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.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Experts
A doc blogs about his medmal case, already concluded.
1) Experts are subject to outcome bias, as is everyone else, including juries and judges. The same procedures will be rated as within standard of care if the outcome is good in a case presentation, and outside the standard if the outcome is bad with exactly the same steps. Outcome bias is a bias, as racism is. It violates the procedural due process of civil defendants to a fair trial, a right established by the Supreme Court. No one has ever used this tactic in a trial or in an appeal. The bias is so well proven that any defense lawyer not asserting it took place should be terrorized by the legal malpractice expert employed as personal lawyer by the defendant.
2) I strongly urge the defendant to have his personal lawyer bully his insurance hack loser traitor lawyer force the opposing expert to produce his own charts on similar cases as the one in the lawsuit. These charts should have been within a year of the injury to the patient, since the standard of care has a short half life. There should be many. If the expert cannot produce his own charts, move for a mistrial, and all costs to the personal assets of the plaintiff, the plaintiff lawyer, and plaintiff expert. The lying expert is not really an expert if he has not done the same work as the defendant. That move will likely exclude all academic assholes. They do not see patients, being scholars, and are totally junior to the defendant, including in IQ.
3) The defendant himself should parse every word uttered by the plaintiff expert. That includes all publication, all reports, and all charts. If a single utterance contradicts any statement in the report, in the sworn deposition, in the sworn testimony, have the personal lawyer terrorize the insurance hack loser into moving for the judge to charge the expert with perjury, and refer the expert to the District Attorney for criminal charges, criminal contempt, and a mistrial, again with all costs to the personal assets of the lying expert. To deter.
Why does one need a personal lawyer to terrorize the vile insurance hack loser? Because the traitor does not want to permanently damage the plaintiff side. This vile traitor owes his job to the lying plaintiff not to the defendant. He will never willingly hurt the other side, because the plaintiff side is delicate, and runs at the first sign of painful resistance. The case costs them $50K to bring. If they see losing that amount, and a crushing resistance, they run away, and never come back.
The innocent defendant has a moral duty to clinical care to never settle, and to actively seek the personal destruction of the plaintiff, the plaintiff lawyer, and the plaintiff expert. If they commit suicide so much better the remedy, that one being permanent. It would be well deserved. Every penny they consume comes from the care of other patients, to maintain their Roman Orgy lifestyles.
4) If opposing experts testify in good faith, then a scientific controversy exists. It cannot get resolved by rhetoric, and jury preference. It may only be resolved by additional scientific evidence from validated research. The court should automatically dismiss the case. So only cases that are within the knowledge of the jury, or have expert support for only one side are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. Any case allowing a debate between opposing experts violates the procedural due process right of the civil defendant to a fair hearing.
We need some new approaches to the plaintiff experts. There is no recourse against them outside the trial. The defendant is an expert himself, and should be used to the maximum in the case. One should refer unprofessional conduct to the licensing board of each state in which he is licensed. Send in one complaint a week to a separate board. Each generates an investigation. Do the same with complaints to professional societies, and to the employer. Let the expert live with uncertainty for years if necessary. Generate legal fees if any complaint sticks.
Experts have absolute immunity for their opinions. This is based on the First Amendment, on a Supreme Court decision, and on universally accepted public policy. To encourage service to the court. It applies to the defense expert, and to the defendant when testifying. I think it is fair.
There is a lot of recourse within the trial, with the judge. This is never used, because it would end the medmal business. So the defense attorney must be forced. He may resign before allowing these.
1) Demand charts of the plaintiff experts for similar patients. If there are no recent charts, as in the past two years, seek disqualification of the expert. He is not an expert, then. Reading from a book does not make anyone an expert.
2) The defendant must read every word uttered by the plaintiff expert anywhere. If any asserted fact is not true, the witness is guilty of perjury or criminal contempt of court. So, double check all experience. Say, he testifies he spent 2 years in a fellowship, but left after one. That is a false fact, not opinion. Say, he testifies he read a certain document, but obviously knows nothing about it. That is a false fact. If an opinion contradicts an opinion in testimony or report, let the defense lawyer know to impeach the plaintiff expert. “Doctor, in which passage were you lying?”
3) I would like to see total e-discovery of all plaintiff parties, including the plaintiff, the plaintiff lawyer, and all plaintiff experts. Get all personal computers, get all social networking names and aliases, seeking improper motives in the lawyers, and bias in the plaintiff and in the plaintiff expert.
4) Have the defense expert go through the plaintiff expert report. And use this checklist of biases to characterized every conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Some defense attorney will have the courage to call for a mistrial because these biases violate the procedural due process rights found for the civil defendant. Most medmal cases are weak and represent an expression of outcome bias. The latter also explains the disparities in insurance rates between specialties. Neurosurgeons do not make more mistakes than dermatologists. Their bad outcome generates more revenge motivation than those of dermatologists. White Coat correctly identified the scapegoating motive of the claim. It is unlawful. The defense attorney must ask for a mistrial and all costs to the personal assets of the plaintiff lawyer. Will never happen unless the defense attorney is threatened with personal destruction by another lawyer.
1) Experts are subject to outcome bias, as is everyone else, including juries and judges. The same procedures will be rated as within standard of care if the outcome is good in a case presentation, and outside the standard if the outcome is bad with exactly the same steps. Outcome bias is a bias, as racism is. It violates the procedural due process of civil defendants to a fair trial, a right established by the Supreme Court. No one has ever used this tactic in a trial or in an appeal. The bias is so well proven that any defense lawyer not asserting it took place should be terrorized by the legal malpractice expert employed as personal lawyer by the defendant.
2) I strongly urge the defendant to have his personal lawyer bully his insurance hack loser traitor lawyer force the opposing expert to produce his own charts on similar cases as the one in the lawsuit. These charts should have been within a year of the injury to the patient, since the standard of care has a short half life. There should be many. If the expert cannot produce his own charts, move for a mistrial, and all costs to the personal assets of the plaintiff, the plaintiff lawyer, and plaintiff expert. The lying expert is not really an expert if he has not done the same work as the defendant. That move will likely exclude all academic assholes. They do not see patients, being scholars, and are totally junior to the defendant, including in IQ.
3) The defendant himself should parse every word uttered by the plaintiff expert. That includes all publication, all reports, and all charts. If a single utterance contradicts any statement in the report, in the sworn deposition, in the sworn testimony, have the personal lawyer terrorize the insurance hack loser into moving for the judge to charge the expert with perjury, and refer the expert to the District Attorney for criminal charges, criminal contempt, and a mistrial, again with all costs to the personal assets of the lying expert. To deter.
Why does one need a personal lawyer to terrorize the vile insurance hack loser? Because the traitor does not want to permanently damage the plaintiff side. This vile traitor owes his job to the lying plaintiff not to the defendant. He will never willingly hurt the other side, because the plaintiff side is delicate, and runs at the first sign of painful resistance. The case costs them $50K to bring. If they see losing that amount, and a crushing resistance, they run away, and never come back.
The innocent defendant has a moral duty to clinical care to never settle, and to actively seek the personal destruction of the plaintiff, the plaintiff lawyer, and the plaintiff expert. If they commit suicide so much better the remedy, that one being permanent. It would be well deserved. Every penny they consume comes from the care of other patients, to maintain their Roman Orgy lifestyles.
4) If opposing experts testify in good faith, then a scientific controversy exists. It cannot get resolved by rhetoric, and jury preference. It may only be resolved by additional scientific evidence from validated research. The court should automatically dismiss the case. So only cases that are within the knowledge of the jury, or have expert support for only one side are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. Any case allowing a debate between opposing experts violates the procedural due process right of the civil defendant to a fair hearing.
We need some new approaches to the plaintiff experts. There is no recourse against them outside the trial. The defendant is an expert himself, and should be used to the maximum in the case. One should refer unprofessional conduct to the licensing board of each state in which he is licensed. Send in one complaint a week to a separate board. Each generates an investigation. Do the same with complaints to professional societies, and to the employer. Let the expert live with uncertainty for years if necessary. Generate legal fees if any complaint sticks.
Experts have absolute immunity for their opinions. This is based on the First Amendment, on a Supreme Court decision, and on universally accepted public policy. To encourage service to the court. It applies to the defense expert, and to the defendant when testifying. I think it is fair.
There is a lot of recourse within the trial, with the judge. This is never used, because it would end the medmal business. So the defense attorney must be forced. He may resign before allowing these.
1) Demand charts of the plaintiff experts for similar patients. If there are no recent charts, as in the past two years, seek disqualification of the expert. He is not an expert, then. Reading from a book does not make anyone an expert.
2) The defendant must read every word uttered by the plaintiff expert anywhere. If any asserted fact is not true, the witness is guilty of perjury or criminal contempt of court. So, double check all experience. Say, he testifies he spent 2 years in a fellowship, but left after one. That is a false fact, not opinion. Say, he testifies he read a certain document, but obviously knows nothing about it. That is a false fact. If an opinion contradicts an opinion in testimony or report, let the defense lawyer know to impeach the plaintiff expert. “Doctor, in which passage were you lying?”
3) I would like to see total e-discovery of all plaintiff parties, including the plaintiff, the plaintiff lawyer, and all plaintiff experts. Get all personal computers, get all social networking names and aliases, seeking improper motives in the lawyers, and bias in the plaintiff and in the plaintiff expert.
4) Have the defense expert go through the plaintiff expert report. And use this checklist of biases to characterized every conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Some defense attorney will have the courage to call for a mistrial because these biases violate the procedural due process rights found for the civil defendant. Most medmal cases are weak and represent an expression of outcome bias. The latter also explains the disparities in insurance rates between specialties. Neurosurgeons do not make more mistakes than dermatologists. Their bad outcome generates more revenge motivation than those of dermatologists. White Coat correctly identified the scapegoating motive of the claim. It is unlawful. The defense attorney must ask for a mistrial and all costs to the personal assets of the plaintiff lawyer. Will never happen unless the defense attorney is threatened with personal destruction by another lawyer.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Judge Sotomayor: Remarks Not Elsewhere
Type 1 Diabetes: The complete medical record must be produced. Diabetes carries a high risk of mental illness, and of cognitive impairment. Republicans should demand that she have neuropsychological testing prior to her confirmation hearing.
Diabetes may defund the Supreme Court, a horrible agency of oppression. She should go for a pancreas transplant at a $ million. It usually requires a kidney transplant also. The meds add up to $100K a year. Her prolonged absences would have the Supreme Court at an even number, which is an excellent idea. I would enjoy seeing weasel, Justice Kennedy, go hat in hand to request supplemental funding for the Court from his dog masters, in the Congress. Chattel are subject to eminent domain. She should apply Kelo to a corpse, and take the organs. That would be a great application of Kelo. If someone questions it, such as CJ Roberts, sue him under the ADAA. Disability, as defined under the 2009 ADAA, should be added to the list of her entitled and lawyer privileged statuses.
Catholic Cardinal Spellman High School: She should have no trouble with the supernatural core doctrines of the law, taken from the Catechism. For example, the fact that the Reasonable Person may be lawyer code for Jesus Christ, should give her no problem whatever.
Princeton University, Yale Law School: Absolute, automatic disqualifiers. All Ivy grads are Hate America freaks.
They should be excluded from all responsible government positions per se. I do not distinguish by political affiliation. They are all the same. They may have high IQ's, but all believe in growing government. None has common sense. And as far as the real world of people, they are grossly mentally retarded. Someone misled them into thinking their judgment is better than that of others. The government does nothing well because of their incompetence, and their running it. See the Presidents of the 20th Century, uninterrupted, unmitigated catastrophes for our nation.
Their educations and academic achievements are lesser than those of grads of the Big Ten. None has an original thought because they are book worms, and they had no real world responsibility. They hire away people who have achieved, and then they rot there. She may qualify as a law prof, however.
Divorce: Find the man that could live with this horrible person for more than a short time. Then, publicize the entire marriage and its dissolution. The Supremacy blog is trying to get a copy of the divorce record.
Horrible Bronx Accent, Horrible Bronx Attitudes: Racist. Politically Correct Abomination. Did I say, a Politically Correct Identity Politics Abomination, Personally Obnoxious, Bully, and Rude, Member of Racist Extremist Anti-American Organization. In the Bronx, jurors would rather see 100 guilty men go free than to accept the testimony of a police officer. Torts are a method of wealth transfer from the few productive entities there to lawyers, with some crumbs going to low ethics plaintiffs. That Bronx mentality will be forced on the nation now. A horrible, ungrateful, threatening complainer, a nightmare for our nation.
La Raza: The judge is a member of an organization that wants to forcefully return the Southwest to its owner, Mexico. It is a racist organization similar in its views to white supremacist organizations like the KKK.
Diabetes may defund the Supreme Court, a horrible agency of oppression. She should go for a pancreas transplant at a $ million. It usually requires a kidney transplant also. The meds add up to $100K a year. Her prolonged absences would have the Supreme Court at an even number, which is an excellent idea. I would enjoy seeing weasel, Justice Kennedy, go hat in hand to request supplemental funding for the Court from his dog masters, in the Congress. Chattel are subject to eminent domain. She should apply Kelo to a corpse, and take the organs. That would be a great application of Kelo. If someone questions it, such as CJ Roberts, sue him under the ADAA. Disability, as defined under the 2009 ADAA, should be added to the list of her entitled and lawyer privileged statuses.
Catholic Cardinal Spellman High School: She should have no trouble with the supernatural core doctrines of the law, taken from the Catechism. For example, the fact that the Reasonable Person may be lawyer code for Jesus Christ, should give her no problem whatever.
Princeton University, Yale Law School: Absolute, automatic disqualifiers. All Ivy grads are Hate America freaks.
They should be excluded from all responsible government positions per se. I do not distinguish by political affiliation. They are all the same. They may have high IQ's, but all believe in growing government. None has common sense. And as far as the real world of people, they are grossly mentally retarded. Someone misled them into thinking their judgment is better than that of others. The government does nothing well because of their incompetence, and their running it. See the Presidents of the 20th Century, uninterrupted, unmitigated catastrophes for our nation.
Their educations and academic achievements are lesser than those of grads of the Big Ten. None has an original thought because they are book worms, and they had no real world responsibility. They hire away people who have achieved, and then they rot there. She may qualify as a law prof, however.
Divorce: Find the man that could live with this horrible person for more than a short time. Then, publicize the entire marriage and its dissolution. The Supremacy blog is trying to get a copy of the divorce record.
Horrible Bronx Accent, Horrible Bronx Attitudes: Racist. Politically Correct Abomination. Did I say, a Politically Correct Identity Politics Abomination, Personally Obnoxious, Bully, and Rude, Member of Racist Extremist Anti-American Organization. In the Bronx, jurors would rather see 100 guilty men go free than to accept the testimony of a police officer. Torts are a method of wealth transfer from the few productive entities there to lawyers, with some crumbs going to low ethics plaintiffs. That Bronx mentality will be forced on the nation now. A horrible, ungrateful, threatening complainer, a nightmare for our nation.
La Raza: The judge is a member of an organization that wants to forcefully return the Southwest to its owner, Mexico. It is a racist organization similar in its views to white supremacist organizations like the KKK.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Discussion of Latin Legal Utterance as Violation of Establishment Clause
Latin for Lawyers is recommended. Professor Bill Poser disagreed that Latin represented the endorsement of a church. The Supreme Court held that a moment of silence endorsed a non-specific religion in a public school setting. Their hypocrisy at allowing their own use of Latin is extreme.
The Comments were shut off before allowing me to point out that much of the content of the analysis of crime came from the catechism. In this Wikipedia description of mortal sin in the Catholic Church, one can see great similarities to criminal law analysis.
There are "elements." The harm is grave. There is no ignorance of the law in the conscience. There is intent. There are mitigating circumstances, such as insanity.
The Comments were shut off before allowing me to point out that much of the content of the analysis of crime came from the catechism. In this Wikipedia description of mortal sin in the Catholic Church, one can see great similarities to criminal law analysis.
There are "elements." The harm is grave. There is no ignorance of the law in the conscience. There is intent. There are mitigating circumstances, such as insanity.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Reversal of the Feres Doctrine
Weasels will now second guess and defund battlefield surgeons seeking to save our wounded warriors.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
American Law Institute Meeting
ALI. Membership makes a convenient arrest list when it comes time to take out the lawyer hierarchy.
Any judge quoting any report is in insurrection against the Constitution. This is a parallel law making body, telling legislatures how to write laws, and telling judges what the law is. These are internal traitors.
If they are not law makers, they are guideline makers. They have a duty to do no harm. Any litigant injured by their carelessness should sue on behalf of a class. They should also sue the individual members, and their employers, for negligent hiring, and for failure to supervise. I would bet the employers have assets close to $trillion.
Good case for the right tort lawyer.
The ALI is not a mere quasi-governmental organization. It is a supra-governmental organization. It tells legislatures and courts what to do. Most of its reporting is not reporting. It is the expression of the bias of the reporter, mostly Commie, left wing academic and judge wackos, rent seeking values, to generate massive procedures, to prevent the real punishment of criminals, to add inscrutability to the law, to do stealthy industrial policy to redistribute wealth from the productive to the lawyer, and to force people to hire a lawyer. Their reporting is full of concepts that cannot be shown to exist in nature. It is Medieval supernatural garbage.
Short of a tort action, it might be interesting to get an injunction to open comments on its horrible, criminal lover rules to the public, to crime victims, to the police that must live with its criminal lover, left wing academic, biased reporting.
Any judge quoting any report is in insurrection against the Constitution. This is a parallel law making body, telling legislatures how to write laws, and telling judges what the law is. These are internal traitors.
If they are not law makers, they are guideline makers. They have a duty to do no harm. Any litigant injured by their carelessness should sue on behalf of a class. They should also sue the individual members, and their employers, for negligent hiring, and for failure to supervise. I would bet the employers have assets close to $trillion.
Good case for the right tort lawyer.
The ALI is not a mere quasi-governmental organization. It is a supra-governmental organization. It tells legislatures and courts what to do. Most of its reporting is not reporting. It is the expression of the bias of the reporter, mostly Commie, left wing academic and judge wackos, rent seeking values, to generate massive procedures, to prevent the real punishment of criminals, to add inscrutability to the law, to do stealthy industrial policy to redistribute wealth from the productive to the lawyer, and to force people to hire a lawyer. Their reporting is full of concepts that cannot be shown to exist in nature. It is Medieval supernatural garbage.
Short of a tort action, it might be interesting to get an injunction to open comments on its horrible, criminal lover rules to the public, to crime victims, to the police that must live with its criminal lover, left wing academic, biased reporting.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The False Criminal Conviction of the Innocent Defendant is a Tort
The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard means there is roughly about an 80% chance the defendant is guilty. The roughly 20% innocence rate on death row corresponds well with that level of certainty. That standard applies to other criminal trials, and to plea bargains, no?
All torts immunities should end, those of the prosecutor, and those of the vile cult criminal on the bench. That a such an appallingly high failure rate, condemning innocents to death, is statutory means;
1) the tortfeasors have scienter;
2) the tortfeasors are doing nothing about it in any systematic manner; meaning they are taking no care whatsoever;
3) the indictment, and the guilty verdict are chattels, making them defective products, and product liability applies;
4) in its successful intended use, the false conviction will harm the innocent defendant, and strict liability applies;
5) the class of similarly situated, falsely convicted defendants justify a class declaration;
6) because freedom, earning ability, property have been taken away, because all criminal sanctions are procedures on the body, the deprivation of procedural due process rights is a constitutional tort, as well as a strict product liability tort, compounding the malfeasance, imagine a unlawful kidnapping.
If these torts take out a state, that would eliminate the cult criminals from the legislature and from the executive office. If the voters want to owe $billions, let them re-elect cult criminals to these highly responsible positions.
If the lawyer believes, torts deter and result in great improvements in products and in services, the criminal justice system is overly ripe for this remedy.
All torts immunities should end, those of the prosecutor, and those of the vile cult criminal on the bench. That a such an appallingly high failure rate, condemning innocents to death, is statutory means;
1) the tortfeasors have scienter;
2) the tortfeasors are doing nothing about it in any systematic manner; meaning they are taking no care whatsoever;
3) the indictment, and the guilty verdict are chattels, making them defective products, and product liability applies;
4) in its successful intended use, the false conviction will harm the innocent defendant, and strict liability applies;
5) the class of similarly situated, falsely convicted defendants justify a class declaration;
6) because freedom, earning ability, property have been taken away, because all criminal sanctions are procedures on the body, the deprivation of procedural due process rights is a constitutional tort, as well as a strict product liability tort, compounding the malfeasance, imagine a unlawful kidnapping.
If these torts take out a state, that would eliminate the cult criminals from the legislature and from the executive office. If the voters want to owe $billions, let them re-elect cult criminals to these highly responsible positions.
If the lawyer believes, torts deter and result in great improvements in products and in services, the criminal justice system is overly ripe for this remedy.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Excellent: Sue the Disciplinary Counsel for Whitewashing Cases
This system is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers. It is not humanly possible to self-regulate. I hope this brave lawyer prevails.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
If the Rate of Innocence in Death Penalty Cases is Around 20%, What is the Innocence Rate in Plea Bargains?
This is a mass constitutional tort. It is a crime against humanity, since it likely exceeds 20%.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Iraq v Beaty
This is the beginning of the methodology of lawfare. Litigation replaces combat to take down an international adversary. It was done to North Korea, bringing it to the negotiating table by seizing only $25 million in assets. The North Koreans had to request that airline tickets be bought by the US for them to attend a session.
Question for the rent seeking lawyer. What will happen when a Baghdad civil court assesses damages against the US for destroying buildings, for killing relatives, and for disrupting business by its relentless bombardments?
Question for the rent seeking lawyer. What will happen when a Baghdad civil court assesses damages against the US for destroying buildings, for killing relatives, and for disrupting business by its relentless bombardments?
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Pre-Law Courses Would Help
1) Psychology for Law Students. Punishment is the sole tool of the law. It has technical aspects that judges do not know. Naturally, much of the law seeks to control psychopathology, and that would be included in the year long course.
2) Philosophy of Science for Law Students. This is a big subject. However, Evidence, the law school subject, has almost no relation to “evidence,” the requirement for scientific conclusions. Those two should merge. Included would be exposure to the concepts of reliability of measurements, which means repeatability. Repeatability is the real meaning of justice. The students would be trained in its basic math.
3) Western Civ 101 for Law Students. It would emphasize Aristotle and the High Middle Ages, especially St. Thomas of Aquinas. The aim would be to inoculate students against cult indoctrination. They would recognize the origin of the core supernatural doctrines, and start to challenge their church origins. These are unlawful in our secular nation. They would be told of the monk origins of the IRAC. They would start to protest these in class.
4) Ethics for Law Students. Aside from the standard philosophy course, students would be introduced to the concept of lawmaking as human experimentation on a mass scale, and the care that requires. This is to medicalize the law profession. OK. Propose the ADA. Test in small jurisdictions. Measure the outcomes, including the unintended consequences, such as a bunch of businesses are gone, and employment for the disabled has disappeared. Reach a minimum of safety and effectiveness. Then propose the legislation.
This human rights approach to law making ends judicial review, since the court has no resources for such clinical trials. Judicial review is unlawful, anyway, and insurrection against the Constitution. When lawyers make mistakes, they can be whoppers by their power. The Civil War after Dred Scott.
Prof. Randazza adds:
5) Writing. The writing should be clear to the ordinary person. I would add any lawyer utterance above the sixth grade level fails to give notice. In the case of the criminal law, writing that is hard to follow violates the principle of legality.
2) Philosophy of Science for Law Students. This is a big subject. However, Evidence, the law school subject, has almost no relation to “evidence,” the requirement for scientific conclusions. Those two should merge. Included would be exposure to the concepts of reliability of measurements, which means repeatability. Repeatability is the real meaning of justice. The students would be trained in its basic math.
3) Western Civ 101 for Law Students. It would emphasize Aristotle and the High Middle Ages, especially St. Thomas of Aquinas. The aim would be to inoculate students against cult indoctrination. They would recognize the origin of the core supernatural doctrines, and start to challenge their church origins. These are unlawful in our secular nation. They would be told of the monk origins of the IRAC. They would start to protest these in class.
4) Ethics for Law Students. Aside from the standard philosophy course, students would be introduced to the concept of lawmaking as human experimentation on a mass scale, and the care that requires. This is to medicalize the law profession. OK. Propose the ADA. Test in small jurisdictions. Measure the outcomes, including the unintended consequences, such as a bunch of businesses are gone, and employment for the disabled has disappeared. Reach a minimum of safety and effectiveness. Then propose the legislation.
This human rights approach to law making ends judicial review, since the court has no resources for such clinical trials. Judicial review is unlawful, anyway, and insurrection against the Constitution. When lawyers make mistakes, they can be whoppers by their power. The Civil War after Dred Scott.
Prof. Randazza adds:
5) Writing. The writing should be clear to the ordinary person. I would add any lawyer utterance above the sixth grade level fails to give notice. In the case of the criminal law, writing that is hard to follow violates the principle of legality.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
The Reasonable Person
Prof. Solum: You are a victim and a perpetrator of law school cult indoctrination. It made you forget 10th Grade World History and Western Civ 101.
Most of our core legal doctrines come unchanged from Henry of Bratton's Case book. He was a student of St. Thomas.
They believed that intellect was unreliable source of justice, morality. It was misled by the Fall from Eden and the Seven Deadly Sins.
The more reliable guide to moral decisions is Reason. The most reliable guide to Reason is the New Testament according to St. Thomas. If this is true, the Reasonable Person may really be 13th Century judge code for Jesus Christ. You learned this stuff when you studied the High Middle Ages. Law school indoctrination made you forget high school and freshman year of college. The reason this indoctrination took place is that supernatural doctrines violate the Establishment Clause.
The reasonable person has to be a fictional character in order to be objective. The use of a fictional character violates Due Process and Equal Protection because it is made up on the spot during the trial, and is subjective to the judge and jury. Idiosyncrasy is unfair, and violates Procedural Due Process.
In Henry's 13th Century, the idea of Reason was a good technical advance in the law. It was cutting edge modern application of Aristotle and St. Thomas Today, nothing from the 1200's is acceptable for practice in the real world. Today, that word is oppressive, unlawful, and unconstitutional.
Most of our core legal doctrines come unchanged from Henry of Bratton's Case book. He was a student of St. Thomas.
They believed that intellect was unreliable source of justice, morality. It was misled by the Fall from Eden and the Seven Deadly Sins.
The more reliable guide to moral decisions is Reason. The most reliable guide to Reason is the New Testament according to St. Thomas. If this is true, the Reasonable Person may really be 13th Century judge code for Jesus Christ. You learned this stuff when you studied the High Middle Ages. Law school indoctrination made you forget high school and freshman year of college. The reason this indoctrination took place is that supernatural doctrines violate the Establishment Clause.
The reasonable person has to be a fictional character in order to be objective. The use of a fictional character violates Due Process and Equal Protection because it is made up on the spot during the trial, and is subjective to the judge and jury. Idiosyncrasy is unfair, and violates Procedural Due Process.
In Henry's 13th Century, the idea of Reason was a good technical advance in the law. It was cutting edge modern application of Aristotle and St. Thomas Today, nothing from the 1200's is acceptable for practice in the real world. Today, that word is oppressive, unlawful, and unconstitutional.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Guideline Makers Have a Duty to Do No Harm
See the reasoning in Meneely v. S.R. Smith, Inc., 101 Wn. App. 845, 5 P.3d 49 (2000).
Below are a list of summaries of a conference on the Restatement Third of Torts. This is a form of private lawmaking. If a defendant is harmed by one of these guidelines, they should discuss filing cross claims against the American Law Institute, its officers, its members, and their employers. It should also be researched if republishers of these harmful guidelines may also get named. Professor Sheila B. Scheuerman, Associate Professor of Law, Charleston School of Law reprints and links to them without criticism. Perhaps, she endorses these views. The TortsProf Blog is a partisan, biased, pro-lawyer rent seeking blog.
Land Possessor Liability.
Intentional and Strict Liability.
Risk Creation and Foreseeability.
Duty.
As to physician duties to third parties. I want to organize a conference where doctors discuss changing the parameters of attorney-client privilege. There are lots of health implications to attorney-client privilege. Lawyers hang out with criminals. They learn of past crimes, facts of ongoing investigations, and of intended future crimes. Attorney-client privilege covers up the truth and is detrimental to the public health. Any of you arrogant dirtbags have a problem ending attorney-client privilege for any public health advantage?
In the case of violent, irresponsible drug addicts, it is a federal crime to reveal a fact without getting a court order. No mention of federal law by the rent seeking dirtbags. One guess. Which privilege has been considered to be more absolute? Client-lawyer or patient-doctor, and by the Supreme Court, and repeatedly having the privilege prevail over even statute, in accordance with the Ninth Amendment?
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.
Negligence.
Causation.
The ultimate causation is the Big Bang. After that, there is chaos and random chance. There are no causes anymore.
In the past 50 years, accidents have come to be seen as the result of a convergence of factors into one place, time and set of people, around 12 for many catastrophic ones. If one of these is prevented, the entire accident may not happen. So subtract any of these factors, and there may be no car crash, rain, bad wipers, sleepy driver, corner cutting in road construction due to politician and inspector bribery 50 years ago, curve too sharp by modern standards, on a road built in the 1920's with county lack of funds to rebuild due to poor tax base, due to closing of plant after lawyers in a Southern state with an all minority jury sued the owners for causing an injury to a drunken ladder climber, hungry deer, brakes due for service, poor education and low wage of defendant, so car is old and does not have 12 air bags. Subtract one and there is no accident at that time to that plaintiff.
The main cause of the plunder of the productive party with deep pockets is the forbearance of the criminal cult enterprise hierarchy, represented by the ALI. The main cause of this forbearance is the enrichment of the members of this criminal cult enterprise. It has nothing to do with Causation. As the above professor said, there is no such fact as a cause. It is a made up pretext for the purpose of lawyer rent seeking.
Below are a list of summaries of a conference on the Restatement Third of Torts. This is a form of private lawmaking. If a defendant is harmed by one of these guidelines, they should discuss filing cross claims against the American Law Institute, its officers, its members, and their employers. It should also be researched if republishers of these harmful guidelines may also get named. Professor Sheila B. Scheuerman, Associate Professor of Law, Charleston School of Law reprints and links to them without criticism. Perhaps, she endorses these views. The TortsProf Blog is a partisan, biased, pro-lawyer rent seeking blog.
Land Possessor Liability.
Intentional and Strict Liability.
Risk Creation and Foreseeability.
Duty.
As to physician duties to third parties. I want to organize a conference where doctors discuss changing the parameters of attorney-client privilege. There are lots of health implications to attorney-client privilege. Lawyers hang out with criminals. They learn of past crimes, facts of ongoing investigations, and of intended future crimes. Attorney-client privilege covers up the truth and is detrimental to the public health. Any of you arrogant dirtbags have a problem ending attorney-client privilege for any public health advantage?
In the case of violent, irresponsible drug addicts, it is a federal crime to reveal a fact without getting a court order. No mention of federal law by the rent seeking dirtbags. One guess. Which privilege has been considered to be more absolute? Client-lawyer or patient-doctor, and by the Supreme Court, and repeatedly having the privilege prevail over even statute, in accordance with the Ninth Amendment?
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.
Negligence.
Causation.
The ultimate causation is the Big Bang. After that, there is chaos and random chance. There are no causes anymore.
In the past 50 years, accidents have come to be seen as the result of a convergence of factors into one place, time and set of people, around 12 for many catastrophic ones. If one of these is prevented, the entire accident may not happen. So subtract any of these factors, and there may be no car crash, rain, bad wipers, sleepy driver, corner cutting in road construction due to politician and inspector bribery 50 years ago, curve too sharp by modern standards, on a road built in the 1920's with county lack of funds to rebuild due to poor tax base, due to closing of plant after lawyers in a Southern state with an all minority jury sued the owners for causing an injury to a drunken ladder climber, hungry deer, brakes due for service, poor education and low wage of defendant, so car is old and does not have 12 air bags. Subtract one and there is no accident at that time to that plaintiff.
The main cause of the plunder of the productive party with deep pockets is the forbearance of the criminal cult enterprise hierarchy, represented by the ALI. The main cause of this forbearance is the enrichment of the members of this criminal cult enterprise. It has nothing to do with Causation. As the above professor said, there is no such fact as a cause. It is a made up pretext for the purpose of lawyer rent seeking.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Legalize Adult Pleasures, But License the Buyer
The case for total prohibition is argued at National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA). It was founded by Joseph Califano, a Harvard Law School indoctrinated lawyer. The lawyer depends on criminalization for a living, and has an irremediable conflict of interest. The estimated, mostly in health, costs is put at $485 billion in 2005.
*****
President Obama will be the first stoner President. This election saw little criticism of that past drug use, not even by his Republican opponent, a fan of a few adult pleasures himself. Indeed, Obama seems so mellow, he should release the result of his urine screening for illegal drugs. The nation has or is ready to legalize just about all adult pleasures. The problem? We cannot have a duplication of the consequences of smoking and alcohol abuse. How can we make adult pleasure policy logical, coherent, yet prevent a health catastrophe?
As a rule, 90% of people can enjoy most adult pleasures without destructive consequences. Of those who have smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for 50 years, only 1 in 7 will get lung cancer. Experience in other countries implies, availability by legalization will increase not just use, but also addiction, and the health and social consequences, but among the 10% who cannot control the use. In our country, we have seen that opening a casino increases gambling addiction four fold within 50 miles, worse in adolescents. Making adult pleasures illegal has caused great damage to our economy by exporting money to our enemies, by not generating jobs, by not collecting taxes, by costly massive imprisonment, by diverting police from violent offenders, by dropping the value of close in, downtown property for herding crime into usually minority areas, by making large numbers of people lawbreakers, by the hypocrisy of legal alcohol and tobacco, killing 500,000 people a year, and by causing allies to almost become failed states by the enrichment of drug cartels. About half the people in the drug trade die by murder. There is little left to deter them.
How can the majority of users causing no problem be left alone to enjoy their pleasures in moderation, while restricting those prone to addiction, causing problems? Try licensing the buyer.
Licensing the buyer would increase freedom, yet, restrict people not controlling themselves. It would end the hypocrisy of the legality of alcohol and tobacco that kill 100's of 1000's of people a year. There would be no more costly and ineffective Wars on Whatever. Prisons would empty, making room for vicious predators, now attacking people with near immunity. It would grow the economy by an amount now going to terrorists and organized crime gangs, perhaps a $trillion. It would increase tax revenues and may end budget deficits.
At eighteen, one gets an adult pleasure license. Those who already went to rehab at age fourteen would not, nor would those with proven behavioral or mental problems. Everyone asking to buy a drink would have the license verified, like a credit card. The police report a drunk driving offense. The license gets a point. The girlfriend officially reports, she got roughed up when the person was drinking. Another point. An emergency room doctor reports the person fell down the steps, broke an arm, and is legally drunk. The third and final point is registered. The license gets pulled.
Anyone serving alcohol to this unlicensed person is held totally responsible for any future consequence in criminal law and in torts. So, he beats up the girlfriend while drunk again. The buyer goes to jail, and the liquor store clerk does, for the same sentence. The person kills a pedestrian driving drunk. Because serving an unlicensed person is a felony, the death of the pedestrian is a felony murder. The liquor store clerk could get the death penalty. The owner of the liquor store could be held responsible in a lawsuit.
This change should have the support of the majority, and should not get rammed through, as Prohibition was. The change should be tried in small venues, to test for unintended consequences. Then a Constitutional Amendment should enact the change.
What about abuses of the license by government? The Amendment should limit the price of the license to the actual cost to government, such as $1 to verify each purchase. Those who do not indulge in adult pleasures pay nothing for the license.
All records of adult pleasure purchases should be destroyed after 3 months. Only investigators of crimes should have access to them prior to their Amendment mandated destruction, with a court order, after showing probable cause for the search.
Legalization is here, in the case of gambling, cigarettes, alcohol. Prostitution and marijuana smoking are rarely prosecuted. This proposal advocates tighter controls by licensing, to hold back the damage tsunami.
*****
President Obama will be the first stoner President. This election saw little criticism of that past drug use, not even by his Republican opponent, a fan of a few adult pleasures himself. Indeed, Obama seems so mellow, he should release the result of his urine screening for illegal drugs. The nation has or is ready to legalize just about all adult pleasures. The problem? We cannot have a duplication of the consequences of smoking and alcohol abuse. How can we make adult pleasure policy logical, coherent, yet prevent a health catastrophe?
As a rule, 90% of people can enjoy most adult pleasures without destructive consequences. Of those who have smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for 50 years, only 1 in 7 will get lung cancer. Experience in other countries implies, availability by legalization will increase not just use, but also addiction, and the health and social consequences, but among the 10% who cannot control the use. In our country, we have seen that opening a casino increases gambling addiction four fold within 50 miles, worse in adolescents. Making adult pleasures illegal has caused great damage to our economy by exporting money to our enemies, by not generating jobs, by not collecting taxes, by costly massive imprisonment, by diverting police from violent offenders, by dropping the value of close in, downtown property for herding crime into usually minority areas, by making large numbers of people lawbreakers, by the hypocrisy of legal alcohol and tobacco, killing 500,000 people a year, and by causing allies to almost become failed states by the enrichment of drug cartels. About half the people in the drug trade die by murder. There is little left to deter them.
How can the majority of users causing no problem be left alone to enjoy their pleasures in moderation, while restricting those prone to addiction, causing problems? Try licensing the buyer.
Licensing the buyer would increase freedom, yet, restrict people not controlling themselves. It would end the hypocrisy of the legality of alcohol and tobacco that kill 100's of 1000's of people a year. There would be no more costly and ineffective Wars on Whatever. Prisons would empty, making room for vicious predators, now attacking people with near immunity. It would grow the economy by an amount now going to terrorists and organized crime gangs, perhaps a $trillion. It would increase tax revenues and may end budget deficits.
At eighteen, one gets an adult pleasure license. Those who already went to rehab at age fourteen would not, nor would those with proven behavioral or mental problems. Everyone asking to buy a drink would have the license verified, like a credit card. The police report a drunk driving offense. The license gets a point. The girlfriend officially reports, she got roughed up when the person was drinking. Another point. An emergency room doctor reports the person fell down the steps, broke an arm, and is legally drunk. The third and final point is registered. The license gets pulled.
Anyone serving alcohol to this unlicensed person is held totally responsible for any future consequence in criminal law and in torts. So, he beats up the girlfriend while drunk again. The buyer goes to jail, and the liquor store clerk does, for the same sentence. The person kills a pedestrian driving drunk. Because serving an unlicensed person is a felony, the death of the pedestrian is a felony murder. The liquor store clerk could get the death penalty. The owner of the liquor store could be held responsible in a lawsuit.
This change should have the support of the majority, and should not get rammed through, as Prohibition was. The change should be tried in small venues, to test for unintended consequences. Then a Constitutional Amendment should enact the change.
What about abuses of the license by government? The Amendment should limit the price of the license to the actual cost to government, such as $1 to verify each purchase. Those who do not indulge in adult pleasures pay nothing for the license.
All records of adult pleasure purchases should be destroyed after 3 months. Only investigators of crimes should have access to them prior to their Amendment mandated destruction, with a court order, after showing probable cause for the search.
Legalization is here, in the case of gambling, cigarettes, alcohol. Prostitution and marijuana smoking are rarely prosecuted. This proposal advocates tighter controls by licensing, to hold back the damage tsunami.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Empirical Support for One-Two-Three Violent Offenses and Dead
The majority of murderers and manslaughterers had prior records. Had they been deceased, a murder would have been prevented.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Law School Reform
Prof. Douglas A. Berman, Ohio State University, referred to a preliminary plan to delineate suggestions to improve law education, LEARN (Legal Education Analysis & Reform Network).
Here is a list of subjects the responsible insiders did not think about.
1) Every lawyer who has ever expressed himself on this subject, has said, he learned nothing in law school that he could use day 1 of being a lawyer. They have to get the advice of their secretaries on what to do. In all other fields, the grads emerge as just less experienced colleagues, because they have done the real work under supervision, and not as total novices cruising on summer intern experience.
2) The project proposes some audio-visual enhancements. No. Brick and mortar schools are dead down to kindergarten. The building and the mediocre staff is a total waste. The best kindergarten art teacher in the nation will get to teach kindergarten art to all the kindergarten students of the nation. There is not a hint these Deans have any awareness of such. All buildings, all paper, all on site work must be ruthlessly eradicated.
3) The indoctrination into supernatural, unlawful, core doctrines must stop. I do not want to argue this point. I invite the students to apply their personal experience to the following table. See for yourself which column best applies to law school. Contact me if anyone wants further discussion on this point.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/cults_in_our_midst/cults_in_our_midst2.html
4) The education is biased. The textbooks are Mein Kampfs for plaintiffs and for criminals. There is no balance about the severe damage the lawyer does to the nation. The lecturers are extreme left wingers. This bias makes the profession heinous. The law education is basically hate speech, devoid of facts or evidence for its biased teaching.
5) No fundamental questioning of assumptions is permitted, such as the profession is a criminal cult enterprise. One may only criticize the profession along lines that will generate more jobs, for example feminist, homosexual, terrorist, animal rights advocacy. OK, because they promote lawyer rent seeking, however bitter or strident the complaints by crybaby, overly lawyer entitled, parasites. Question the damages done to the country, and one is shunned.
6. Obsoleteness. Nothing from 1250 AD or 1870 AD is acceptable in current practice (except for the opnion of OW Holmes). There would be no lawsuit if any other product or service provider were to use practice from those days. There would be arrest to protect public safety.
7. Lawyers run the government. They are 100% responsible for all social problems, for the economic crisis, and the stagnation of our nation, instead of its pulling ahead by 9% a year. They run the government and very badly. They need to leave the government or get banned from it. If this debate does not happen in law school, where will it happen?
8. Prelaw courses should be required. These include Psychology 101. Punishment is the sole tool of the law. Technical aspects exist. Few judges or lawyers know them. I would start a Psych 101 For Lawyers Course. It would emphasize law relevant psychology other than operant conditioning. It would heavy on perception, psychopathology, cognition, with an emphasis on memory. I would suggest Sociology but the faculties are so biased to the left as to make them more damaging than useful. Another would be the philosophy of science, so that the term, evidence, in law and in science may merge. Consider testing the content of such courses on the LSAT, replacing some of the testing of the least wrong answer about a passage of inscrutable BS.
9. Explicit, Black Boxed Warning about Grads. No graduate of law school is fit to be a judge, a legislator, or to hold any responsible policy position in the executive branch. The Rent Seeking Theory and Cult Indoctrination cause an irremediable conflict of interest. Furthermore, judging is a nearly unrelated profession to lawyering, analogous to engineer and construction worker.
10. Eliminate 3L. Replace it with mandatory rotating internship in a general law firm or government agency. After that, have 3 years of practice in a specialty firm for specialists. These should take a specialty exam at the end of the three years, as a marker of minimal quality for the public.
Here is a list of subjects the responsible insiders did not think about.
1) Every lawyer who has ever expressed himself on this subject, has said, he learned nothing in law school that he could use day 1 of being a lawyer. They have to get the advice of their secretaries on what to do. In all other fields, the grads emerge as just less experienced colleagues, because they have done the real work under supervision, and not as total novices cruising on summer intern experience.
2) The project proposes some audio-visual enhancements. No. Brick and mortar schools are dead down to kindergarten. The building and the mediocre staff is a total waste. The best kindergarten art teacher in the nation will get to teach kindergarten art to all the kindergarten students of the nation. There is not a hint these Deans have any awareness of such. All buildings, all paper, all on site work must be ruthlessly eradicated.
3) The indoctrination into supernatural, unlawful, core doctrines must stop. I do not want to argue this point. I invite the students to apply their personal experience to the following table. See for yourself which column best applies to law school. Contact me if anyone wants further discussion on this point.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/cults_in_our_midst/cults_in_our_midst2.html
4) The education is biased. The textbooks are Mein Kampfs for plaintiffs and for criminals. There is no balance about the severe damage the lawyer does to the nation. The lecturers are extreme left wingers. This bias makes the profession heinous. The law education is basically hate speech, devoid of facts or evidence for its biased teaching.
5) No fundamental questioning of assumptions is permitted, such as the profession is a criminal cult enterprise. One may only criticize the profession along lines that will generate more jobs, for example feminist, homosexual, terrorist, animal rights advocacy. OK, because they promote lawyer rent seeking, however bitter or strident the complaints by crybaby, overly lawyer entitled, parasites. Question the damages done to the country, and one is shunned.
6. Obsoleteness. Nothing from 1250 AD or 1870 AD is acceptable in current practice (except for the opnion of OW Holmes). There would be no lawsuit if any other product or service provider were to use practice from those days. There would be arrest to protect public safety.
7. Lawyers run the government. They are 100% responsible for all social problems, for the economic crisis, and the stagnation of our nation, instead of its pulling ahead by 9% a year. They run the government and very badly. They need to leave the government or get banned from it. If this debate does not happen in law school, where will it happen?
8. Prelaw courses should be required. These include Psychology 101. Punishment is the sole tool of the law. Technical aspects exist. Few judges or lawyers know them. I would start a Psych 101 For Lawyers Course. It would emphasize law relevant psychology other than operant conditioning. It would heavy on perception, psychopathology, cognition, with an emphasis on memory. I would suggest Sociology but the faculties are so biased to the left as to make them more damaging than useful. Another would be the philosophy of science, so that the term, evidence, in law and in science may merge. Consider testing the content of such courses on the LSAT, replacing some of the testing of the least wrong answer about a passage of inscrutable BS.
9. Explicit, Black Boxed Warning about Grads. No graduate of law school is fit to be a judge, a legislator, or to hold any responsible policy position in the executive branch. The Rent Seeking Theory and Cult Indoctrination cause an irremediable conflict of interest. Furthermore, judging is a nearly unrelated profession to lawyering, analogous to engineer and construction worker.
10. Eliminate 3L. Replace it with mandatory rotating internship in a general law firm or government agency. After that, have 3 years of practice in a specialty firm for specialists. These should take a specialty exam at the end of the three years, as a marker of minimal quality for the public.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Statute and Regulation Do Not Require Scientific Validity: Supreme Court
This subject was recently reviewed by an attorney who prefers to remain anonymous.
We have few scientifically certain criteria of legislation, and as it often is difficult to mark the line where what is called the police power of the states is limited by the Constitution of the United States, judges should be slow to read into the latter a nolumus mutare as against the lawmaking power. Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 104, 110 (1911)
To be able to find fault with a law is not to demonstrate its invalidity. It may seem unjust and oppressive, yet be free from judicial interference. The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations,-illogical, it may be, and unscientific. But even such criticism should not be hastily expressed. What is best is not always discernible; the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned. Mere errors of government are not subject to our judicial review. It is only its palpably arbitrary exercises which can be declared void under the 14 Amendment; and such judgment cannot be pronounced of the ordinance in controversy.Metropolis Theater Co. V. City of Chicago, 228 U.S. 61 (1913)
Although there is no conclusive proof of a connection between antisocial behavior and obscene material, the legislature of Georgia could quite reasonably determine that such a connection does or might exist. In deciding Roth, this Court implicitly accepted that a legislature could legitimately act on such a conclusion to protect "the social interest in order and morality." Roth v. United States, 354 U.S., at 485
We do not demand of legislatures `scientifically certain criteria of legislation. (Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 642 -643 (1968))
But, it is argued, there are no scientific data which conclusively demonstrate that exposure to obscene material adversely affects men and women or their society. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that, absent such a demonstration, any kind of state regulation is "impermissible." We reject this argument. It is not for us to resolve empirical uncertainties underlying state legislation, save in the exceptional case where that legislation plainly impinges upon rights protected by the Constitution itself. (PARIS ADULT THEATRE I v. SLATON, 413 U.S. 49 (1973))
." Although there is no conclusive proof of a connection between antisocial behavior and obscene material, the legislature of Georgia could quite reasonably determine that such a connection does or might exist. In deciding Roth, this Court implicitly accepted that a legislature could legitimately act on such a conclusion to protect "the social interest in order and morality." Roth v. United States, 354 U.S., at 485
These anti-scientific views are obsolete, given our changing values.
Here are counter examples. Rejecting scientific racism as unscientific,
Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. 11 Any language [347 U.S. 483, 495]in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected. [Ref 11 is K. B. Clark, Effect of Prejudice and Discrimination on Personality Development (Midcentury White House Conference on Children and Youth, 1950); Witmer and Kotinsky, Personality in the Making (1952), c. VI; Deutscher and Chein, The Psychological Effects of Enforced Segregation: A Survey of Social Science Opinion, 26 J. Psychol. 259 (1948); Chein, What are the Psychological Effects of [347 U.S. 483, 495] Segregation Under Conditions of Equal Facilities?, 3 Int. J. Opinion and Attitude Res. 229 (1949); Brameld, Educational Costs, in Discrimination and National Welfare (MacIver, ed., (1949), 44-48; Frazier, The Negro in the United States (1949), 674-681. And see generally Myrdal, An American Dilemma (1944).] BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, 727 (M.D. Pa. 2005)
Substantial scientific uncertainties limit our ability to assess each of these factors and to separate out those changes resulting from natural variability from those that are directly the result of increases in anthropogenic GHGs. MASSACHUSETTS ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL. 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
We have few scientifically certain criteria of legislation, and as it often is difficult to mark the line where what is called the police power of the states is limited by the Constitution of the United States, judges should be slow to read into the latter a nolumus mutare as against the lawmaking power. Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 104, 110 (1911)
To be able to find fault with a law is not to demonstrate its invalidity. It may seem unjust and oppressive, yet be free from judicial interference. The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations,-illogical, it may be, and unscientific. But even such criticism should not be hastily expressed. What is best is not always discernible; the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned. Mere errors of government are not subject to our judicial review. It is only its palpably arbitrary exercises which can be declared void under the 14 Amendment; and such judgment cannot be pronounced of the ordinance in controversy.Metropolis Theater Co. V. City of Chicago, 228 U.S. 61 (1913)
Although there is no conclusive proof of a connection between antisocial behavior and obscene material, the legislature of Georgia could quite reasonably determine that such a connection does or might exist. In deciding Roth, this Court implicitly accepted that a legislature could legitimately act on such a conclusion to protect "the social interest in order and morality." Roth v. United States, 354 U.S., at 485
We do not demand of legislatures `scientifically certain criteria of legislation. (Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 642 -643 (1968))
But, it is argued, there are no scientific data which conclusively demonstrate that exposure to obscene material adversely affects men and women or their society. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that, absent such a demonstration, any kind of state regulation is "impermissible." We reject this argument. It is not for us to resolve empirical uncertainties underlying state legislation, save in the exceptional case where that legislation plainly impinges upon rights protected by the Constitution itself. (PARIS ADULT THEATRE I v. SLATON, 413 U.S. 49 (1973))
." Although there is no conclusive proof of a connection between antisocial behavior and obscene material, the legislature of Georgia could quite reasonably determine that such a connection does or might exist. In deciding Roth, this Court implicitly accepted that a legislature could legitimately act on such a conclusion to protect "the social interest in order and morality." Roth v. United States, 354 U.S., at 485
These anti-scientific views are obsolete, given our changing values.
Here are counter examples. Rejecting scientific racism as unscientific,
Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. 11 Any language [347 U.S. 483, 495]in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected. [Ref 11 is K. B. Clark, Effect of Prejudice and Discrimination on Personality Development (Midcentury White House Conference on Children and Youth, 1950); Witmer and Kotinsky, Personality in the Making (1952), c. VI; Deutscher and Chein, The Psychological Effects of Enforced Segregation: A Survey of Social Science Opinion, 26 J. Psychol. 259 (1948); Chein, What are the Psychological Effects of [347 U.S. 483, 495] Segregation Under Conditions of Equal Facilities?, 3 Int. J. Opinion and Attitude Res. 229 (1949); Brameld, Educational Costs, in Discrimination and National Welfare (MacIver, ed., (1949), 44-48; Frazier, The Negro in the United States (1949), 674-681. And see generally Myrdal, An American Dilemma (1944).] BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, 727 (M.D. Pa. 2005)
Substantial scientific uncertainties limit our ability to assess each of these factors and to separate out those changes resulting from natural variability from those that are directly the result of increases in anthropogenic GHGs. MASSACHUSETTS ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL. 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
What Foreseeability is Just to Trigger a Duty?
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 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.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
The Mens Rea Violates the Establishment Clause
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
