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.

Friday, February 09, 2007

First Amazon.com customer review of "Monkey Girl" is in

The first Amazon.com customer review of the book "Monkey Girl" has been posted by Peter Irons. He bragged or boasted that he read 6000(!) pages of documents in the Dover case:

As the author of a forthcoming book (Viking, May 17) on five recent legal cases that challenged religious symbols and practices in public parks, courthouses, and schools (God on Trial: Dispatches From America's Religious Battlefields), I included a chapter on the Dover case, and read the entire 6,000 pages of testimony in that trial.

There are probably not 6000 pages of testimony in the trial, even if the expert witness reports are included -- the 6000 pages probably include all or most of the publicly available documents in the case. For one thing, after reading 6000 pages of material (even though a lot of it is in large print and/or double spaced), most of which is pretty dull reading, one could hardly see the forest for the trees. Also, a lot of very important things are not in the case documents -- e.g., Judge Jones' infamous "true religion" speech, in which he showed great hostility towards organized religions by essentially saying that they are not "true" religions. This hostility towards organized religions arguably biased him against the defendants and thus arguably disqualified him from hearing the case. Judge Jones would not have dared put that "true religion" remark in the Dover opinion. The expression of bias in his "true religion" speech is reflected in the appearance of bias in his rulings.

Ed Humes has made that trial come to life, with perceptive portraits of all the participants: plaintiffs, defendants, expert witnesses on both sides, and the federal judge, John E. Jones III, a Republican appointee of President Bush, who presided with amazing fairness and flashes of humor.

"Presided with amazing fairness"? heehee haha HAHAHAHAHA

And there we go with that "Republican appointee of President Bush" thing again. The Darwinists are making a much bigger thing about that after the decision than the fundies were making before the decision.

The opponents of evolution are well-funded and determined, but the Dover case inflicted a blow from which they might not recover.

The Dover decision is arguably the most overrated and overhyped single-judge decision in American history. The Dover decision had little enough value as precedent to begin with, and now it has even less value as precedent after the Discovery Institute revealed that the opinion's ID-as-science section was virtually entirely ghostwritten by the ACLU. And for the following reasons, I have concluded that Jones' decision is not binding precedent even in his own Middle District of Pennsylvania federal district court: (1) It makes no sense for an unappealed decision of a single judge to be binding precedent anywhere; (2) federal district courts, unlike federal appeals courts, do not have a procedure for eliminating really bad precedents -- the procedure used by federal appeals courts is the en banc (full court) rehearing; and (3) I am confident that I correctly remember that the 9th Circuit federal court of appeals once had a rule that no federal district court decision could be cited in any court of the 9th circuit (except in cases involving the same parties and the same issues), and that circuit rule could not have existed if there were any general rule that federal district court decisions were binding precedent in the same court.

Labels: ,

3 Comments:

Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

Fact check:

There are 5,282 pages of trial testimony. Add in the testimony from the several pre-trial hearings, and you should be right around 6,000 pages. That doesn't include any deposition testimony, which would be another several thousand pages.

All told, there is probably close to 100,000 pages generated by the case (some exhibits were over a thousand pages by themselves).

I see Larry is still bat-shit crazy and completely ignorant of legal reality. He's so predictably wrong, it's become boring.

Friday, February 16, 2007 9:32:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Kevin said,

>>>>> There are 5,282 pages of trial testimony. Add in the testimony from the several pre-trial hearings, and you should be right around 6,000 pages. <<<<<<

OK, I did some quick estimates and realized that I had underestimated the number of pages of trial testimony.

>>>>> That doesn't include any deposition testimony, which would be another several thousand pages. <<<<<

I wasn't aware that the National Center for Science Education had posted the deposition transcripts on the Internet (by "publicly available," I meant posted on the Internet -- I didn't mean stuff that you'd have to go to the courthouse to get).

>>>>>> All told, there is probably close to 100,000 pages generated by the case (some exhibits were over a thousand pages by themselves). <<<<<<

You can't count stuff like the 58 scientific books and journals that the plaintiffs presented when Behe was testifying -- nobody reads that stuff. Your 100,000 pages is much more of an overestimation than my estimate was an underestimation.

BTW, those of us who are familiar with normal limits on court documents are astonished by the sizes of the court documents in the Dover case. Normal limits are maybe 30-50 pages of double-spaced, single-sided documents for opening briefs, less for answering and reply-to-answer briefs. I think anything more than that and the case just gets too darn complicated -- you can't see the forest for the trees. Some of the post-trial briefs in Kitzmiller were over 200 pages long.

Anyway, you are helping to make my point for me, and that point is that just reading the trial transcripts does not make one particularly knowledgeable about the case. That is the important point.

>>>>>> He's so predictably wrong, it's become boring. <<<<<<

You're full of crap, Kevin -- I am right most of the time and when I am wrong, as I was here, unlike you I admit it.

BTW, Kevin, I see that you are still harassing commenters on other blogs.

Friday, February 16, 2007 1:11:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>I am right most of the time and when I am wrong... unlike you I admit it.<<<

Unlike you Larry, I can actually say that sentence and not be a bald-faced liar. You are consistently wrong and usually refuse to admit it (see definition of declarative judgment, for example). Your posts are a veritable treasure trove of incorrect legal analyses. If I were in a law class, all I would have to do to get an A is ask what you thought about a legal topic and then write the exact opposite.

>>>BTW, Kevin, I see that you are still harassing commenters on other blogs.<<<

I see BS on the blogs that I frequent, I call people on it. Unlike you, I have never been banned from any site, so I am free to continue to call people on their BS as I see fit. I guess you can call this harassment, but I wouldn't. They put out their ideas on public fora, they are inviting a response.

Friday, February 16, 2007 3:57:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home