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.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Catechism Content of the Common Law in Modern Times
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).
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
It is so unreliable as to violate the procedural due process of the parties to a fair trial.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Similarities Between Law and Medicine
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.
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.
Friday, July 24, 2009
"Dumbass" is a Lawyer Term of Art
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.
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
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.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Paruresis a Disability
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.
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.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Shop for a Legal Malpractice Lawyer
This poor child should be made whole for the damage done by his lawyer's carelessness.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Tactics Never Tried in Medical Malpractice Defense
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.
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.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Juries
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.
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.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Bad Cult Uses Good Tactics Against the IRS
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Lower Health Care Cost by 50% by Getting Rid of the Lawyer, Number One Enemy and Threat to Clinical Care
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Cali Court of Appeals Limits Doctor Liability to Third Parties
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
