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.

Sunday, July 02, 2006

Ed Brayton's outrageous potshots

Considering that Ed Brayton has banned me from posting on his blog, his taking potshots at me on his blog is outrageous. They are here and here.

I will comment on a few of his claims.

First, Ed was totally wrong in his statement that the "ACLU likely got only a small portion" of the $1 million attorney fee award in the Dover case -- the ACLU and the AUSCS split what was left of the award after the deduction of expenses (as I remember, the expenses came to about $250,000). Also, I read somewhere that the ACLU requires its volunteer attorneys to agree to not accept any compensation from attorney fee awards, but I cannot now find proof of that.

Also, Ed also took issue with my following statement from my post titled, Hypocritical Ed Brayton still doesn't get it on HR 2679:

What if this $1 million bill had been called "punitive damages" or a "fine"? As Juliet in Romeo and Juliet would say, "What's in a name? What we call an attorney fee award, by any other name would ...", well, you know the rest. This draconian penalty virtually violates the 8th Amendment's prohibitions against "excessive fines" and "cruel and unusual punishment.

Ed is too dense to understand that (1) my comparison of the $1 million fee award to excessive punitive damages or an excessive fine was perfectly reasonable and that (2) "virtually violates" does not mean the same as "literally violates."

Also, Ed took issue with my following statement from the same post:

(7) The ruling in Blum v. Stenson, 465 US 886 (1984), that the attorney fee award of 42 USC ยง1988(b) may not be reduced on the grounds that the legal representation was by a non-profit organization (this ruling also presumably applies to representation that was initially pro bono) was based on an erroneous interpretation of a Senate report accompanying the statute. The Supreme Court's quotation of the Senate report said, "It is intended that the amount of fees awarded under [ 1988] be governed by the same standards which prevail in other types of equally complex Federal litigation, such as antitrust cases[,] and not be reduced because the rights involved may be nonpecuniary in nature......" S. Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 6 (1976). (emphasis added) The quotation of the Senate report said that the fees should not be reduced on the grounds that the rights involved are nonpecuniary in nature, but the quotation nowhere expressly said that the fees should not be reduced on the grounds that the representation was non-profit and/or initially pro bono.

Note the emphasis on the word "expressly" in my above statement. There is simply no proof that the Senate committee ever considered the issue of whether or not the fee award should be reduced on the grounds that the legal representation was non-profit and/or initially pro bono. The Senate report's mere citation of court cases where there was such representation is not proof that the committee specifically considered that issue. Generally, people who read the report rely on what the report expressly says -- this is not a guessing game of trying to read the minds of the report's authors. The court's claim that its decision was based on the Senate report was completely erroneous -- the court might as well have not cited that Senate report at all. That is all there is to it.

Ed Brayton thinks that the fact that the decision in Blum v. Stenson was unanimous is significant. Apparently he never heard the story of the little boy who said that the emperor had no clothes.

I was banned from Ed Brayton's blog mainly because I interpreted a federal court rule in a way that he didn't like, but my interpretation was literal. And a friend of Ed's who claimed to be a teacher of constitutional law chimed in with a response that contained nothing but insults and ad hominems.

On second thought, maybe I should not be so mad at Ed for taking potshots at my blog -- he is giving me some free publicity. I just wish that Panda's Thumb would do the same.

Labels:

5 Comments:

Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

> I read somewhere that the ACLU requires its volunteer attorneys to agree to not accept any compensation from attorney fee awards, but I cannot now find proof of that. <

You read somewhere doesn't count for much. You misinterpret so much that only a direct quote is worth anything and then we would have to check the context.

> Ed is too dense to understand that (1) my comparison of the $1 million fee award to excessive punitive damages or an excessive fine was perfectly reasonable <

Larry(?) is too dense to understand that there is no connection between the $1 million fee award and excessive punative damages. The fine was perfectly reasonable.

> There is simply no proof that the Senate committee ever considered the issue of whether or not the fee award should be reduced on the grounds that the legal representation was non-profit and/or initially pro bono. <

Perhaps because it wasn't relevant.

> Ed Brayton thinks that the fact that the decision in Blum v. Stenson was unanimous is significant. <

It certainly is.

> Apparently he never heard the story of the little boy who said that the emperor had no clothes. <

He knows, as do most, that you are the emperor in this case. You have no argument.

> I was banned from Ed Brayton's blog mainly because I interpreted a federal court rule in a way that he didn't like <

That is a new tack. It is still a lie, but a new lie. Everyone knows why you were banned from Ed Brayton's blog. Why further blow your credibility by claiming otherwise. At least get one story and stick to it.

> a response that contained nothing but insults and ad hominems. <

This sounds like you. Of course you still don't know what a ad hominem is.

And you are still cowering in fear of questions that you can't answer.

Sunday, July 02, 2006 11:57:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

VIU, haven't you forgotten something? You were going to tell Anonymous that you waste all your time here just for the amusement, since you obviously are not here to learn anything or contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion. Remember?

>>>>>You read somewhere doesn't count for much. You misinterpret so much that only a direct quote is worth anything and then we would have to check the context.<<<<<

I have made lots of direct quotes that were not out of context and you and the other trolls have just ignored them.

>>>>> The fine was perfectly reasonable.<<<<<

So at least you agree that the $1 million was a "fine."

>>>>>> Apparently he never heard the story of the little boy who said that the emperor had no clothes. <

He knows, as do most, that you are the emperor in this case.<<<<<

The way I remember the story, all the emperor's ministers and all the other grownups of the realm agreed with the emperor.

>>>>>And you are still cowering in fear of questions that you can't answer.<<<<<<

And you still have not answered the question of why you waste so much time here.

Here again is that great put-down by Anonymous --

You talk about slaving for many hours to post new material on your blog for the benefit of all three readers. If this is the best you can do, you should find better uses of your time.

"Said with a straight face as he comments 100 times in one post on a blog he keeps saying has no interest, is illogical, and worse! Clssic! At least he's honest in admitting he has too much time on his hands and no life!"

Monday, July 03, 2006 1:33:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

This is hilarious. Larry(?) posts as "Anonymous", follows it showing agreement with himself and then, when it has fallen flat, draws attention to it with a new post!

> You were going to tell Anonymous <

But the last person to post as "Anonymous" was you after which you chimed in in supposed agreement. Haven't you figured out that your posts are obvious regardless of what name you use?

> since you obviously are not here to learn anything or contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion. <

I can learn a great deal about the workings of a rapidly deteriorating mind by reading your posts. As for contributions, just pointing out your fear of direct questions should be worth something.

> I have made lots of direct quotes that were not out of context <

You don't usually understand what the context is.

and you and the other trolls have just ignored them.

> The way I remember the story, all the emperor's ministers and all the other grownups of the realm agreed with the emperor. <

It is a reversal here, your highness. All can see that the emperor has no clothes except the emperor himself.

> And you still have not answered the question of why you waste so much time here. <

I have many times. There is little reason to repeat it (as you repeat yourself endlessly). Now it is your time to answer a question or two instead of showing your fear of them. If you are the great expert on everything, why do questions terrify you? Don't fear demonstrating your ignorance. It is already here for all to see.

Monday, July 03, 2006 7:13:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> The way I remember the story, all the emperor's ministers and all the other grownups of the realm agreed with the emperor. <

It is a reversal here, your highness. All can see that the emperor has no clothes except the emperor himself.<<<<<<<

You didn't say before that you were rewriting the story, you stupid, fatheaded ignoramus. It is too late to rewrite it now. And you still do not understand the original story. In the original story, all the adults -- including the emperor himself -- could actually see that he had no clothes but were afraid to admit it.

>>>>>> And you still have not answered the question of why you waste so much time here. <

I have many times. There is little reason to repeat it (as you repeat yourself endlessly).
<<<<<<

So you agree that you are wasting your time here. And yes -- the reason you have given is "amusement." Your lousy sense of humor is a sign of your stupidity.

Anyway, Urbanass, I thought that you would have been long gone after that brilliant put-down by Anonymous.

Monday, July 03, 2006 1:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

> you didn't say before that you were rewriting the story <

First you misapply a story and then complain when someone tries to point out your error. You were the one attempting to rewrite the story. What we have her in reality, you stupid, fatheaded ignoramus is an emperor who has no clothes, you. Everyone sees it and readily points it out, but unlike the story, only the emperor does not see his naked state.

> you still do not understand the original story. In the original story <

If you understood the original story, you would not have tried to find a comparison here.

>>>>>> And you still have not answered the question of why you waste so much time here. <

I have many times. There is little reason to repeat it (as you repeat yourself endlessly).<<<<<<

> And yes -- the reason you have given is "amusement." <

First you say that I have given no reason for my time here and second you give the reason that I have given.

> I thought that you would have been long gone after that brilliant put-down by Anonymous. <

I missed any brilliant put-down. All I saw was a mindless attack by yourself posting as "Anonymous". Should your posts be taken any more seriously when you put different names on them?

And you are still afraid to further demonstrate your stupidity by attempting to answer questions about subjects you know nothing about, for example, law.

Monday, July 03, 2006 5:42:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home