Friday, June 30, 2017
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
Racism in the US? No.African 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.
Their most successful example? Barack Obama, offspring of an African. Had zero in common with American South blacks. Fits the above description.
Monday, June 26, 2017
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.
Saturday, June 17, 2017
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.
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
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.
Monday, June 5, 2017
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.