I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Barbara Forrest and the Dover Decision

There is a theory going around now that the expert-witness testimony of conspiracy-theorist Barbara Forrest was a major factor in the Dover decision, but there is no guarantee that she will testify in any future trial or that another judge will accept her arguments. See Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent.

If the Dover decision was in fact based to a great extent on Forrest's conspiracy theory about a fundy "wedge strategy," then that decision is on very shaky ground indeed. It is like a conspiracy theory that Santa Claus, Christmas trees, and even Darwinist Kenneth Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God -- A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution" are part of a "wedge strategy" to turn the US into a theocracy.

Supporters of the Dover decision have a grossly overoptimistic view of its future precedential value. It is just an unreviewed decision of a single federal district-court judge. A few years ago the 9th circuit federal court of appeals, the largest federal circuit except for the Federal circuit based in Washington DC, had a rule that no district-court opinion could be cited in any court of the 9th circuit, but I don't know if this rule is still in effect. And those of us who oppose the decision will be trying our best to so discredit it that no one will want to cite it -- for example, see "Traipsing into breathtaking inanity -- absurd rulings in Dover Intelligent Design case" on this blog.

The two recent court decisions concerning criticism of Darwinism in the public schools, Kitzmiller v. Dover and Selman v. Cobb County (the evolution-disclaimer textbook sticker case), are apparently breaking new legal ground -- and it looks like very shaky ground. So far as I can see, these are the first two cases where things that mention nothing or almost nothing that is religious and that contain no religious symbols were nonetheless held to be government endorsements of religion. The Cobb County textbook stickers said nothing of a religious nature and the only thing in the Dover case that had any religious connotation was the word "design," because this word implies the existence of a supernatural "designer." It appears that an appeals court is leaning towards reversing the Selman v. Cobb County decision (see here and here), wedge strategy or no wedge strategy. The Dover decision relies heavily on Selman (Selman is cited 15 times in the Dover opinion), so a reversal of Selman would put a serious dent in Dover.

Labels:

22 Comments:

Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>A few years ago the 9th circuit federal court of appeals, the largest federal circuit except for the Federal circuit based in Washington DC, had a rule that no district-court opinion could be cited in any court of the 9th circuit, but I don't know if this rule is still in effect.<<<

That rule is no longer in effect, if it ever was. You may be confusing it with the Pth Circuit's Rule 36-3, which prohibits the citation (in any court in the circuit) of any 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unpublished disposition or order (an opinion in the 9th Circuit is defined as designated for publishing, btw). The rule appears to only apply to unpublished rulings from the appeals court. No extant rule prohibits the use of district court opinions.

A quick spot check revealed that in 1994 and 1999, the appeals court cited district court opinions (that were unappealed). In 1995, the central California district court cited district court opinions. (I did not check any other years, and all opinions checked contained at least one district court opinion) The rule must have either been very short lived, or did not exist as described.

Thursday, April 27, 2006 3:27:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

Um, 9th Circuit, not Pth Circuit.

Thursday, April 27, 2006 3:28:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

W. Kevin Vicklund said ( 4/27/2006 03:27:20 PM ) --

>>>>>A few years ago the 9th circuit federal court of appeals, the largest federal circuit except for the Federal circuit based in Washington DC, had a rule that no district-court opinion could be cited in any court of the 9th circuit, but I don't know if this rule is still in effect.
That rule is no longer in effect, if it ever was. You may be confusing it with the 9th Circuit's Rule 36-3, which prohibits the citation (in any court in the circuit) of any 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unpublished disposition or order (an opinion in the 9th Circuit is defined as designated for publishing, btw). The rule appears to only apply to unpublished rulings from the appeals court.<<<<<

I filed lawsuits as a pro se litigant in the 9th circuit federal courts around the years 1995-97, and I distinctly remember a circuit rule prohibiting citations of district-court opinions. It is not now in Rule 36-3 which you cited, but it might have been elsewhere (on the Internet, a lot of this stuff is on pdf files, which often cause my computer to freeze up, unfortunately). This rule against district-court opinions was apparently not strictly enforced; in fact, a reply brief I received from a defendant -- the state of California -- included an entire unpublished and unappealed district-court opinion attached as an appendix. So in this case, the state even violated the rule against unpublished opinions. Anyway, I was just wondering how you knew about 9th circuit rule 36-3 -- unless you are an attorney who litigates in federal courts in the 9th circuit, a fair amount of research would be required to find this rule even if one were aware of it. You did a lot of other legal research in responding to my question. Maybe you could do me a favor and find proof that the rule I mentioned really exists or once existed -- that would really help me blow some more holes in the Dover opinion, which relied very heavily on district court opinions.

Logically, Rule 36-3 must apply to all unpublished opinions. It would not make any sense for the 9th circuit appeals court to allow unpublished opinions from district courts and other circuits' appeals courts while excluding its own unpublished appellate opinions.

BTW, where did you get this strange notion that "an opinion in the 9th Circuit is defined as designated for publishing" ? I never heard of such a definition -- an opinion is an opinion, whether it is published or not.

Anyway, it looks like 9th circuit rule 36-3 is now almost history -- earlier this month the Supreme Court approved a new national rule allowing citations of unpublished opinions, and this new rule will take effect unless Congress disagrees before Dec. 1.

I think that allowing citations of unpublished opinions is a very bad idea, and I think it is even worse than allowing citations of published district-court opinions. One of the bad things about this new rule is that those who must depend on annotated law books to find precedents will be at a disadvantage, and that fact was apparently not even mentioned in the debate over this new rule.

Anyway, I note in my new Item #20 in my "Traipsing into breathtaking inanity" post that the Dover decision relied very heavily on unreviewed district-court opinions, citing them nearly as often as Supreme Court opinions. That's not good -- and it is going to get even worse if Selman v. Cobb County is reversed, which is a strong possibility.

BTW, I am still waiting for you to tell me why you did not inform me sooner that I was banned from Panda's Thumb by mistake.

Thursday, April 27, 2006 5:59:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

--Excerpt from Local Rules of 9th Circuit Court (formatting removed)--

CIRCUIT RULE 36-1
OPINIONS, MEMORANDA, ORDERS; PUBLICATION
Each written disposition of a matter before this Court shall bear under the number in the caption the designation
OPINION, or MEMORANDUM, or ORDER. A written, reasoned disposition of a case or motion which is
designated as an opinion under Circuit Rule 36-2 is an OPINION of the Court. It may be an authored opinion or a
per curiam opinion. A written, reasoned disposition of a case or a motion which is not intended for publication under
Circuit Rule 36-2 is a MEMORANDUM. Any other disposition of a matter before the Court is an ORDER. A
memorandum or order shall not identify its author, nor shall it be designated "Per Curiam."
All opinions are published; no memoranda are published; orders are not pub- lished except by order of the court. As
used in this rule, the term PUBLICATION means to make a disposition available to legal publishing companies to
be reported and cited.
CIRCUIT RULE 36-2
CRITERIA FOR PUBLICATION
A written, reasoned disposition shall be designated as an OPINION only if it:
(a) Establishes, alters, modifies or clarifies a rule of law, or
(b) Calls attention to a rule of law which appears to have been generally overlooked, or
(c) Criticizes existing law, or
(d) Involves a legal or factual issue of unique interest or substantial public importance, or
(e) Is a disposition of a case in which there is a published opinion by a lower court or administrative agency, unless
the panel determines that publication is unnecessary for clarifying the panel's disposition of the case, or
(f) Is a disposition of a case following a reversal or remand by the United States Supreme Court, or
(g) Is accompanied by a separate concurring or dissenting expression, and the author of such separate expression
requests publication of the disposition of the Court and the separate expression.
CIRCUIT RULE 36-3
CITATION OF UNPUBLISHED DISPOSITIONS OR ORDERS
(a) Not Precedent: Unpublished dispositions and orders of this Court are not binding precedent, except when
relevant under the doctrine of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
(b) Citation: Unpublished dispositions and order of this Court may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit,
except in the following circumstances.
(i) They may be cited to this Court or to or by any other court in this circuit when relevant under the doctrine of
law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
(ii) They may be cited to this Court or by any other courts in this circuit for factual purposes, such as to show
double jeopardy, sanctionable conduct, notice, entitlement to attorneys = fees, or the existence of a related case.
(iii) They may be cited to this Court in a request to publish a disposition or order made pursuant to Circuit Rule 36-
4, or in a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc, in order to demonstrate the existence of a conflict among
opinions, dispositions, or orders.
(c) Attach Copy: A copy of any cited unpublished disposition or order must be attached to the document in which it
is cited, as an appendix. (New Rule 7/1/2000)
CIRCUIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NOTE TO RULE 36-3
Please note that Circuit Rule 36-3 has been adopted for another limited 30- month period, beginning January 1,
2003 and ending July 1, 2005 . (Rev. 01-01- 2003)
CIRCUIT RULE 36-4
REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION
Publication of any unpublished disposition may be requested by letter addressed to the Clerk, stating concisely the
reasons for publication. Such a request will not be entertained unless received within 60 days of the issuance of this
Court's disposition. A copy of the request for publication must be served on the parties to the case. The parties will
have 10 days from the date of service to notify the Court of any objections they may have to the publication of the
disposition. If such a request is granted, the unpublished disposition will be redesignated an opinion.
CIRCUIT RULE 36-5
ORDERS FOR PUBLICATION
An order may be specially designated for publication by a majority of the judges acting and when so published may
be used for any purpose for which an opinion may be used. Such a designation should be indicated when filed with
the Clerk by the addition of the words "FOR PUBLICATION" on a separate line.
CIRCUIT RULE 36-6
PERIODIC NOTICE TO PUBLISHING COMPANIES
A list of all cases that have been decided by written unpublished disposition will be made available periodically to
legal publishing companies for notation in its reports. The list shall set forth concluding disposition in each case,
such as, "Affirmed," "Reversed," "Dismissed," or "Enforced."
CIRCUIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NOTE TO RULES 36-1 TO 36-6
The clerk's office is not given advance notice as to when a disposition will be delivered by the judges for filing and,
therefore, cannot supply such information to counsel. When a disposition is filed, the Clerk mails notice of entry of
judgment and a copy of the disposition to counsel and the district judge from whom the appeal was taken. All
dispositions are public. Once a disposition is filed with the Clerk, anyone may obtain copies of printed decisions by
making a written request to the clerk's office, accompanied by a $2.00 fee and self-addressed envelope. Opinions are
also available on the day of filing on the Court's electronic bulletin board service. For information on how to access
the system, contact the Public Information Unit at (415) 556-9800. One may also receive copies of the Court's slip
opinions, as they are printed, upon the payment of an annual subscription fee. Printed slip opinions are subject to
typographical and printing error. The cooperation of the Bar in calling apparent errors to the attention of the clerk's
office is solicited.
Upon disposition of an appeal arising out of a bankruptcy court the Clerk of this Court shall furnish a copy of such
disposition to the bankruptcy judge who initially ruled on the matter.

Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:08:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

I separated the previous post because it was a long excerpt and I didn't want my words to be confused with that of the excerpt.

As you can see, I accurately defined an opinion per the 9th circuit court. The reason 36-3 only applies to dispositions from the 9th Circuit Court is because dispositions from that court are specifically defined as to whether they may be considered precedential be designating them for publication. This is not always the case in other jurisdictions, not even at the district court level in the 9th circuit.

BTW, every Federal court in the US has its own website that includes the Local Rules (usually in conjunction with the Federal Rules that they modify). It was a matter of about 10 minutes of research to track down Rule 36-3.

I also looked at the General Orders, there is nothing there about district decisions. There is some more on the opinion vs. memorandum issue:

>>>4.3. Writing of Dispositions
An opinion should be written only if the panel deciding the case specifically determines that a published decision is necessary. A determination shall be made initially at the conference after argument or submission and in any case before the disposition is drafted.
4.3.a. Memoranda Dispositions
A memorandum disposition cannot be cited as precedent. Unlike an opinion for publication which is designed to clarify the law of the circuit, a memorandum disposition is designed only to provide the parties and the district court with a concise explanation of this court = s decision. Because the parties and the district court are aware of the facts, procedural events and applicable law underlying the dispute, the disposition need recite only such information crucial to the result. Accordingly, all that is necessary is a statement such as the following:
Defendant= s statements were volunteered rather than made in response to police questioning, and were therefore admissible. United States v. Cornejo, 598 F.2d 554, 557 (9th Cir. 1979). AFFIRMED.<<<

Again, I stress that this only applies to dispositions written by the Circuit Court. Essentially, the Circuit Court is declaring that only those they designate for publication are intended to be precedential. However, they can only enforce that within their jurisdiction.

I can attempt to find whether your alleged rule once existed, but I don't hold much hope of finding anything. First, I don't think the rule ever existed as you have described it. I think you probably misinterpreted the actual rule. However, I am willing to consider the possibility that your presentation of the rule is accurate. However, if it never existed, there won't be evidence of its nonexistence. Second, even if it did once exist, it was ten years ago and the documentation that far back is spotty.

As for why I didn't tell you earlier about your non-ban. The facts were presented on at least four different threads, at least two of which you were actively posting on at the time. I had no reason to believe that you didn't already know. Based on your previous actions, I thought you were doing it deliberately to further disrupt PT. I firmly believe that you would have not believed me had I, personally, told you.

Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:17:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

From post of W. Kevin Vicklund ( 4/27/2006 08:08:16 PM ) --

>>>>>CIRCUIT RULE 36-1
OPINIONS, MEMORANDA, ORDERS; PUBLICATION<<<<<

These are not legal definitions -- these are just code words assigned by the 9th circuit for internal identification purposes. Broadly, an opinion is any written explanation or reasoning given for the court's decision.

Some words have different meanings in different courts. For example, in the 9th federal circuit appeals court, the first brief is called the appellant's "opening" brief, the appellee's response is called the appellee's "answering" brief, and the appellant's response to the answering brief is called the appellant's "reply" brief. Different labels may be used in other courts. I called my first "answering" brief in federal district court an "objection" -- LOL -- that was the result of getting my legal education from courtroom dramas.

>>>>>RULE 36-3 (b) Citation: Unpublished dispositions and order of this Court may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit, except in the following circumstances (emphasis added).<<<<<

The words "of this court" should be taken with a grain of salt. As I said, it would make no sense to allow unpublished opinions of other courts while excluding unpublished opinions of 9th circuit appeals court. All the articles I have seen about the new national rule that the Supreme Court just approved -- allowing citation of unpublished opinions in all federal courts -- gave no indication that 9th circuit rule 36-3(b) above applies only to 9th-circuit appellate opinions.

>>>>>NOTE TO RULE 36-3
Please note that Circuit Rule 36-3 has been adopted for another limited 30-month period, beginning January 1, 2003 and ending July 1, 2005 .<<<<<

So this edition of the rules is already a little out-of-date -- Rule 36-3 required renewal in July 2005. Anyway, as I said, it looks like Rule 36-3(b), which prohibits citations of unpublished opinions, is going to be superseded by the new national rule. But Rule 36-3(a), which says that unpublished 9th-circuit appellate decisions (and presumably all unpublished decisions) are not binding, will remain in effect. The news article I cited says, "Under the new rule, circuits will still be able to give varying precedential weight to unpublished opinions, but they can no longer keep lawyers from citing them."

I think that this new national rule allowing citation of unpublished opinions was pushed by attorneys whose specialized knowledge of particular areas of the law gives them an advantage in court. I think that the rule is stupid.

==============================

W. Kevin Vicklund wrote ( 4/27/2006 09:17:52 PM ) --

>>>>>As you can see, I accurately defined an opinion per the 9th circuit court.<<<<<

Yes, but as I showed above, a literal interpretation of Rule 36-3 makes no sense at all.

>>>>>The reason 36-3 only applies to dispositions from the 9th Circuit Court is because dispositions from that court are specifically defined as to whether they may be considered precedential be designating them for publication.<<<<<

They made a mistake when writing rule 36-3 -- they should have simply said that Rule 36-3 applies to all unpublished dispositions. Otherwise, Rule 36-3 does not make any sense.

>>>>>BTW, every Federal court in the US has its own website that includes the Local Rules (usually in conjunction with the Federal Rules that they modify). <<<<<

A lot of this stuff is on pdf files, which often don'1 appear on my screen, and they often cause my computer to freeze up, requiring me to log off the Internet and sometimes even restart the computer, so I tend to avoid them. Anyway, you said that it took you 10 minutes to find Rule 36-3 -- do you have a broadband connection? I just have dial-up.

>>>>>4.3.a. Memoranda Dispositions
A memorandum disposition cannot be cited as precedent. Unlike an opinion for publication which is designed to clarify the law of the circuit, a memorandum disposition is designed only to provide the parties and the district court with a concise explanation of this court = s decision. Because the parties and the district court are aware of the facts, procedural events and applicable law underlying the dispute, the disposition need recite only such information crucial to the result. Accordingly, all that is necessary is a statement such as the following:
Defendant= s statements were volunteered rather than made in response to police questioning, and were therefore admissible. United States v. Cornejo, 598 F.2d 554, 557 (9th Cir. 1979). AFFIRMED.
<<<<<

Under the new national rule, an opinion like the preceding imaginary one may be cited as precedent in any federal court in the USA. The fact that the 9th Circuit chooses to call it a "memorandum" rather than an "opinion" is of no consequence. The above discussion of Rule 4.3.a is one of the reasons why the new national rule is bad.

>>>>I can attempt to find whether your alleged rule once existed, but I don't hold much hope of finding anything...... even if it did once exist, it was ten years ago and the documentation that far back is spotty.<<<<<

Please don't bother to try to find the alleged rule, unless you want to make amends for the hard time that you gave me on Panda's Thumb. I may remove this alleged rule from my post because I cannot back it up. To me, the most important things are the following --

(1) Federal district-court opinions, particularly unreviewed opinions, carry -- or should carry -- much less weight than appellate opinions.

(2) The Dover decision relied excessively on district-court opinions (see the newly added Item #20 in my "Traipsing into breathtaking inanity" post on this blog), and there was heavy reliance on a particular district-court opinion -- Selman v. Cobb County -- that has a good chance of being overturned.

>>>>>As for why I didn't tell you earlier about your non-ban. The facts were presented on at least four different threads<<<<<

I had several confrontations with the Panda's Thumb staff over my banning, and they never told me that I had been banned by mistake.

>>>>Based on your previous actions, I thought you were doing it deliberately to further disrupt PT<<<<<

I would have no reason to spend a lot of time preparing comments and then risk having them deleted by posting under multiple names.

>>>>I firmly believe that you would have not believed me had I, personally, told you. <<<<<

That is a lame excuse. Anyway, this excuse cannot justify your efforts to have me banned and deleted again.

Friday, April 28, 2006 4:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry, a friend of mine and I have been debating the merits of the Dover ruling. I say Judge Jones heard both sides and made a rational decision. My friend disagrees and says Judge Jones is demon posessed and is now a tool of Satan.

Can you help us settle the debate? Do you think Judge Jones is a pawn of Satan or a Satan worshipper?

As a bonus question do you think kids not exposed to IDC in science class are more or less likely to become Satan worshippers?

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:20:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said --

>>>Can you help us settle the debate? Do you think Judge Jones is a pawn of Satan or a Satan worshipper?<<<<

Please refer your friend to my post "Traipsing into breathtaking inanity -- absurd rulings in Dover Intelligent Design case" to give him some arguments to back up his claim that Judge Jones is the Great Satan.

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Dean Morrison said...

Ask the nice lady at the library for a date Larry - you know you want to....

Saturday, April 29, 2006 3:15:00 AM  
Anonymous VoiceInWilderness said...

> I filed lawsuits as a pro se litigant in the 9th circuit federal courts around the years 1995-97, and I distinctly remember a circuit rule prohibiting citations of district-court opinions. <

Since everything you ever filed was thrown out of court, we can assume that you have no greater understanding of law than you do of astronomy.

Sunday, April 30, 2006 12:07:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

VoiceInWilderness said ---

>>>Since everything you ever filed was thrown out of court, we can assume that you have no greater understanding of law than you do of astronomy.<<<<

What makes you think that everything I filed was thrown out of court? Did I ever say that?

Also, if you knew anything about the law, you would know that judges are prejudiced against pro se litigants. An attorney told me that, and I know it from my own experience.

In my lawsuit against Los Angeles County, the county's attorney repeatedly claimed that I failed to give advance notice of intent to sue, but I pointed out that the law requiring advance notice was only for lawsuits seeking money, which my lawsuit did not. Nothing could be more clearcut than that. Yet the judge never expressly ruled against the county's attorney or admonished him for repeatedly making a frivolous defense.

Instead of just making ad hominem attacks, you stupid, fatheaded, moronic ignoramus, why don't you show us how much you know about the law by rebutting the legal arguments that I have made in this blog, particularly in my "Traipsing into breathtaking inanity" post? As the saying goes, PUT UP -- OR SHUT UP.

Sunday, April 30, 2006 12:34:00 PM  
Anonymous VoiceInWilderness said...

>> What makes you think that everything I filed was thrown out of court? Did I ever say that? <<

You did not say that the Sun rose in the East this morning but nevertheless that and the fact that everything you filed was thrown out of court are both true. Your response to this post clearly shows it.

>> judges are prejudiced against pro se litigants. An attorney told me that, and I know it from my own experience. <<

Just because everything you filed was thrown out does not mean that judges are prejudiced against pro se litigants. I understand that pro se litigants win more than half of their cases from which it follows that those with legal representation must win less than half. Your cases were probably thrown out because the arguments were as confused as those you give on this board.

>> Instead of just making ad hominem attacks, you stupid, fatheaded, moronic ignoramus <<

This is a real side-splitter!

Please keep up this blog. It is very entertaining. I am sorry that others threw you off of their blogs because they tired of pulling wings off of other helpless insects.

Sunday, April 30, 2006 1:12:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

VoiceInWilderness said --

>>>>>
You did not say that the Sun rose in the East this morning but nevertheless that and the fact that everything you filed was thrown out of court are both true. Your response to this post clearly shows it.
>>>>>

Even if my response did clearly show it to be true, that would not justify your earlier presumption that it is true, would it ?

As I said, if you don't like the legal arguments that I have made here, then why don't you try to rebut them ? Would an attorney say in court the same kind of thing that you are saying here, that he does not have to answer opposing arguments because the opposing attorney has not had a high rate of success ? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

>>>> I understand that pro se litigants win more than half of their cases from which it follows that those with legal representation must win less than half.<<<<<

Now that is as stupid a conclusion as I have ever seen. There is no relationship between the fraction of pro se litigants who win their cases and the fraction of represented litigants who win their cases. And there is certainly no reason to believe that pro se litigants have a higher rate of success than represented litigants -- in fact, there is good reason to believe the opposite. If what you say is true, then why would litigants pay thousands of dollars for legal representation?

Also, what is the source of your figure ? Does it include small-claims courts? The overwhelming majority of pro se litigants are in small-claims courts, where legal representation is either not allowed or is very restricted. In fact, it can safely be said that in small claims courts, about one-half the pro se litigants win their cases and about one-half lose, because usually there is one losing pro se litigant for every winning pro se litigant !

>>>>>
Please keep up this blog. It is very entertaining. I am sorry that others threw you off of their blogs because they tired of pulling wings off of other helpless insects.
>>>>>

I presume that the Panda's Thumb bloggers must be aware of this blog. This is their big opportunity to completely discredit their favorite troll, yet they have been strangely silent about this blog. Why is that?

I am really tiring of you, VoiceInWilderness. You are just a heckler who has made practically no worthwhile contributions to the discussions here. Pretty soon I will stop answering you and then you will probably get no more responses to your senseless drivel.

Sunday, April 30, 2006 2:30:00 PM  
Anonymous VoiceInWilderness said...

> Even if my response did clearly show it to be true <

I am glad to see that you have acknowledged your incompetence. Confession is good for the soul.

> that would not justify your earlier presumption that it is true, would it ? <

I presumed that it was true because you have so clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding of legal principles.

>> There is no relationship between the fraction of pro se litigants who win their cases and the fraction of represented litigants who win their cases. <<

There is certainly such a relationship. It is called arithmetic.

>> And there is certainly no reason to believe that pro se litigants have a higher rate of success than represented litigants <<

Except for the fact that it is so. We do not have to have a reason to believe that the sun rises in the East other than to observe that it does.

> in fact, there is good reason to believe the opposite. <

All of these "reasons" are moot in the face of reality. What we are dealing with here is reality, not what happens on your planet.

> If what you say is true, then why would litigants pay thousands of dollars for legal representation? <

Because they are not all as competent as the majority of those who file pro se cases. Some may be just as incompetent as you and therefore need representation.

> Does it include small-claims courts? <

Since small-claims cases are all pro se, as you yourself say, there would be one winner and one loser. This would not load the winners side of pro se cases. Perhaps the increased number of winners in pro se cases is due to the prejudice of judges in favor of pro se cases as is claimed by some attorneys.

> This is their big opportunity to completely discredit their favorite troll, yet they have been strangely silent about this blog. Why is that? <

Perhaps they are bored with you. All you seem to do is restate your positions and ignore evidence disproving them.

> You are just a heckler who has made practically no worthwhile contributions to the discussions here. <

"Practically no worthwhile contributions" That places me ahead of you. Your only contribution to the discussions is to give them a title. This is always followed by ignorant nonsense. If you have a position, state it and then answer the responses with something other than insults if you are capable of it.

> Pretty soon I will stop answering you <

You may as well stop now. Nothing you have posted to me is worth reading.

Sunday, April 30, 2006 3:00:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

VoiceInWilderness said --

>>>>>
"There is no relationship between the fraction of pro se litigants who win their cases and the fraction of represented litigants who win their cases."
There is certainly such a relationship. It is called arithmetic.<<<<<

You are falsely assuming that in every court case, a pro se litigant faces a represented litigant. If no pro se litigants win their cases, would that mean that 100 percent of represented litigants win their cases, or vice-versa? Anyway, the question is moot because you have not provided any reference to back up your claim that over half of pro se litigants win their cases.

>>>> This is their big opportunity to completely discredit their favorite troll, yet they have been strangely silent about this blog. Why is that?
Perhaps they are bored with you. All you seem to do is restate your positions and ignore evidence disproving them.<<<<<

Yes, but they would not want lurkers to be brainwashed by the sensible arguments that I have presented on this blog, now would they ?

Anyway, you have conveniently avoided my big question: Would an attorney make in court the kind of claim that you are making here, i.e., that he does not have to answer opposing arguments because his adversary is allegedly an ignoramus? There is a very good reason why you did not answer that question --- no good answer is possible.

>>>>> Pretty soon I will stop answering you

You may as well stop now. Nothing you have posted to me is worth reading.<<<<

Gladly ! How do you expect to find my replies to you to be worth reading when nearly all of your comments have contained nothing but insults and ad hominem attacks ? Only one very brief comment of yours on this blog addressed the issues at all. You have just been wasting my time. Good riddance !

Sunday, April 30, 2006 4:20:00 PM  
Anonymous VoiceInWilderness said...

It appears that you have already violated your promise not to censor this blog. My replies seem to be too much for you to successfully argue against, so they just seem to disappear.

> You are falsely assuming that in every court case, a pro se litigant faces a represented litigant. <

Only you are dumb enough to assume this. I am assuming nothing of the kind.

> If no pro se litigants win their cases, would that mean that 100 percent of represented litigants win their cases, or vice-versa? <

Again you show that your lack of capacity for logic matches your lack of understanding of arithmetic. The rest of your blog screams with examples of this innumeracy and false assumptions.

> but they would not want lurkers to be brainwashed by the sensible arguments that I have presented on this blog, now would they ? <

If you had posted sensible arguments on their blogs, they would not have lost patience with you. Why don't you post some of those sensible arguments on this blog so we can see them? You haven't yet. Why hide your light under a bushel basket?

Monday, May 01, 2006 4:20:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

VoiceInWilderness said...

>>>>It appears that you have already violated your promise not to censor this blog. My replies seem to be too much for you to successfully argue against, so they just seem to disappear.<<<<<

LOL ! My failure or refusal to respond to your comments constitutes censorship ? LMAO

>>>>>" If no pro se litigants win their cases, would that mean that 100 percent of represented litigants win their cases, or vice-versa? "
Again you show that your lack of capacity for logic matches your lack of understanding of arithmetic.<<<<<

You assumed that the fraction of represented litigants who win their cases is the complement of the fraction of pro se litigants who win their cases, saying that less than half of represented litigants win their cases because allegedly more than half of pro se litigants win their cases. I gave a hypothetical example of where this assumption would obviously lead to a false conclusion. Also, you have not provided a reference to back up your claim that over half of pro se litigants win their cases.

>>>>If you had posted sensible arguments on their blogs, they would not have lost patience with you.<<<<<

If censoring comments that the blogger disagrees with were a fair thing to do, your comments would not remain on this blog.

Monday, May 01, 2006 8:37:00 AM  
Anonymous VoiceInWilderness said...

> I gave a hypothetical example of where this assumption would obviously lead to a false conclusion. <

No. You gave a real example of your misunderstanding of arithmetic.

Monday, May 01, 2006 8:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Larry Fafarman said...

Let's clear the air here. I admit that I have never won a lawsuit in my life. It is because the judge was against me. The Panda Blog people are against me. Even Santa Clause hates me, but my therapist loves me.

Monday, May 01, 2006 8:46:00 AM  
Anonymous voiceinwilderness said...

Can I get your phone number Larry? Would you like to cyber and maybe more?

Monday, May 01, 2006 6:16:00 PM  
Anonymous VoiceInWilderness said...

> LOL ! My failure or refusal to respond to your comments constitutes censorship ? <

No. The disappearance of posts that bother you constitute censorship?

Are you the same Larry Fafarman that was fired for incompetence at Ryan years ago?

Sunday, May 07, 2006 8:15:00 AM  
Anonymous VoiceInWilderness said...

> LOL ! My failure or refusal to respond to your comments constitutes censorship ? <

No. The disappearance of posts that bother you constitute censorship?

Are you the same Larry Fafarman that was fired for incompetence at Ryan years ago?

Sunday, May 07, 2006 8:16:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home