Time to Investigate Robert Mueller for Sexual Harassment

Best way to get rid of prosecutors.

Here.

These accusers had sex with him. His slapping them was part of sex. They did not consent to being slapped around.

"Mr. Schneiderman initially denied abusing the women, saying in a statement: “In the privacy of intimate relationships, I have engaged in role-playing and other consensual sexual activity. I have not assaulted anyone. I have never engaged in nonconsensual sex, which is a line I would not cross."

Lawyer Malpractice

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;

9) once 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.

So, Tom, you can relax.

Computers Should Replace all Prosecutors, Judges, and Jurors in a Trial

Prosecutorial discretion is a  euphemism for total lawyer personal bias, incompetence, and idiocy. There is no group in our nation that is stupider than the lawyer profession. Students in Life Skills class, learning to eat with utensils, and to put on shirts on their own, would represent a marked upgrade in decision making if placed on the Supreme Court. They would have 10 times the common sense than the mentally crippled lawyers now controlling it.

Robots running legislative enacted algorithms should be making all prosecutorial decisions. Death penalty, even in absentia, to anyone trying to hack one. As usual, only technology will rescue us from the plague of lawyers besieging this nation. Lawyer prosecutors can be re-hired to roll one into court.

Chess has 37 possible moves. Computers beat all humans long ago. Go, the Chinese board game, has a billion possible moves. Recently, a computer beat the best human Go player. It made a move the champion said no human could have thought of.

Legal decisions are far closer to the limited game of chess, than to the vast game of Go. A computer should even be able to look 10 moves ahead.

If people do not like the outcomes of computerized legal decisions, they have the recourse of electing legislators who will change the algorithms.

Computers making errors should be liable in torts, as should their programmers, as should the legislatures causing damages by their carelessness in writing the algorithm. Due to the nature of sentencing decisions, and the far higher standards of performance of a sentencing computer, the wrongful decisions should be subject to strict liability.