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, December 14, 2006

Ninety percent plagiarism figure suggests that Dover ID-as-science opinion is one-sided

Actually, the Discovery Institute's finding that about 90 percent of the Dover opinion's ID-as-science section was plagiarized from the ACLU suggests that this section is very one-sided. How much of the remaining approx. 10 percent came from the defendants? The ACLU material certainly does not contain any arguments supporting the defendants, not even for the purpose of rebutting those arguments (this material is from the ACLU's "proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law" brief and does not contain any of the defendants' arguments or rebuttals of the defendants' arguments). It seems that Judge Jones should have presented some material from the defendants, if for no other reason than to show why he rejected this material. Some people have this strange idea that the sole purpose of judicial opinions is to present the winning side's arguments and that it is out of order for a judicial opinion to discuss the losing side's arguments.

These final post-trial "proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law" briefs ought to be abolished because they contain nothing but the unrebutted and sometimes unsupported assertions of the parties. Where there is no courtroom trial, I believe that the usual briefing procedure is to have a plaintiff's "opening" brief which is answered by a defendant's "answering" brief which is answered by a plaintiff's "reply" brief (the parties are called appellants and appellees in the appeals courts and petitioners and respondents in the Supreme Court -- the appellants and the petitioners can be either the original plaintiffs or the original defendants). Jones allowed briefs rebutting the "proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law" briefs but the procedure that was used in the Dover case was still quite a bit different from the normal briefing procedure.

Labels:

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course it's one-sided, doofus; it's chock full o' truth, and Jones filtered out the lies. Waht remains came from one side. Another victory for Truth, Justice, and the American Way!!

If the defendants wanted their claims included in the opinion, they should have eschewed their lies.

Friday, December 15, 2006 10:28:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said...

>>>>>Of course it's one-sided, doofus; it's chock full o' truth, and Jones filtered out the lies. Waht remains came from one side. <<<<<<

The problem is that it is too one-sided -- as I showed in my article.

Jones was supposed to answer the lies, not filter them out.

The claim that all judges do what Jones did is no defense. From personal experience, I know very well what judges do. For example, in my suit against California's unconstitutional "smog impact fee" in federal court, I argued -- citing Supreme Court precedent -- that the state had here lost its federal-court tax-suit immunity by "leaving the sphere that is exclusively its own" by basing a state tax entirely on California's special status under federal auto emissions laws and regulations. The state made no attempt to counter that argument. Judge TJ "Mad" Hatter then dismissed my case without an opinion or oral hearing.

Friday, December 15, 2006 1:45:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home