Sunday, February 28, 2010

Answering Mike Farrell and the Extreme Death Penalty Abolitonist

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.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Targeted Killing Debate

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.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Facebook Loving Criticism of Teacher is Protected Speech

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.

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

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."

Friday, February 12, 2010

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

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.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Reasonable Stopping Distance and the Lawyer Dumbass

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.