costs."

Consider a Cross Claim Against the APA in any Mental Disability Claim

2010-02-12T22:02:00.003-05:00

There is a duty among guideline makers to do no harm. If a set of diagnostic criteria is weak scientifically, and a lawsuit against an employer is filed, consider a cross claim against the negligent guideline maker, the APA.

1) This threat would make the APA more conservative in the sense of greater proof of validity for any new diagnosis.

2) It would deter the frivolous expansion of psychiatric diagnosis into normal but bad for you behavior. These no only stigmatize normal conduct unduly, it destroys the credibility of heavy duty, dangerous, psychiatric disorders.

3) Whatever the assets of the APA, they are dwarfed by the endowments of the parent universities employing the members of the DSM V committee.

Reasonable Stopping Distance and the Lawyer Dumbass

2010-02-09T09:35:00.004-05:00

Traffic laws affect the entire population several hours a day. They have the most impact of any law subject. This is true even if one is walking. So, naturally, rules of the road are never covered in the core law school curriculum, and it is hard to find an elective offered.

Dumbass, here, is a lawyer term of art. It refers to someone with an IQ of 300, who enters law school, and emerges a mental cripple, from the criminal cult indoctrination that took place.

Simple example in traffic law. The reasonable stopping distance is always said to be a car length per 10 mph. That is true. Typical stopping distance from 60 MPH is about 120 feet, and one may assume the average American car used to be 20 feet long. However, this stop is from 60 mph to 0 mph.

In traffic, the car ahead may be traveling at 55 MPH, the car behind at 60 mph. The speed difference is 5 mph. It is not 60 MPH as it is with the full stop test of braking distance. The reasonable stopping distance required to prevent a collision is therefore roughly half a car length, or 10 feet. If it takes 45 feet to slow down from 60 to 55 mph, then the car ahead has traveled 40 feet. The real distance to avoid a collision is 5 to 10 feet.

The 6 car lengths are required to come to a full stop. Doing so in the passing lane of a highway is not just careless, reckless, and irresponsible. It is insane. One will be killed. Furthermore, the trucker trying to avoid a stopped car in the left lane will likely do something that will injure himself and many others driving around his truck.

The lawyer dumbass forgot something here, common sense. I have not been able to find this defense in a case of tailgating, aggressive driving, or careless driving.

Mother Country Has a Drop in Crime Rate

2010-01-21T07:00:00.001-05:00

Whatever the causes, they are unknown, and cross national. I think we are talking about video and computer addiction, obesity epidemic, feminist, PC education.

Here .

"There was an unexpected 8% drop in crime recorded by the police in the 12 months to September with falls in burglary, robbery and violence despite the recession, according to the quarterly crime figures (pdf) published this morning.

The Home Office data also confirms that the murder rate in England and Wales has fallen (pdf) to a 20-year low, with 651 homicides in 2008/09 – 102 fewer than the previous year.

The latest British Crime Survey, based on people's experience of crime, also published today, shows that crime was broadly stable over the 12 months to September 2009 in England and Wales. However, it reports that the risk of becoming a victim of crime has fallen to a new historical low of 22%."

Neither Deterrence nor False Convictions are Valid Arguments For or Against the Death Penalty

2010-01-08T23:20:00.004-05:00

The rate of innocence is not an argument against the death penalty. Anyone using it that way must stop using any form of transportation until the problem of accidental deaths in crashes has been "solved." We need a moratorium on cars, trucks, planes, subways, bicycling and walking. These kill 1000 times as many people as the death penalty, and 5000 times as many innocent people as the death penalty. These crashes kill 40,000 people who have committed no crime, without procedural due process, without trial. They made the mistake of driving over black ice. They are dispatched by crushing and slicing by metal edges emerging during the crash. There were over 10 times as many children executed by by vehicles, as they walked, as there were death penalties carried out.

No. The rate of innocence is being used as a pretext to abolish the death penalty. The abolitionists will use the slightest mistake or imperfection to try to shit the death penalty down. Therefore the use of the rate of innocence represents a form of bad faith. Bad faith gives moral justification to invalidate the advocate.

The rate of innocence does justify something else. Tort liability of the judge, and of the prosecutor to the defendant. If jury misconduct took place and it was not immediately reported openly, the jury should have tort liability. Let each of these careless parties carry liability insurance to cover their carelessness.

*****

In the deterrence argument, one executes one person to scare another, and to prevent that unknown other from murdering an unknown victim. It is unclear if the typical murderer calculates the odds of getting caught, of being found guilty, and of undergoing the death penalty. It is unknown, if the death penalty can have such an effect. The death penalty has been blocked and is too rare to generate the statistical power needed to answer the question of deterrence. See the discussion on the dose-response curve.

Assume, powerful deterrence. For example, every execution saves 10 murder victims. Executing the person to have an effect on another violates the procedural due process right of the defendant to a fair hearing. His life is being taken to benefit someone completely unrelated to the crime.

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

2009-12-25T18:54:00.007-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pharmaceutical Executive Speaks Out Against Animal Rights Terrorists

2009-12-23T09:46:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Where do yet get your courage?

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Rejects Necessity Defense of Killer of Abortion Doctor

2009-12-23T07:49:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-12-22T10:02:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-12-19T10:13:00.003-05:00

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

Failure of Criminal Procedure

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

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

Inconsistency of Abolitionists

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

Hypocrisy and Economic Conflict of Interest

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

Solving the Problem of Judges in Failure

2009-12-15T04:57:00.000-05:00

As to judges,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rules of Engagement Help the Enemy

2009-12-13T22:10:00.004-05:00

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

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

F. Michael Maloof
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

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

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

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

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

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

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

* No night or surprise searches

* Villagers are to be warned prior to searches

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

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

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

* Only women can search women

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

An Alternative Criminal Justice System, Not Supported by Lawyers

2009-12-08T10:06:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-12-07T22:05:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Negligent Clemency

2009-11-30T08:11:00.001-05:00

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

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

2009-11-29T12:24:00.001-05:00

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

This is coming to the US.

An Example of Judge Self-Dealt Immunity

2009-11-29T07:30:00.001-05:00

Here.

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

Lawyer Slams Psychologists for Participation in Interrogation

2009-11-22T09:12:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

Hire a Lawyer, Avoid the Death Penalty

2009-11-15T17:55:00.005-05:00

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

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

Hand Wringing Over Totally Painless Executions in Ohio

2009-11-05T05:10:00.003-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

Failure to Diagnose the Most Common Medmal Claim

2009-11-02T06:42:00.001-05:00

The best prevention? Defensive medicine.

The Unpopularity of Lawyers

2009-09-27T08:15:00.004-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

2009-09-26T16:37:00.003-04:00

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

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

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

Physician Bashing on KevinMD, Again

2009-09-20T16:56:00.003-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-09-12T18:38:00.004-04:00

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.

Biased Left Wing Judge Empowers Disability Bullies with Huge Fine of Store Trying to Prevent Shoplifting

2009-09-10T00:40:00.003-04:00

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.

Perhaps the Lawyer Might be Indirectly Blamed. Rent Seeking is Everywhere

2009-08-30T16:43:00.003-04:00

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.

Catechism Content of the Common Law in Modern Times

2009-08-23T17:13:00.007-04:00

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).

Perhaps, Eyewitness Testimony Should Be Banned

2009-08-23T12:16:00.002-04:00

It is so unreliable as to violate the procedural due process of the parties to a fair trial.

Similarities Between Law and Medicine

2009-08-03T23:45:00.004-04:00

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.

"Dumbass" is a Lawyer Term of Art

2009-07-24T00:51:00.003-04:00

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.

Eugene: Legal Documents are Not Writings, They Are Products Needing Protection by Patents

2009-07-24T00:44:00.003-04:00

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.

Paruresis a Disability

2009-07-19T18:36:00.004-04:00

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.

Shop for a Legal Malpractice Lawyer

2009-07-10T14:31:00.001-04:00

This poor child should be made whole for the damage done by his lawyer's carelessness.

File a Frivolous Suit Against an Attorney - Pay the Damages

2009-07-03T14:06:00.002-04:00

Tactics Never Tried in Medical Malpractice Defense

2009-06-27T19:01:00.009-04:00

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.

Juries

2009-06-25T17:00:00.003-04:00

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.

Bad Cult Uses Good Tactics Against the IRS

2009-06-21T11:31:00.004-04:00

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.

Lower Health Care Cost by 50% by Getting Rid of the Lawyer, Number One Enemy and Threat to Clinical Care

2009-06-16T16:24:00.011-04:00

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.

Cali Court of Appeals Limits Doctor Liability to Third Parties

2009-06-09T05:13:00.000-04:00

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.

Experts

2009-06-06T11:23:00.003-04:00

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.

Judge Sotomayor: Remarks Not Elsewhere

2009-05-26T22:07:00.013-04:00

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.

Discussion of Latin Legal Utterance as Violation of Establishment Clause

2009-05-24T19:22:00.003-04:00

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.

Reversal of the Feres Doctrine

2009-05-21T18:08:00.001-04:00

Weasels will now second guess and defund battlefield surgeons seeking to save our wounded warriors.

American Law Institute Meeting

2009-05-17T12:02:00.002-04:00

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.

The False Criminal Conviction of the Innocent Defendant is a Tort

2009-05-12T21:08:00.000-04:00

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.

Excellent: Sue the Disciplinary Counsel for Whitewashing Cases

2009-04-30T01:29:00.002-04:00

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.

If the Rate of Innocence in Death Penalty Cases is Around 20%, What is the Innocence Rate in Plea Bargains?

2009-04-28T09:12:00.002-04:00

This is a mass constitutional tort. It is a crime against humanity, since it likely exceeds 20%.

Iraq v Beaty

2009-04-21T23:48:00.002-04:00

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?

Pre-Law Courses Would Help

2009-04-19T22:50:00.002-04:00

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.

The Reasonable Person

2009-04-09T19:09:00.002-04:00

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.

Guideline Makers Have a Duty to Do No Harm

2009-04-04T20:39:00.014-04:00

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.

Legalize Adult Pleasures, But License the Buyer

2009-03-31T14:41:00.002-04:00

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.

Empirical Support for One-Two-Three Violent Offenses and Dead

2009-03-26T18:23:00.001-04:00

The majority of murderers and manslaughterers had prior records. Had they been deceased, a murder would have been prevented.

Abolition of the Death Penalty is a License to Kill

2009-03-18T06:53:00.002-04:00

It immunizes all murders after the first.

Law School Reform

2009-03-11T07:16:00.004-04:00

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.

Statute and Regulation Do Not Require Scientific Validity: Supreme Court

2009-03-08T22:56:00.001-04:00

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)

What Foreseeability is Just to Trigger a Duty?

2009-03-08T20:51:00.002-04:00

Thanks to Prof. Bill Childs, Associate Professor of Law, Western New England School of Law.

The jury is the only thing between the productive party and the land pirate and the parasitic clients.

This case brings up another question. What is the quantity of foreseeability that triggers duty? Is it 1 in 1 million, as the husband estimated in his deposition? Is it over 51% chance, equivalent to the burden of proof, and a natural landmark?

By the lack of quantification of foreseeability, the civil defendant has not received notice. All foreseeabilities in between should be unlawful by statute.

The Mens Rea Violates the Establishment Clause

2009-03-07T00:05:00.000-05:00

1) Per se. Mind reading is a supernatural power. The supernatural is religion. Half the major violent crimes are committed by folks legally drunk. The criminal himself cannot honestly judge intent, if the crime is recalled at all. I understand no recall is needed to infer intent from conduct. The word, infer, is a synonym for mind reading, and not a rebuttal with objective evidence.

2) Origination. A French monk applied the Scholasticist doctrine that God would know intent and judge it after death. Intent came from the elements of mortal sin and a church catechism. So what? So what if the law were based the Koran? In the 1200's that was an humanitarian advance, a loophole to escape the sole punishment of the 1200's, death.

3) Policy. Where is the evidence the hunter who shoots another thinking him a deer is less dangerous than the hunter who shoots another after a $10,000 payment from the other's wife? (In that scenario, the money is objective evidence of intent.) But there is no evidence mens rea contributes to safety. There should be strict liability, with a judgment of dangerousness by the executive branch based on the past. Future victims should be able to sue the probation department for deviations from assessment standards that result in victim injury. The probation department is just counting past behaviors from all sources, including childhood records, after conviction, and not functioning as God does. Intent has no scientific, validated meaning, such as a measurement scale, or brain imaging showing anything happens in real life. It does not exist. The reason? It is from the thinking of Medieval monks, not more recent scientists.

4) Indoctrination without consent. Modern students do not believe in the supernatural outside of their spiritual adherence. To get them to believe in the mens rea, they undego an indoctrination so good, no one knows it took place. But people who pass 1L believe minds can be read. The indoctrination violates the Establishment Clause. The use of mens rea by any judge does too, since it imposes a supernatural belief of a very specific church, with the force of government.

5) Latin. All Latin violates the Establishment Clause, being the foreign language of a church. We need a statute voiding all legal utterances containing Latin, and canceling any severability in the legal utterance.

When a Member of the Criminal Cult Hierarchy is Attacked, the Death Penalty is on the Spot

2009-03-05T09:15:00.001-05:00

No $10 millions spent on bogus appeals.

Wyeth v Levine

2009-03-04T13:37:00.001-05:00

No pre-emption by FDA approval on product liability.

The Rent Seeking Theory of Appellate Decisions trumps all ideology and political affiliation. This decision was predicted at the time of cert.

Dade Bar Apologizes for Segregation Sins, Misses the Genocide of Blacks by Lawyers

2009-03-02T14:21:00.004-05:00

This water fountain caper was a trivial offense, of hurt feelings.

No one is apologizing for the 5000 lynchings that took place. These had a business model. They went after the prosperous black merchant or professionals.

The KKK was lawyer and judge founded and led. It is impossible to kill 5000 people without immunity and collusion of prosecutors, judges, and police. These had to be paid off.

Lawyer question. Can a deed obtained by murder ever get quiet?

Instead of dumbass reparations movement seeking to attack our corporations and banks, the compensation of the heirs for the seizure of all those properties by murder awaits the right lawyer.

Trial Lawyer Boss to Run US Health Care

2009-03-02T00:35:00.005-05:00

This trial lawyer will dictate, crush, and oppress clinical care with impunity. Her minion land pirates will plunder it, as a Mafia clan takes over a business. When they have exhausted plundering its assets, they burn it down to collect the insurance. The sole hope of clinical care is the Hilarious Law of Political Irony applies to this feminist extremist, mass murderer of the unborn, party thrower for Dr. Death of 60,000 unborn babies (after a $120,000 contribution from the butcher), Governor Kathleen Sebelius. Once she starts her plunder and destruction, doctors will have to fight back.

I predict they will fail at all airtight rigged, legal means.

Legal Scholars Call for Term Limits on Supreme Court

2009-02-24T13:56:00.004-05:00

The life time appointment was one of the big three mistakes made by the god like founding fathers in the Consitution. In their defense, it would be another 100 years before the clinical description of Alzheimer dementia. The idea of a dementocracy is not appropriate in our time.

If the term limit is to be changed by a Constitutional amendment, the opportunity should be taken to also exclude anyone who has passed 1L from serving on any appellate bench in the No evidence exists to support the exclusivity of lawyers. The senseless, mind boggling decisions are res ipsa loquitur evidence for excluding the lawyer. Putting puking, alcohol besotted bums from the gutter as Supreme Court Justices would result in an immediate upgrade in the logic, lawfulness, and clarity of Supreme Court appellate decisions.

While messing with the Supreme Court in the Constitution, the number of Justices should be mandated to be an even number, preferably in the hundreds. If the Court will unlawfully change laws, let it be more legislative in size. The even number would also eliminate the opprobious effects of those 5-4 decisions. It would make the court more conservative in the sense that tie votes let the lower court decision stand.