Ironic. Women Were Doing Well by Working Hard. Now, ...
The feminist #MeToo movement has made it impossible to hire, or to even talk to a woman without a witness or a recording.
Hire a woman, hire a lawsuit. Talk to a woman, end your career. Women will be shunned by anyone not idiotic or not suicidal. Women can now form their own companies, and get accused by women they never met, as employers.
One notes, the accused were mostly, supercilious, left wing male running dogs of the feminists, doubling the irony.
Elite naval aviators punished. For nothing, sky writing. Not just funny act, but likely required a high level of skill. Should have been commended.
The President should fire the Secretary of the Navy for allowing this sanction. Trump is a NYC liberal. He is a weak leader. He will be re-elected. But, watch out for the guy after Trump, as real Americans remain disappointed by the destruction of our way of life. Feminists are a greater threat to our nation than the Taliban are to Afghanistan.
The Most Effective Way to Neutralize the Mueller Investigation, in One Day
Call for his female or male victims of sexual harassment to all come forward. Time to get rid of that pest. Sue the FBI and the Department of Justice, especially, uber-Harvard Law asshole, Rod Rosenstein, who appointed him.
All government funding, subsidies, and grants should be stopped to our colleges. The government should not be funding treason indoctrination camps of the Democratic Party. With 90% of faculty belonging to the Democratic Party, the nation should not be subsidizing its own destruction.
In the case of law school education, such loans and grants actually fund the radicalization of intelligent students into a criminal cult enterprise. It must be crushed, with mass arrests, brief trials and summary executions of its 25,000 strong hierarchy. They have supernatural beliefs. They indoctrinate law students, not educate them. They are producing deniers. For example, they all support judicial review of laws by the Supreme and other appellate courts. Yet, Article I Section 1 grants "all" lawmaking powers to the Congress. If they wish to have judicial review, they should ratify an amendment. The cover up of this facts is 100%.
The voters reject feminist allegations. They have voted for notorious gropers, even if they did not bother to deny the allegations. That is because these allegations, the voters know, are meaningless. If you have any honor, as a woman, you will slap the offensive pig, and leave. Such immediate response is far more effective than a lot of human resources procedure, investigations, reports, and legal advice. These are all ridiculous and ineffective at defending the honor of females. If the guy retaliates at work, send your brother to just beat his ass with a bat, then with the lid of a garbage can. The instructional video is here.
I predict Judge Roy Moore will win his election in Alabama, to the Senate, in 3 weeks. Just the image of employment lawyer, Gloria Alred, on TV is worth 100,000 votes for him. Everyone human detests her and her clients.
If the voters do not care, why do employers rush to fire the person, even before verifying the allegations, even if the allegations are from years ago?
The answer is simple. They could lose the entire business to predatory employment lawyers and appellate court judges. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. That is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional no matter what the dozens of Supreme Court decisions may falsely claim. Their primary purpose is to generate lawyer employment. All discrimination laws are really designed to enrich and empower lawyers. They have always had hideous effects on the classes they were meant to help. All racial disparities in social pathologies soared. Prior to the 1960's, it is hard to believe. Blacks had slightly higher rates of social pathologies, in unemployment, the rate of bastardy, poverty, crime victimization. Thanks, to this law, the rates are now an order of magnitude higher, and no longer just slightly higher.
The law against discrimination against the handicapped devastated their employability. This male witch hunt will make it harder to hire a female. Hire a female, hire a lawsuit. Females were hired because of technology, booming economies, labor shortages, their education and skills, and, of course, their competitive, lower wages.
These anti-discrimination laws all violate the Right to Free Association inherent in the Freedom of Assembly Clause of the First Amendment.
In the case of sexual harassment claims, do people know the harasser is never named in the complaint, only the employer? This is true even if the employer was never informed of the harassment. That practice shows the real nature of these claims, to plunder the funds of productive entities, mostly run by productive males.
Such litigation may also be catastrophic to the successful plaintiff. Say, you win $1 million in a verdict or settlement for sexual harassment. The typical expenses were $400,000. That leaves $600,000. The lawyer may take a third in a contingency fee. That leaves $400,000. The federal and state tax will be on the full $1 million, because there was no physical injury, just discrimination. Your legal costs are not deductible from the taxable settlement. You may have to pay taxes close to $500,000. You may have to borrow $100, 000, to pay federal and state taxes. The IRS legal analysis and guidance is here.
Failing to discuss the tax and employability implications of a discrimination verdict or settlement is lawyer malpractice, in my opinion. It may even rise to the level of fraud, since you go to a lot of trouble, ruin your future, and get nothing. The lawyer gets a lot of your money, making the work fraudulent if not openly and loudly disclosed, and put into writing. You could then sue your employment lawyer by hiring a lawyer malpractice lawyer. He should tell you the tax implications of suing your employment lawyer for malpractice, or you should sue him. Lawyer malpractice claims, you should be warned, are nearly impossible to win. You should not sue unless certain of getting $5 million or more in settlement. Even then, the feminist plaintiff will be shocked at what is actually collected by her for damages.
This is an example of a ridiculous sex discrimination suit. This was over tenure. It could have easily been over the use of the non-preferred, but real world pronoun to address it. The federal court forced this transgender person down the throats of a decent university, using men with guns to impose its tyranny. People should be aware that Title VII has been stretched to justify $250,000 fines for using the non-preferred but real world pronoun of a transgender. Starting in 2018, in California, you may go to prison for a year for each infraction of calling the transgender by the non-preferred pronoun. I like the gender neutral pronoun, it.
Now, hire a gay, a female, a black, a handicapped, hire a lawsuit. They were doing well, before anti-discrimination laws, but suffered after they were enacted. Employment lawyers are doing much better.
Anyone who hates homosexuals, wants to see them suffer unspeakable
agonies, for a long time, will strongly support marriage equality.
only a self defeating fool would get married, especially the productive
male. The legal system is on a jihad to take his assets and to destroy
his life. It is totally rigged against the productive male. So the
marriage rate has markedly dropped, down to 30% in blacks, and 60% in
whites, in the 2010 Census.
Family law lawyers are desperate for
work. They concocted this scheme to get homosexuals to marry. You
homosexuals fell for it. It was never a homosexual idea. It was always a
family lawyer idea.
In countries where it has existed a long time, very few homosexuals, especially productive males, are falling for this trap.
I do not particularly like homosexuals, I still see them as human
beings. So, I do not relish the idea of seeing the spectacle of the
blood bath headed their way in marriage equality. To all my homosexual
friends, I say, "Run, it's a trap."
I feel like the
cryptographer in this Twilight Zone Episode, To Serve Man, who figures
out the real meaning of what the space alien is saying, and is running,
screaming toward the people being loaded onto the space ship. When they
are having you over "for dinner," the earth people are the dinner, not
Of course, veteran status is an aggravating factor.
1) Veterans were
screened. They were superior to the general population. They endured
training requiring great discipline and self control, to go forward in
the face of live fire, not to run away, to coordinate attacks, to plan
ahead, to judge great uncertainty, and to obey inscrutable orders. PTSD
makes people try to avoid conflict, not hurt others.
2) What makes them hurt others are traditional reasons. Alcohol and
caffeine addiction. Antisocial personality. Paranoid and mood disorders
with onset after discharge, the average age being in the 30's and 40's.
3) Because being veteran implies training to hurt people, veterans are
more dangerous than matched non-veterans. They should be incapacitated
more than non-veterans.
4) The above reports, 1 in 12 prisoners are veterans. That validates
veteran status as a protective factor against criminality. 1 in 4 adult
males in the United States are veterans. Because of the screening,
training, treatment, being a vet makes one more likely to be a moral,
upstanding, productive person, and drops the chance of committing a
crime by 2/3.
5) Making this a mitigating factor, is similar in logic to the Leona
Helmsley defense. Juries did not buy it. She evaded $4 million in taxes,
after claiming work on her private home as a business deduction. She
claimed to have paid $400 million in taxes. What is $4 million after
paying 100 times more? Large, past tax payments should mitigate her culpability and
sentencing. Jury did not accept that argument.
6) The idea of veteran status as a mitigating factor is an insult to the sacrifices, and high level of performance of our service members.
Someone mentioned lawyer malpractice coverage. This review is only for entertainment purposes.
In order to get damages from a lawyer for malpractice, one must do the following,
1) show a duty from a client lawyer relationship existed;
2) substantive damages, quantifiable in money, happened;
3) a deviation from professional standards took place, as attested by another lawyer in the same specialty (good luck with this search);
4) the damages directly resulted from the breach of duty and from the deviation from professional standards;
5) and one element never mentioned, no unforeseen, intervening cause took place;
6) overcome trial immunity; where wrongful decisions in a trial
are immunized as part of the immunity of participants in a trial ,
like jurors or judges, and huge mistakes in judgment may not be second
guessed, nor used for liability;
7) once these elements are proven to a high standard of proof, the "trial within a trial" breaks out. You must now retry the original trial where the lawyer client endured a wrong verdict due to the lawyer mistake. You must win this trial this second time around;
8) once you win the "trial within a trial," you must show the original defendant had assets to pay the verdict;
you show the original defendant had assets to pay for damages, you must
show the court in your jurisdiction could have reached them and collected them for you;
10) now you may ask the judge to award compensation from the assets of the lawyer malpractice defendants;
11) then you have to get some sheriff to enforce the judgment;
12) if you get the judgment enforced, and make a $million for damages resulting from lawyer malpractice, you
are taxed on the entire amount, since you did not suffer a physical
injury. After $400,000 in expenses, and a $200,000 lawyer contingency
fee, you may have to borrow, $100,000 to pay $500,000 in taxes.
Hopefully, your lawyer malpractice lawyer disclosed the tax implications
before setting out in this decade long odyssey to get compensation for
lawyer malpractice. I, for one, believe that any lawyer not disclosing
the tax implications of a legal settlement before starting a case has
committed, you guessed it, lawyer malpractice. You can then sue your lawyer malpractice lawyer, by hiring another lawyer malpractice specialist.
1) Algorithms should be written and owned by the legislature.
2) They should change yearly, based on continual feedback from real world experience.
3) They should be subject to continual and unlimited public comment.
4) They should carry tort liability for any deviation from professional standards of due care, although
they totally qualify for strict liability.
5) They should be farmed out to experienced data mining businesses, such as Amazon.
6) They should be validated by household surveys of crime victimization, the gold standard of crime measurement. The surveys should include other crimes than the 8 common law crimes, such as identity theft.
7) All biases, such a left wing values, should be mercilessly excluded, in compliance with Equal Protection rights. End all false mitigation factors, which are really, aggravating factors. Those advocating for groups being privileged by the Democratic Party, the party of lawyer employment, should be forced to accept released felons in the houses surrounding theirs.
8) Machines are 100 times better than living beings. Try communing to work in a car or on a horse, on a snow day. All judges and prosecutors should be replaced by robots running algorithms. Equal treatment and less extreme stupidity of decisions would be the benefits.
Conditions and drug responses run in families, so interview of the
family is important. The patient may know less about relatives than his
parents. We need symptoms of relatives, medication responses, good and
bad, and actually specific doses being used
in relatives. One may also predict the future course of the patient's
condition from the past of the relatives. Families could help by looking
into these questions, and coming to the intake with that information
2) in no way am I against guns. I am against guns laying around with
impulsive people who have dark thoughts. The best is removal to the
homes of friends, and picking them up to hunt or shoot targets. Second
best are metal safes in the home. I am not even opposed
to the patient's use of arms. But someone should make a judgement about
the mental state before handing over a weapon for sport. One of my
patients committed suicide with his own gun. I demanded an investigation
as to how he was allowed to legally possess a
pistol after multiple hospitalizations for suicide attempts. The Berks
Coroner has not responded, but that is a system problem. The family is
the last chance to stop that system problem;
3) eyesight supervision, nothing beats that to prevent physical damage.
We know that over 16% of depressed and manic patients will die by
suicide. What is less known is that 10% of the murders around the world
are committed by paranoid schizophrenics. That
is 100,000 totally unnecessary and preventable murders a year. In the
greatest achievement in psychiatry of the 20th Century, not the
psychiatrists, but the prison wardens of the US dropped the prison
suicide rate by close to 80% with no additional cost, staff,
program, treatment. Robin Williams was rich, and got fancy treatment
for depression. He hanged himself, in his bedroom. Had a non-English
speaking maid who knew nothing about anything except cleaning been
sitting in his bedroom, he would be alive today. She
would not even need to speak English, just have eyesight. She would try
to stop him, and if she could not, she would get help to stop his
4) the law should be changed to support the physical control and
commitment of people in brain failure by families, the people who know
them best and care most about them. It is quite different for an addict
to go out again, to score, or for an untreated schizophrenic
to defend himself against imaginary threats by a rampage killing, than
for a cancer patient to decline further treatment. In the case of
psychiatry, the organ making decisions, the brain, has failed. I
encourage families to storm the legislatures to change
commitment laws to ones based on need and on safety, rather than based
of loss of legal rights only after physical injury has taken place, and
requiring the hiring of three lawyers for a full trial. If you liked the
Sandy Hook School massacre, thank the Supreme
Court. All rampage killings are 100% the fault of the Supreme Court
interfering in a technical subject, psychiatry, that they know nothing
about. The mother of the attacker at Sandy Hook had tried to get
involuntary treatment for her son for a year, and was
stymied by the legal system;
5) no medication or therapy will work, ever, zero chance, if the patient
lives with a person with inadequately treated and ongoing criminality,
addiction, or mental symptoms, such as depression. Family members who
want success in the management of a loved one must get better
themselves. There are few formulas with 100% certainty in medicine. This
is one of them, with the cretainty of a law of physics. The duty of the
family member to get successfully treated, before
the patient will improve. Multiply this effect by ten if the patient is
a child under 14. The undesirable alternative is the removal of
the patient from that home.
The most crucial take away message for families, today? Eyesight supervision.
Yes. Here. But, less in the way, the lawyer thinks.
Health care can reduce crime. Mental illness makes people poor by
disabling them. They are dependent on government insurance. This
insurance is totally Draconian in denying access to care. They have a
relentless campaign to make access more difficult. Paper work, second
guessing and cancellation of medical orders, harassment of doctors by
regulatory reviews and prosecutions, marked under-funding despite the
highest returns on investment (ROI) of any human activity, including
crime. The ROI on crime is typically 200%. On health care it is 10,000%,
especially if the patient returns to being a tax payer.
These obstructions are subject to undue burden analysis, and should
be found unconstitutional. Organized medicine, run by Ivy indoctrinated
leaders, just rolls over, and is not defending clinical care. To
understand better, think of the ABA. Worthless to lawyers and to
clients. AMA. Worthless to doctors and to patients.
Here are the opportunities. Only a small fraction of people with
these conditions are treated because getting into treatment is nearly
impossible, thanks to rules written by lawyers. Raising the fraction of
treated people would markedly impact crime rates.
1. ADHD. It is found in about 5% of the population, more in males. It
is found in at least a third of people in prison. One feature is
impulsivity. So all crimes involving impulsive acts would be decreased.
Beyond impulsive crimes are all other intentional crimes, stealing,
lying, batteries, rapes. A treated person with ADHD is better able to
calculate the consequences of getting caught, or even the feelings of
victims, and may decide to not commit these intentional crimes. Treated
patients have stopped stealing and lying.
2. Around the world, 10% of murders are committed by very sick,
untreated people with paranoid schizophrenia. Part of the disorder is to
not believe one has something wrong, to be perplexed why anyone would
propose taking medications, including the family. The family, by
proximity, is at the highest risk of murder. Almost all rampage murders
have been committed by high functioning, but untreated paranoid
schizophrenics. The Supreme Court took over psychiatry in 1976, and
ended treatment for necessity. It imposed a hearing, hiring 3 lawyers,
to prosecute, to defend, and to judge. It imposed a really stupid
requirement of a physically dangerous act before one could even have a
hearing, then limits on the time of involuntary commitment. It gutted
the threat of incarceration in mental hospitals. No real abuses had been
committed by clinicians. The rare ones carried Draconian punishments
for clinicians acting in bad faith. The Congress should reverse this
highly lethal decision, that killed hundreds of thousands of people by
suicide and by murder since 1976. We should return to involuntary
treatments by medical necessity. Exclude any decision making by
lawyers. They do not know anything about the subject of mental health.
3. Technology is available to reduce the sex drives of highly driven
sex offenders to levels where they can exercise better judgement.
4. Most psychiatric medications are 100 times safer than all over the
counter medications, today. They should all be over the counter so
patients may try to start their treatments without undergoing the highly
obstructed gauntlet of getting into mental health care. Imagine
pulmonary care. Should you see a specialist for a cold? You would crush
the system, and deprive people on respirators that need their level of
skill. The common cold of psychiatry is trauma, being millions per year.
Today, traumatized soldiers get anti-depressants at the battle field to
prevent trauma from getting burned into the brain. You do not need a
psychiatrist to address shyness, fidgeting, premature ejaculation, or
excessive worrying. Just go to the pharmacy, as if you had a cough.
5. Close the FDA. Replace it with data showing effectiveness of a
substance from anywhere in the world and with clinician and patient
ratings of experience with the substance or device. There are
non-stimulant, effective treatments for ADHD, a major force in
criminality. They are totally non-addictive. Government insurance will
not pay of over the counter medications, but the generics are cheap.
Allow competition by foreign suppliers on the internet to keep prices
low. People selling impure drugs should be prosecuted for fraud, and
imprisoned. Then they should be sued for any damage, including the loss
of opportunity to improve. The prisoner who took a bad drug, and
committed a crime because of impulsivity should be granted standing.
6. Even more common than trauma is anger mood disorder. Anger is a
huge factor in crime. There are now very good medications for anger.
Make them available in small doses over the counter. They will work on
the otherwise normal person. End all anger crimes.
7. Lastly, addicts commit 175 crimes a year to fund their addictions.
Technologies are available to increase recovery to about 50%, up from
5%. The most important addiction is alcoholism. Half the murderers, half
the murder victims, half the suicides, are legally drunk.
We need an antonym for rent seeking. This is an effect where
government funding results in unbelievable ROI's. That 10,000% ROI is
for the client's return to function. It does not include collateral
benefits, productivity jumps, soaring of property values in high crime
areas, drops in trauma care cost, a more productive, less hopeless
culture and atmosphere, the end of disruption of work and education for
The benefit would not be an imperceptible 5% or a $400 million return
on a $70 billion investment. It would be 50%, and $trillions returned
to the economy.
To My Law Professor Friends Who have Reached the Subject of Homicide in your Criminal Law Class
You can help this nation and thousands of future murder victims, by
becoming the first Criminal Law teacher to disclose the following.
1) One must read the mental state of a murderer, when the murderer
had a 50% chance of being legally drunk. The murderer may have had a
memory blackout of the crime. You will be reading the mind of someone
who cannot report his own state of mind;
2) the state of mind is dispositive. A hunter who shoots another
thinking him a deer goes home. A hunter who shoots another because the
other's wife paid him $10,000 will get the death penalty. Same act, same
result. Yet, the drunken, careless hunter may be far more dangerous
than the contract murderer, after hitting a school bus going the wrong
way on a road;
3) this intent came, word for word, from here, the Catechism,
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met:
"Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also
committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."
A mortal sin is a violation of the Ten Commandments. To the credit of
the Medieval Catholic Church, it was their faith, God would judge
intent after death. It never claimed, men could judge intent. Catechism
and Ten Commandments doctrines are a no-no in our our secular nation's
4) because death was the sole penalty, even for minor violations, a
loophole was needed in 1275 AD, but not today. Intent is not longer
needed as a loophole;
5) the executive branch should investigate the background of the
defendant, and sort the dangerous from the careless and not dangerous.
The sentencing authority should be held accountable for mistakes that
cause damage to future victims of crime, in accordance with professional
standards of due care. These standards do not involve predicting the
future, but counting the past behaviors;
6) the solution rate of murder is inversely proportional to the rate of murder, 60% in the US, 30% in Chicago, 0% in Honduras;
7) it is inversely proportional to the ratio of lawyers to
population, Japan has 20,000 lawyers for 100 million, and close to no
8) those blaming lax gun regulation must account for the low rates of murder in Israel and in Switzerland;
9) the five fold rate of murder of blacks, or an excess of 5000 a
year, is the same as it took the genocidal maniac Klan to lynch over 100
years. The Klan was the terror arm of the Democratic Party. The high
murder rates are mostly located in jurisdictions with elected Democratic
10) around the world, 10% of the murders are committed by paranoid
schizophrenics, as are most rampage murders. All are preventable with
forced treatment, including long term injected medication that cannot be
refused by the patient. The Supreme Court ended the decision making of
clinicians. It is totally responsible for 10% of the murders of the last
40 years. And, with that idea, we return to the tragedy of Vegas.
Some Real Revolutions in Psychiatry, with no New Technologies
Revolution? No. This is a silly article. Syphilis was the No.1 cause for mental hospitalization in the first half of the 20th Century. Then, penicillin was discovered and ended it. Microbial origins of mental illness is old news.
Needles and nasal sprays are not revolutionary, but, again, old news.
Computer implants? This is bullshit.
Here are some revolutions in mental health.
With no new technology.
1) Abolish all face to face encounters. Abolish all buildings. Abolish all records save video recordings of telemedicine. This will slash over head. It will end the maldistribution problem and the shortage problem. Algorithms can do the initial evaluations and screenings. Here is the really revolutionary part: pass the savings on to the public. All medical licenses are converted to a single national license, so psychiatrists may see patients from anywhere in the nation, and send scripts to any local pharmacy;
2) all mental health medications with safety margins and low addiction potentials go over the counter, so the majority of patients treat themselves. Package inserts are restricted to the sixth grade reading level;
3) there is no shortage of psychiatrists, there is a shortage of psychiatric time. Half is now being consumed by regulatory quackery, and paper work with no benefit for patients. Prosecute insurance companies, and retrieve the $trillion they have stolen in doctor time, enjoin state government from any additional regulation without extensive scientific evidence of a benefit for outcomes;
4) because of the immunities of insurance companies in ERISA and of the states in the Eleventh Amendment and subsequent Supreme Court decisions, violence against insurance and state officials have full support in formal logic. Formal logic has no uncertainty, and no exceptions. It is more final than the laws of physics. If tort and criminal liabilities are a substitute for violence, then immunities fully justify violence. The contra-positive of a true assertion is always true in formal logic. Hunt insurance and regulatory officials. Beat their asses. If they fail to learn, kill them. This is the violent arm of the revolution. Families of victims of denial of treatment who committed suicide may take the lead on this one.
5) identify the genetic basis of psychiatric symptoms, not syndromes. Those syndromes are bullshit, 19th Century superstitions. Then make CRISPR/cas 9 kits to change them in patients, and in all their offspring. Charge $150 for each kit, as is being done today.
What is the Opposite of the Presidential Bully Pulpit?
We need it, whatever name that has. I think Trump should become quieter. Use the opposite of the bully pulpit, the stealthy viper approach (?). For example,
1) send a quiet policy memo to military brass to get rid of disruptive homosexuals from the military;
2) stop or markedly slow the arrival of federal checks to sanctuary cities, not just federal funding, but Social Security checks, loan subsidies, housing subsidies, procedurally stymie any litigation for decades;
3) do the same for checks to states of disloyal or slow moving Republican legislators;
4) (my personal favorite) prohibit federal marshals from enforcing court decisions that are an abomination or in insurrection against the constitution. All judicial review is prohibited by Article I Section 1 giving law making power to the Congress, and not supported in any way by Article III Marshals are executive branch employees. If any tries to act against orders, fire them. If they sue, refuse to enforce any settlement;
5) start investigating federal judges for the 3 federal felonies every adult in the nation commits a day (lend me your laptop for an hour, I will come up with years in prison and $millions in fines, on the copyright infringements alone, never mind the embedded child porn, or the shady content of the emails).
Punishment is a major factor in the treatment of addiction. Addiction
is defined by continued use, in the face of punishment (loss of
freedom, health, family, money). Therefore a greater dose of punishment
is needed to help addicts.
1) People with something to lose have a higher chance of recovery,
doctors, admirals, CEO's vs janitors, convicted felons, prostitutes;
2) the punishment of alcohol use and the forbearance of opiate use in
Vietnam resulted in the 15% addiction rate to opiate among soldiers,
and less alcohol use. Upon return to the US, with no punishment of
alcohol use, and punishment of opiate use, the rate of opiate addiction
in the returning vets dropped to the expected 1%. The remaining US
addicts had features similar to the addict population of the US, and
were more deviant than the addicts who stopped;
3) Prohibition of alcohol dropped alcohol use only 50%, its having no
popular support. Yet, the benefits were great if under reported, drops
in crime (except, of course, for bootlegging), drops in crashes,
economic boom times, drops in the rates of death from cirrhosis, which
is a reliable indicator of the rates of alcoholism (only 10% of
alcoholics die of it, but it is a statistical indicator);
4) severe punishments end all addiction, in Saudi Arabia, Singapore,
the old Communist China. Zero addiction. These have extreme cost benefit
ratios. Yes, shoot an addict, but save the lives of a hundred who do
not become addicted;
5) the threat of punishment after death also is
effective, from religion. Drink, go to hell, if Muslim, Mormon,
Methodist. Low rates of alcoholism, and the prevention of all its
So harsh sentencing is effective, contrary to the false propaganda of
the lawyer. I am going to translate here, "evidence based." That means
rent seeking, make work jobs for registered members of the Democratic
Party. "Evidence based" is a form of quackery.
Once you have large pictures of bereaved survivors, we know we are in propaganda territory.
It is to use a rare flaw to condemn the entire activity. The Small
Imperfection Bias. My conclusion is that we should stop all driving until
crashes are ended. Driving was the proximate cause of the fatalities, not legalization of marijuana.
It fails to state confounding factors, such as an
increase in driving from the economic recovery, the aggressive
personalities of the crash victims, increased by the decarceration
trend, increases in population, decline of roads conditions. It
fails to provide balancing benefits. It is a form of false propaganda,
Celebrex, a pain medicine raised the low rate of heart attacks by 4
times, and was pulled off the market by its company, for fear of
litigation. The FDA did not even ask it be pulled off the market. It
just issued a Black Box Warning. The care of millions of people with
pain and arthritis was disrupted. The protective effect of Celebrex to
prevent colon cancer was stopped. It was replaced by alternatives with
high rates of stomach bleeding. The FDA even asked that it be returned
to the market.
This bias is commonly used by advocates, attacking flaws that are rare and marginal.
The Opiate Overdose Death Epidemic. Unintended Consequence of the Ferguson Effect?
The war on drugs can be won, as it is in Singapore, or in Saudi Arabia, and now in the Philippines.
One potential reason for the opiate overdose death epidemic, no one is mentioning, but is highly coincidental? The Ferguson Effect.
Officials, such as Rod Rosenstein, may not be just responsible for the surge in murders in Baltimore. He imposed a draconian consent decree on the Baltimore police. That surge is killing hundreds of additional black murder victims. The consent decree may have deterred police around the country in a social learning effect. It may be responsible for killing 35,000 additional opiate addicts a year, as the police backs away from enforcement of drug laws.
Question. Will they include the fact that, upon stepping foot on French soil, Sally Hemmings and her entire family, 6 children, brother, and all other slaves, became free people. Jefferson sent one slave, James Hemings, to French cooking school. He became a French wine expert. The children learned French.
Jefferson was sent to France as ambassador (1784-1789), to get rid of him during the Constitutional Convention, to be run by James Madison, a Republican.
After his 5 year term, Jefferson returned home. Every single one of his slaves also returned. All preferred American slavery to French freedom.
Brazen display of shocking lawyer profession stupidity. This
incredible stupidity is well known. More shocking is the stupidity of
the people here whose intellect has not been decimated by a legal
1) A listening device is placed in a cell. It records the voluntary
statements of a mass murderer. These statements are made under
circumstances promoting candor, rather than the really stupid lawyer
procedure that promotes the cover up. Not only is this really stupid
lawyer procedure inducing a cover up, it implants false memories. So,
25% of exonerated people confessed to murders they had not committed by
the incredibly stupid agents of the incredibly stupid prosecutor, the
pigs. So, obtaining the reliable statement of the truth is a form of
2)there is no mention that the information skewed, or distorted any
aspect of the verdict or of the sentencing process. So, this is
misconduct that caused no harm, no reversible error, no effect on
validity of any outcome;
3) what is the remedy by this incredibly stupid judge? He privileges a
mass murderer, to punish a prosecutor who is completely unaffected,
personally. But, the future victims of this mass murderers will pay the
price instead. The judge fails to understand the Prince and the Pauper
Effect that is the exclusionary rule. The Prince has been a bad boy. The
Pauper is spanked. How does that improve the conduct of the Prince? I
do not understand this incredibly stupid rule. If the evidence was
obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, punish the police, and
the prosecutor, who is their master. Charge legal costs to their
personal assets. Throw the police and the prosecutor in jail. Have them
lashed and caned. But do not punish the future victims of the criminal
they are loosing on the public, or in the general population of the
4) as to the exclusionary rule, it embraces the Prince and the Pauper Effect. Prince is a bad boy, so
spank the pauper, to teach the Prince a lesson, and to improve the
Prince's future behavior. The whipping boy doctrine does not just violate the Fifth
Amendment procedural (real) due process, behavioral principles, all
common sense, but also the Establishment Clause. It was based on the
idea that the monarch spoke with the voice of God (a delusional and
psychotic doctrine), and had immunity based on his Divine Right. Students in Life Skills would disagree. If asked, who
should get spanked, they would point with their spoons at the Prince if
it were he that had been a bad boy.
This incredibly stupid judge must be impeached. Statutes should
reverse all use of the exclusionary laws, and replace them with direct
punishment of the offending police and prosecutors.
PA Supreme Court mandated attendings must obtain informed
consent. That decision is regulatory quackery designed to deny access to
care. It violates the constitution by placing an undue burden. This
phrase was used to strike down laws restricting abortion times many in
US Supreme Court decisions. It is undue because it has no effect on
treatment outcomes. All regulation should be proven safe and effective
or it is regulatory quackery, an intentional taking by government, and a
type of fraud if one understands the Rent Seeking Theory, theft.
Medicaid abuse is defined as the payment for a procedure that is not
necessary. The PA Supreme Court should mandate an additional payment to
doctors for its decision, and then get arrested for suborning Medicaid
fraud. If they refuse to mandate an additional payment, I demand they
mow my lawn for free.
Here are the problems with informed consent:
There is no informed consent. Give a 3 hour lecture on a treatment.
Test the patient 15 minutes later, they know nothing about it, nor do
most want to. Most just want the problem to go away;
and guardians have a duty to Google, with the internet available to
100% of the population, along with chats by patients receiving the
treatment, including disgruntled ones;
3) patients are not
qualified to decide the specifics of treatment; I do not want to know
anything about piloting a plane. I just want to get to Chicago. Nor do I
wish to learn anything about the disgusting management of plumbing, I
just want the toilet to flow again, and to stop flooding the bathroom;
there is no informed consent because the patient has a gun to the head
consisting of extreme motivation by pain, the threat of death, the loss
of normal function from the disorder;
5) the sole informed
consent is the question of the patient to the doctor, what would you do
personally in this situation? That is the sole real question, that
actually is beneficial. The answers can be shocking. For example, the
answer from many cancer specialists is not what they tell patients,
radiation, chemo, surgery. It is, I would go home, play with
False Allegations by Feminists and by Their Male Running Dogs
I made a point that to prevent getting raped, women should avoid high risk situations, for example the vicinity of criminals and of alcoholics. It was in the context of a movie about the large fraction of Native American females who were raped. I pointed out the three fold higher rate of alcoholism in their males.
As a result, dozens of feminists, and dozens of their male running dogs accused me of being a rapist, and a pedophile. The fraction of false allegations in that instance was 100%. If the rate of false allegations against a stranger the feminist has never met is 100%, and who has done nothing to them, what is it if they hold a grudge against a guy? For example, they made him feel terrible, and he wants nothing to do with them. They are angry and frustrated by his rejection, and now they make an allegation of rape or of sexual abuse.
Nor, am I committing an Exception Fallacy, attributing a feature found in a few. The allegations were by the dozens, and even by the majority of the commentators.
All allegations of sexual abuse, assault or harassment should be screened with a polygraph examination, prior to the start of an expensive and time consuming investigation. If a false allegation is made to a government official, that is a crime. It should be prosecuted. There should be a mandatory sentence like that of Martha Stewart for lying about getting a phone call warning her to sell her shares. She made that statement to the FBI, in an informal conversation, in her living room, not under oath. She was sentenced to 5 months in prison, 5 months house arrest, and 2 years of probation, not for insider trading, but for her false statement to a government official about a phone call.
The accusation of a sexual assault is far more damaging, and the punishment should be proportional to the damages to the defendant. If a school or an employer believes the false allegation, and launches a false investigation, then they should be sued for all legal costs, including any trial costs,
for damages to the reputation of the defendant, and for his mental distress. If they are biased, or had knowledge, or should have known, exemplary damages, usually triple, are legally justified. To deter.
10. A sense of entitlement. This is the expectation of getting a benefit without earning it.
9. Using sex to increase economic advantage.
8. Bitchsplaining, or talking too much about subjects of no interest or importance, interrupting more knowledgeable and able males.
7. White Supremacy. From the very beginning, feminism has always been a racist ideology. The phrase, reproductive rights, is feminist lawyer code for decreasing the fecundity of women with dark skins. Feminism is to today what the KKK was to 100 years ago. Politically
correct. Adhered to by 100% of lawyers. Doctrines imposed by force.
Full legal immunity for crimes committed in public. It took the KKK 100 years to lynch 5000 blacks. Today, an excess of 5000
black males is murdered every year. The feminist lawyer, protecting its
client, the criminal, is 100 times more lethal to young black males
than the KKK.
6. Anti-patriarchal family, and all its aspects, including the raising of children by a heterosexual couple.
5. Support of ever bigger, more intrusive, socialist, and tyrannical government.They will use the appellate courts to impose tyranny on the public that the legislature cannot achieve.
4. Support for radical Islamists. They are the most patriarchal sect of any group. This support is inexplicable, unless one understands, they too hate our way of life, and want Western Civilization abolished.
3. They are adamant about continuing the American holocaust of abortion. Black fetuses are over represented in this enterprise. See #7, again.
2.Feminism makes people unemployable. Hire a feminist, hire a lawsuit. Employers will be investigated by multiple regulatory agencies for discrimination for an off color sexual joke. Then, they will be sued by the feminist. They will have to fire highly productive male employees. They will pay defense lawyers outrageous sums, even to reach summary dismissal.
1. False accusations. Because the feminist lawyer dominated legal system is totally biased against males, feminist people use false accusations, to devastating effect on innocent males. Most accusations against males that are acquaintances, of abuse, of assault, of threats, of rape, are false. Because of the conflict of interest, and the advantage coming to the female, all such accusations should be screened with polygraph examination. All false allegations should earn what Martha Stewart got for lying to the FBI about not receiving a phone call, in an informal conversation in her home: 5 months of prison, 5 months of house arrest and 2 years of probation.
Man is disputing child support in Houston, TX, because he is not the biological father. The mother lied to the court, in the past. She should be arrested and put in prison for lying to a government official, and even for perjury.
In Pennsylvania, the court would say, we know, he is not the biological father. The father is the person who takes care of a child. Do not change a girlfriend's child's diaper in Pennsylvania. That kindness could cost a male the child support needed until college graduation, for that child and for all the spawn of the hussy. If you see a child with a girlfriend, run as fast as possible, block her, and refuse all contract.
The feminist dominated legal system of Pennsylvania makes all family formation financial suicide.
I have argued that the nation is totally oppressed by the criminal Cult enterprise that is the lawyer profession. The hierarchy of this criminal gang must be arrested, tried for insurrection against the constitution, and executed, if the nation is to be saved.
I have agued that lawyers are doubly oppressed compared to the public, and that judges are triply oppressed. The correct response would have been to send the judge a bill for the real cost of the card holders. That $30 price is false. More like $5 is correct.
Me: CRISPR/cas9 technology must make us more creative.
Creative means, invention cannot be predicted. So, far, all AI is programmed, and it is like any machine. Yes, 100 times better than a living being, but will not find relativity without data, or write a music like Mozart at age 6, or change the business as the Beatles did. Yes, the car is 100 times better than a horse. Yes, Google super computer beat the best Go player, with a billion possibilities at each move. But it did so by crunching all the moves ahead in brute force calculation. That is is like the end of ditch digging, and good riddance to ditch digging. I do not see the threat if everyone becomes talented and creative by genetic enhancement.
Stuttering asshole Musk should stop wasting time with governor jerks. He needs to return to work, and to deliver on the $billions he borrowed and that people invested, on his promised cheap electric cars and home batteries.
"Christine" and Facial Recognition = Perfect Murder
That was a horror movie. A car named "Christine" killed people that offended it. It could not be stopped, not even by a crusher, at the end.
If a car can drive itself, can it become a victim specific instrument of murder? Can it find the victim by a wifi search of his cell phone? Then, can it pick out a victim in a crowd through coming ubiquitous facial recognition software?
Can a driverless car belonging to a stranger be hacked, and programmed to kill a specific person, with cloaking techniques hiding the identity of the murderer?
1) Animal cruelty is a hallmark trait of antisocial personality. What happens if an animal frustrates one of the prisoners?
2) Professional dogs such as seeing eye dogs, and bomb, cadaver, or
drug sniffing dogs are worth $10,000. They can also be trained to detect
bed bugs, cancer, pending death. Does this program allow for high value
training? If it does, do any of the high prices paid go back to the
3) Is anyone afraid a prisoner will secretly train a dog to kill the police or guards?
4) It is well known dogs are racist. If a dog rejects a black prisoner, will this dog be sanctioned by being expelled?
5) I am sorry. Forget $10,000. "the TSA pays $218,000 in startup
training costs for explosive sniffing dogs and then pays $158,000 each
year after that. This money covers the salary of the dog handler, the
dog’s food, veterinary costs, kenneling, training, and certification."
Add this job to the list of missed opportunities by Prisoner Industries.
I am sick of those dummies.
Not quite there yet, but will be there soon. The functional brain
scans of pedophiles, likely in response to erotic images, are different.
Get ready, not only for mitigation, but for their demands for
privileges, such as handicapped parking, Medicaid coverage as disabled
people. Employers will have to make reasonable accommodations. And, an
appellate court will uphold charges of sex discrimination if you make a
negative remark about the "pervs that rape and kill little kids." The
employer will have to pay the pedophile $million for sex discrimination.
As to pedophiles having sex with child sex robots, that should protect the millions of real children now being kidnapped, victimized and murdered by pedophiles. The politically correct academics do not understand that.
the left wing, big government, redistributionist propaganda. However,
this study is important. Environment can alter dopamine levels in both
Michael Nader at
the Wake Forest School of Medicine showed this in a study of monkeys
and cocaine. When monkeys are moved from an individual cage and housed
in a group, some become dominant and others assume a submissive role.
For those that become dominant — meaning they get more attention, more
grooming and more access to food and treats — this is a positive change.
They now have more D2 dopamine receptors and are less interested in
self-administering cocaine. But for submissive animals, the group
setting is a stressful change, and they respond by increasing their use
Strikingly, the effect of environment is easily
reversible: Stress the dominant monkey by returning it to a solo cage
and its D2 receptors will drop — and its taste for cocaine will
increase. In other words, simply by changing the environment, you can
increase or decrease the likelihood of an animal becoming a drug addict.
The challenge is to translate this effect into treatment tactics for addiction rehab.
Letter to the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Demanding an End to Restrictions on Prescriptions of Stimulants to Children with ADHD
DEA Diversion Control Division
Attn: Liaison and Policy Section
8701 Morrissette Drive
Springfield, VA 22152
RE: Prescribing of Stimulants in Children
Dear Madam or Sir,
I am requesting a waiver from your rules and oversight for doctors with child psychiatry training, for pediatricians, and for family doctors prescribing stimulants to children with attention deficit disorder, some with hyperactivity (ADHD), some without it (ADD). These rules include the prohibition of refills, the filling of scripts within days of their date, the limiting of post dated prescriptions to a total of three, oppressive tracking of prescribers, disruptive harassment of legitimate prescribers.
Your statutory purpose is to reduce addiction in the United States. In the case of children and adolescents on stimulants, the majority must be forced to take them. Most resist doing so to avoid getting slowed down. Untreated ADHD is as silly, goofy, disruptive as any intoxication you care to name. They do not want to come down off this innate “high.”
This resistance to taking stimulants is despite tremendous resulting success, the ending of harassment for impulsive behavior, winning academic and conduct awards, the pressure of their families. The majority also have concomitant oppositional defiant disorder, where they engage in pointless opposition to adult instruction for no advantage to them. It comes as a package with ADHD.
This reaction and their features are the polar opposite of addiction. Your restrictions on these prescribers represent regulatory quackery. They violate the American with Disabilities Act Amendment, now covering mental conditions. They are against good policy by restricting access to care. They are cruel and stupid. Let me know your decision and any analysis by your legal counsel. If you decline this request, I will sue you in federal court for the above violations of law and of policy.
This family is just a very hostile family. The judge is indulging their hatred. They are to sue 80 parents who signed a petition opposing this child's denial of reality. This judge is using the power of the state to impose his sciko feelings on an entire community. This sicko judge should be removed by the employer or get driven from the state.
immigrants have pitch black skins. They totally rebut all accusations
of racism. They did as well as whites in the 2010 Census. They have
employers chasing after them because they are great workers. They have
American black women chasing after them
because they are thin, good looking, moral, and speak the King's
English. Real Africans are the new Koreans. Possible explanations? 1)
intact patriarchal families; 2) religious faith; 3) love of this
country, and no entitled attitude.
Our blacks are
not even black. Their DNA is likely to come from the British Isles.
Their awful behavior is best explained as stemming from their being
white trash, criminals and alcoholics expelled by the Crown to the
colonies. If any race whore like the above historian, makes any type of
entitled demand, demand a swab of his cheek.
most successful example? Barack Obama, offspring of an African. Had zero
in common with American South blacks. Fits the above description.
The Rules of Conduct should add a fiduciary duty to the list of prosecutor special duties. The prosecution and the plea should not be motivated by personal advantage.
Do not spend $2 million prosecuting Martha Stewart on a $40,000 insider trading beef and on lying to the FBI in an informal conversation in her home, in order to get your name in the papers. That prosecutor should have lost his law license.
End all prosecutorial tort immunities, or failing to pass a constitutional amendment, force all prosecutors to waive their immunity if they want to keep their jobs in the executive branch. Tort liability would allow the specialty to police itself through standard of professional due care analyses by the courts. Let them all carry liability insurance as everyone else does.
Prosecutors should also be liable for discretion errors resulting in damage to crime victims, again in accordance to professional standards.
The carelessness of prosecutors fully qualifies for strict liability. But, they are so bad, such a standard would end prosecutions and bankrupt government. They fail to prosecute 95% of serious crime. When they have a guy, 20% of the time they have the wrong guy. That is also true in $million budget, death penalty cases. Worse, they have forced the wrong guy to accept a plea deal. In the case of the $million budget death penalty case, they get the wrong guy to confess to the murder in 25% of exonerated cases. They fed him details of the crime only the murderer would know.
Prosecutors have to be the most failed group of specialists in the entire nation. Maybe, public defenders have a worst record. Those are totally useless.
For 1000 years of jurisprudence, the intentional act of the suicide victim broke the chain of causation of the suicide by any other party. That changed after a ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court in the 1980's.
After suicide, people want to scapegoat others, whether girlfriends on line, or treating doctors. I oppose all suicide tort litigation, and certainly criminal charges. The sole exception is a physician who physically assists a patient to kill himself, in a state where physician assisted suicide is prohibited, handing a person a gun, injecting the person with a poison, pushing them off a roof.
As with other catastrophes, multiple factors operate, and most are not under the control of the defendant. The most powerful is mental illnesses, most of which are familial. The second most powerful factor is intoxication, especially by alcohol. Then comes family relationships. I would have gone after the family as a major factor.
As to the judge's, "...Miss Carter took no actions … She called no one...," I have a Massachusetts byline, not a Vermont byline. To my knowledge, there is no duty to rescue in that state.
So the defendant is being scapegoated for major factors not under her control, in violation of Fifth Amendment procedural due process right to a fair hearing.
In addition, she is being subjected to outcome bias, another violation of her due process right. The failure to raise this argument should be lawyer malpractice because it is ubiquitous.
I am not going to invent a duty. However, here is a potential one.
In the greatest achievement in psychiatry of the 20th Century that no one knows about, not even psychiatrists, the prisons of the United States dropped their suicide rate by 80%, at no expense, with no new staffing, no programs, no treatment. It was not done by psychiatrists, but by prison wardens. Eyesight supervision. Period.
This victim tried to off himself several times. His brain was not working right. His family had a duty to maintain eyesight supervision. Instead he was alone. He drove a truck. he found access to an engine. This is a ridiculous fuck up by the family. His psychiatrists should have informed them of this sole tactic to prevent suicide. His psychiatrist should have placed him on a major tranquilizer for his false belief that death would solve his problems. Once his depression had been more adequately treated, more aggressively treated, there is a 100% chance, with no known exception in history, that he would be glad he had not killed himself.
So the multi-factorial analysis to catastrophes applies to suicide as well.
Imagine dropping the national suicide number of 35000 people by 80% at no additional cost. Stop the bullshit of hotline, and talking. Stop the stupid hand wringing by toxic left wing assholes.
I do not want to diverge here into the aggressive and proper management of suicide, except to say, the wardens of the prisons of the United States discovered it, and it costs nothing. It should be a standard of due care for professionals and for the families of the suicidal.
Message to Medical Legal Committee of County Medical Society
1) There is not a shortage of doctors. There is an intentional shortage of doctor time consumed by insurance procedure in the greatest scam in history worth $trillion, to prevent doctors from seeing more patients. Organized medicine is doing nothing about it. The legal concept is undue burden on people with disabilities.
2) Prepayment should be declared unethical. When I refer patients to PCP's, they are rudely treated and denied basic care. If the patients say, I am not coming back, the doctors are glad. That implies that more visits cost money rather than make money. Professionalism cannot withstand the need to survive on very low pre-payments. The incentive in prepayment is to deny care, not to provide care. This results in massive denial of care to very sick people.
3) Disparate impact is now evidence of racial discrimination, according to a Supreme Court housing case. Medicaid tactics impact minorities disproportionately. Therefore, denial of care should now be considered racial discrimination.
Two opposing Harvard Law grads agree. They should have final say in government rule of law.
Here are some problems with this nice agreement between a conservative Justice and a liberal Justice.
1) Lawyers are the stupidest group of people in the country. Any native intelligence they start with is beaten out of them by the cult indoctrination they undergo to join the profession. They have supernatural beliefs, and their methods were developed in the 13th Century, by monks. They are carrying out the business model of the Inquisition, down to every detail;
2) Among lawyers, Harvard Law grads are absolutely the stupidest of all;
3) They are so stupid, they think they are the smartest people in our country. They feel they can set policy for highly technical and complicated subject from shipping to health;
4) For example, they did not read the very plain English of Article I Section 1 of the constitution. It gives law making power to the Congress; it therefore prohibits judicial review, which is the cancellation of laws by unaccountable courts, staffed by the very stupidest people in our country;
5) These two are so stupid, they failed to notice, they have no way to enforce any decision they make. Federal marshals are employees of the Executive branch. Therefore the Executive may choose to enforce or to not enforce their decisions. The Executive will act only in its own selfish political interest;
6) As a result of this stupendous stupidity, government does nothing right. They did not see, it is detested by everyone except tax sucking parasites receiving a government check, usually returning absolutely nothing of value to the tax payer.
What can be done about how stupid these Harvard Law grads are?
1) The Congress should impeach one, then another for their decisions, not for any collateral corruption lawyer gotcha.
Replace them all with members of a local Virginia jury pool, or even with student from Life Skills Class learning to eat with a spoon. There would be an immediate upgrade in the quality of the decisions, and in the clarity of the writing of the decisions;
2) The Executive should openly declare which decisions it will never enforce, making all their decisions advisory, and no longer mandatory;
3) States are the father, the federal government is the child. When the stupidest people in the country make a ruling, ignore it. Do as you please, the child has to obey the parent, not the reverse. If federal marshals do show up to enforce these appallingly bad decisions, taser them and expel them from the state. If troops show up, tell they are in insurrection against the constitution, Article I Section 1. If they persist, arrest them, try them, and execute them. They are in insurrection against the constitution.
Hey, Harvard morons, if you want to have judicial review, pass an amendment to the constitution. Today, it is not allowed.
To its credit the Medieval Church believed God would judge intent
upon reaching heaven, His being all knowing. That was their faith, they
said. Not even the 13th Century Church believed man could read minds.
Mind reading is a supernatural power.
In the 13th Century, the sole punishment was death. So loopholes were needed to soften the law. That is no longer necessary.
Retribution and culpability are from the Bible. They are worthless to
the tax payer. They are prohibited, except in the imaginary world of
Mens rea is more lawyer false doctrine, coddling the criminal, and harsh treatment of past and future victims.
Mens rea is anti-victim garbage. If someone reads the article,
explain why anyone would bother doing so, outside the anti-victim, left
wing, pro-criminal lawyer.
A hunter shoots another thinking him a deer. A hunter shoots another
because the other's wife paid him $10,000. Same act. Same outcome.
Vastly different treatment of the defendant. One goes home, the other
gets the death penalty, all based on the mental state. This is
ridiculous. How does the lawyer know the drunken hunter who killed a guy
is not far more dangerous than the contract killer with discipline? The
lawyer has loosed a menace on the public and executed a far less
dangerous guy. The drunken hunter is now loosed by the lawyer to crash
into a school bus.
The alternative to the mens rea is far more reliable, fairer, and
safer to the public. Count unconvicted conduct and prior convicted
conduct. And incapacitate for the status of the person, not for the
crime. Naturally, the lawyer has banned strict liability crime, and
compounded the mistake by banning status crime. Why would logic be
banned by the lawyer, and coddling of the criminal be imposed on crime
victims? Because the lawyer makes no money if the criminal is
incapacitated for being a criminal from the earliest age possible, and
crime is suppressed. Give the data to the jury if Booker must be
followed, even though the jury does not know anything about this
Lawyers should stop saying crime has dropped in rates. It has not. Saying it has destroys the credibility of any lawyer.
If any law school professor uses any Latin in class, the Jewish and
Protestant students should start banging Mao's Little Red Book on their
chair writing tablets. If he does it again, he should be grabbed. A tall
dunce cap should be placed on his head, and he should be bounced from
the class. This is America, a secular nation.
Complaints may be filed with the Civil Rights Office of the Education
Department, for the violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. Imagine a professor seeking to impose the Sharia on our students.
Seeking to impose the Catechism is no less offensive. Every single Latin
utterance should be reported, investigated, and fined heavily. There is
ongoing, massive violation of this law in our law schools. I support
the right to speak Latin by the professor in church, at home, or
anywhere else, but not in law school class, nor in any other legal