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, April 08, 2007

Harvard article about Dover decision

No, this article is not in the vaunted Harvard Law Review, but it is in a Harvard law review -- the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. This article, which supports the notion that intelligent design is just repackaged or disguised creationism, is full of factual errors.

The article says (pages 4-5 of the pdf file, pages 584-585 of the law journal),

Although the opinion was excellently written and reasoned, its broad conclusions will not have a great impact on the public debate about teaching evolution and thus will fail to fulfill its hope of preventing judicial waste. Given the vast divide in American society over the role of religion in public life, the influence of high profile individuals who favor creationist teaching, and the limited precedential value of a district court's opinion, lawsuits will continue to serve as the primary check on new and improved methods of including creationism in the classroom. ID is representative of a huge cultural divide in America that a court, despite ambitious goals, cannot mend prophylactically. In fact, the opinion's decisiveness in finding that ID was not science, based on the overwhelming evidence of the Board's religious motivations, may encourage critics of evolution to repackage their next attack to avoid any mention of religion and thereby escape negative Establishment Clause analysis.

Well, there are some words of wisdom here, e.g., the Dover opinion "will not have a great impact on the public debate about teaching evolution and thus will fail to fulfill its hope of preventing judicial waste." However, unlike many other law journal articles about the Dover decision (other law journal articles about the Dover decision are discussed in the posts in this list), this article stopped short of saying that Judge Jones should not have ruled on the scientific merits of ID. In fact, the article says the opposite: "Finding that ID is theological rather than scientific in nature was necessary to the overall holding that the Board's policy violated the Establishment Clause." (page 4 of pdf file). The defendants' religious motivations were alone sufficient grounds for ruling against them under the Lemon test which Judge Jones used.

I of course disagree with the statement that "the opinion was excellently written and reasoned." And to the extent that the opinion's ID-as-science section was "excellently written and reasoned," the true authors of that section, the plaintiffs' attorneys, deserve whatever credit is due (not much) for that. Also, I disagree with the statement that the finding that ID was not science was "based on the overwhelming evidence of the Board's religious motivations" -- that finding was based on the testimony of expert scientific witnesses. As for encouraging "critics of evolution to repackage their next attack to avoid any mention of religion and thereby escape negative Establishment Clause analysis," I think that the only thing that is openly religious about ID is the name, which suggests the existence of a supernatural designer.

The article has several statements elsewhere that I disagree with, including statements that I think are factually inaccurate -- e.g.,

The Board members who voted for the ID statement and the defense expert witnesses were without exception religiously motivated.(page 6 of pdf file)

IMO defense scientific expert witness Michael Behe was not religiously motivated. And the article fails to mention that the plaintiffs' lead scientific expert witness, theistic evolutionist Kenneth Miller, was religiously motivated.

The article also said,

The Thomas More Law Center, which provided legal counsel for the defendants in Kitzmiller, framed the case as part of a culture war, in which it is necessary to defend the religious freedom of Christians.(page 6)

I disagree that the TMLC was trying to "defend the religious freedom of Christians" -- I think that the TMLC tried to present ID as a secular scientific concept.

Pope Benedict XVI, his predecessor Pope John Paul II, and the Dalai Lama find "offensive" what is termed "neo-Darwinism," the belief that the "engine of evolution is random mutation."(page 7)

The belief that the "engine of evolution is random mutation" is part of classical Darwinism as well as neo-Darwinism (neo-Darwinism has added other means of natural genetic variation: genetic drift and gene flow). And natural selection is also of course a basic part of both neo- and classical Darwinism.

The Vatican, however, has indicated that ID is unscientific and should not be taught as an alternative to evolution (pages 7-8)

Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, who is close to Pope Benedict XVI , recently said that he wants to correct what he calls a widespread misconception that the Catholic Church has given a blanket endorsement to Darwin's theories.

The harsh reaction to Judge Jones is noteworthy because he is a lifelong Republican who was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush in 2002, having garnered support from both Pennsylvania senators.(page 9)

There we go again with that shopworn argument that the Dover decision should not be criticized because Judge Jones is a "lifelong Republican," a "conservative," a "churchgoer," etc..

The Discovery Institute has circulated an anti-evolution petition since 2001; despite its claim that the signatures of scientists and engineers are proof that doubt about evolution exists within the scientific community, most signers are evangelical Christians motivated by religious beliefs. Kenneth Chang, "Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition," N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 21, 2006, at F2. (Footnote 53, page 7)

This footnote's misinterpretation of Chang's N.Y. Times article is evident just from the title of the article; the title only says that "many" evangelicals signed the petition -- the title does not say that "most signers are evangelical Christians motivated by religious beliefs." Also, Chang's conclusions are subject to the following sources of error: (1) the small sample size of his interviews and (2) the subjectivity of his interpretations of the responses to his interview questions. Chang's article is attacked here, here, and here, and is defended hereand here.

This is a fairly old law journal article that escaped my notice. After discovering data showing the huge numbers of citations of law journal articles in court opinions, I decided to do a diligent search for law journal articles about the Dover decision -- before now I only found them accidentally while surfing the Internet.

This list has thirteen different Harvard law journals, including the one and only Harvard Law Review.

I think that it is fair to ask whether an authoritative legal citation of a blog that has arbitrary commentary censorship is any worse than an authoritative legal citation of a law journal article (by "authoritative legal citation," I mean a citation in a court opinion or a law journal article). After all, the opportunities for publication of responses to law journal articles are very limited, and the courts have made thousands of citations of law journal articles over the years. However, the limitations on the responses to the law journal articles are unavoidable whereas bloggers who arbitrarily censor have shown a willful intent to suppress dissenting points of view. And many of the court citations of blogs have been citations of the comment sections rather than the opening posts.
.

Labels: ,

15 Comments:

Anonymous peter irons said...

Hey Larry,

Imagine my surprise at your post (just minutes after I commented on your most recent post) about an article in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, since I just happen to be a former senior editor of that law review, which is excellent. I won't take up your valuable space commenting on that (lack of) substance in your post, unless you dare me to, but I think you can add the CR-CL article to the vast majority of law review articles supporting the Kitzmiller decision.

Sunday, April 08, 2007 6:06:00 PM  
Anonymous peter irons said...

Larry,

Now that I've read the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review student note (it's not really an article, which are normally written by law professors), I give it a one-thumb up review. Like most student notes (keep in mind, these are really kids with no legal experience), it is long on footnotes and short on substance. True, the ID movement will try to repackage its creationism to get around Kitzmiller, and it has millions of bucks from right-wing Christian foundations for its PR campaign, but the bottom line is: you can put lipstick on a pig, but it still oinks. I'll bet my bottom dollar (to quote you) that no school board in its right mind will risk a million-dollar lawsuit by adopting any form of ID. Bet?

Sunday, April 08, 2007 6:27:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

peter irons said...
>>>>>I just happen to be a former senior editor of that law review, which is excellent. <<<<<<

Small world, isn't it?

I think that your opinion about the quality of that law review is more than a little biased.

>>>>>I think you can add the CR-CL article to the vast majority of law review articles supporting the Kitzmiller decision. <<<<<

What "vast majority"? You said that you know of a dozen articles that support the decision, but you won't identify them. You are inherently wind (my thanks to Answers in Genesis for that quip).

Anyway, I don't consider this article to be completely supportive of the decision, not when the article says that the opinion's "broad conclusions will not have a great impact on the public debate about teaching evolution and thus will fail to fulfill its hope of preventing judicial waste." The article gives no valid alternative justification for the opinion's ruling on the scientific merits of ID.

>>>>> Now that I've read the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review student note (it's not really an article, which are normally written by law professors), I give it a one-thumb up review. Like most student notes (keep in mind, these are really kids with no legal experience), it is long on footnotes and short on substance. <<<<<<

Because of that preceding quote I made, I give it a one-thumb up review, too.

The distinction between students' "notes" and professors' "articles" is mainly an expression of the professors' jealousy concerning the fact that the students can write good articles. I think that the students actually have an advantage over the professors because the students have no preconceived notions. For example, because I had no preconceived notions, I was able to literally interpret FRCP Rule 12 to give judges authority to dismiss lawsuits when a plaintiff rejects an out-of-court settlement offer that would provide relief equal to or greater than the maximum relief that could possibly be provided by the court. An instructor in constitutional law who is a friend of Ed Brayton could do nothing but curse me in response.

Also, in my very first lawsuit, before I had any idea of how to do legal research, I just stumbled on a precedent that made an airtight argument in my favor. I sued California in federal court over a state tax, California claimed federal-court tax-suit immunity under the Tax Injunction Act and the 11th Amendment, a precedent (Parden v. Terminal Railway of the Alabama State Docks or something like that) said that a state that "leaves the sphere that is exclusively its own" forfeits its immunity in federal courts, and I argued that the precedent applied because California left "the sphere that is exclusively its own" when it enacted a tax -- the grossly unconstitutional smog impact fee -- that was entirely based on and owed its existence to federal laws and regulations. The defendant, the state of California, could not even reply to the argument but the lousy judge, TJ "Mad" Hatter, dismissed my complaint without stating an opinion. Had I been an attorney, my argument would have been considered to be a stroke of genius. The attorneys who sued over the fee in state court -- and eventually collected millions of dollars in an attorney fee award -- originally sued in federal court and did not come up with an argument against dismissal in that court. So never say that lack of legal training or experience means that one cannot come up with good legal arguments.

Others -- e.g., Kevin Vicklund and Bob Serranos -- tried to show me to be wrong about the law and fell flat on their faces. You're next.

>>>>>> you can put lipstick on a pig, but it still oinks. <<<<<

And the courts may decide that it is constitutional for a pig to oink so long as it is wearing lipstick.

>>>>> I'll bet my bottom dollar (to quote you) that no school board in its right mind will risk a million-dollar lawsuit by adopting any form of ID. Bet? <<<<<<

How could you ever collect on your bet if it is necessary to wait forever to prove that you are right?

And I'll bet my bottom dollar (to quote me) that the current Congress will pass a bill to ban or cap attorney fee awards in establishment clause cases. And it won't be necessary to wait forever to prove that I am right. Bet?

Monday, April 09, 2007 1:10:00 AM  
Anonymous peter irons said...

Larry,

OK, there have been (so far) at least ten law review notes an articles supportive of the Kitzmiller ruling; not quite a dozen, but I'm sure there are more coming. Most of these supportive articles, by the way, are cited in the forthcoming anti-Kitzmiller article in the Montana Law Review by David deWolf, John West, and Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute (which is followed by my pro-Kitzmiller article).

I'll just list the law reviews and publication dates of the pro-Kitzmiler articles; you can find full cites on LexisNexis:

Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (Spring '06); Richard Katskee, in First Amendment Law Review (Spring '07); Georgetown Law Journal (March '07); Columbia Journal of Law & Social Prblems (Vol. 39, '06); Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review (you knowthis one); University of Miami Law Review (Vol. 60, '06); Pierce Law Review (Vol. 4, '06); Minnesota Journal of Law, Science, & Technology (Vol. 7; '06); Minnesota Law Review (Vol 90, '06); Montana Law Review (Vo. 58, '07 -- in press).

Enough? I think the pro-Kitzmiller side wins the numbers game, if that's what you want to play.

Monday, April 09, 2007 8:13:00 AM  
Anonymous peter irons said...

Larry,

Hello?

Monday, April 09, 2007 1:15:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

peter irons said...

>>>>>Larry,

Hello? <<<<<

Gadzooks, I don't post a response within a few hours and you get all impatient. Your last comment did not even expressly ask for a response.

Monday, April 09, 2007 4:26:00 PM  
Anonymous peter irons said...

Larry,

OK, I'm asking for a response. Take your time; I know you're a busy guy. But since you and I seem to be the only people on your blog (where's Jim Spencer and Voice in the Wilderness?). By my count, being very generous to your side, the current score is 10 pro-Kitzmiller law review articles and notes, against four that are critical (I'm counting the forthcoming DI article in the Montana Law Review, the semi-critical student note in the Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion, Arnold Loewy's piece in the First Amendment Law Review, and Jay Wexler's semi-critical piece in that same journal). Not a single one on either side, by the way, disputes the correctness of Judge Jones's ruling.

As to Kitzmiller's precedential value, as I noted earlier, it will (like the McLean ruling) provide "guidance" for district and appellate judges who may decide future ID cases. Sure, it's not "binding" on them, but that's not the point. It's "persuasive" quality is what matters, and it would most likely persuade other judges that Jones was correct in his ruling. But that's just one country lawyer's opinion.

Monday, April 09, 2007 4:58:00 PM  
Anonymous voice in the Wilderness said...

> For example, because I had no preconceived notions, <

Of knowledge

> I was able to literally interpret FRCP Rule 12 <

Misinterpret. It looks like you tried to redefine words again to make it say what you want.

> An instructor in constitutional law who is a friend of Ed Brayton could do nothing but curse me in response. <

You call reasoned responses "curses"?

> Also, in my very first lawsuit, before I had any idea of how to do legal research <

You still don't.

> I sued California in federal court over a state tax <

And were laughed out of court.

> The defendant, the state of California, could not even reply to the argument <

You argument didn't deserve a response.

> but the lousy judge, TJ "Mad" Hatter, dismissed my complaint without stating an opinion. <

You could not counter the flawless judgement so you just resort to insults.

> Had I been an attorney, my argument would have been considered to be a stroke of genius. <

Had you been an attorney, you may have been disbared for incompetence.

> So never say that lack of legal training or experience means that one cannot come up with good legal arguments. <

Yes. Your lack of ability doesn't apply to everyone.

> Others -- e.g., Kevin Vicklund and Bob Serranos -- tried to show me to be wrong about the law and fell flat on their faces. You're next. <

They made mincemeat out of you but their arguments went over your head. Most things do.

Monday, April 09, 2007 8:41:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Peter Irons said,

>>>>>Larry,

OK, I'm asking for a response. Take your time; I know you're a busy guy. But since you and I seem to be the only people on your blog (where's Jim Spencer and Voice in the Wilderness?). <<<<<

I was in the process of writing a response to your previous comment, and I will include part of that response here.

I don't remember the name Jim Spencer very well and he has certainly not commented on this blog recently. As for Voice in the Wilderness, most of his comments on this blog have been breathtakingly inane -- just look at his comments in this thread. Unfortunately, my no-censorship policy prevents me from deleting these stupid comments.

>>>> OK, there have been (so far) at least ten law review notes an articles supportive of the Kitzmiller ruling; not quite a dozen, but I'm sure there are more coming. <<<<<

I can't see why the law review "notes" are called "notes" when they might be dozens of pages long and have dozens of references.

>>>>> Most of these supportive articles, by the way, are cited in the forthcoming anti-Kitzmiller article in the Montana Law Review by David deWolf, John West, and Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute (which is followed by my pro-Kitzmiller article). <<<<<<

Good -- I am looking forward to seeing or reading about these Montana Law Review articles.

>>>>>> I'll just list the law reviews and publication dates of the pro-Kitzmiler articles; you can find full cites on LexisNexis <<<<<<

Unfortunately, LexisNexis is a subscription service and I am not a subscriber.

I have heard of a few of the law review articles that you mentioned. Several law review articles are discussed in these posts.

Some of the best articles that I have read about this subject are not in law journals: e.g., a letter by attorney Edward Sisson (it is specifically about the Cobb County case but also concerns the Dover case) and a blog article by emeritus law professor Albert Alschuler. This letter and article are quoted in this post.

>>>>> By my count, being very generous to your side, the current score is 10 pro-Kitzmiller law review articles and notes, against four that are critical (I'm counting the forthcoming DI article in the Montana Law Review, the semi-critical student note in the Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion, Arnold Loewy's piece in the First Amendment Law Review, and Jay Wexler's semi-critical piece in that same journal). <<<<<<

This is not just a matter of counting and comparing numbers of pro- and anti-Kitzmiller law review articles and notes -- it takes only one good anti-KItzmiller article or note to blow the Kitzmiller decision out of the water.

Wexler said that the centerpiece ruling of the Kitzmiller decision -- the ID-as-science ruling -- should not have been made, and you call his paper only "semi-critical"?

>>>>> Not a single one on either side, by the way, disputes the correctness of Judge Jones's ruling. <<<<<

Loewy's article came darn close to disputing the correctness of Judge Jones' ruling -- Loewy's article said,

I believe that teaching intelligent design in public schools is constitutional (outside of the unusual context of the Kitzmiller situation).

Also, IMO the Harvard article that I discussed in this post should also be counted as critical of the Dover decision -- this review said,

Although the opinion was excellently written and reasoned, its broad conclusions will not have a great impact on the public debate about teaching evolution and thus will fail to fulfill its hope of preventing judicial waste . . . . .

In fact, the opinion's decisiveness in finding that ID was not science . . . may encourage critics of evolution to repackage their next attack to avoid any mention of religion and thereby escape negative Establishment Clause analysis.


To me, that comes pretty darn close to saying that the ID-as-science ruling was unnecessary and could also backfire against the Darwinists.

>>>>>> As to Kitzmiller's precedential value, as I noted earlier, it will (like the McLean ruling) provide "guidance" for district and appellate judges who may decide future ID cases. Sure, it's not "binding" on them, but that's not the point. It's "persuasive" quality is what matters, and it would most likely persuade other judges that Jones was correct in his ruling. <<<<<<<

Since the Kitzmiller decision is not binding on other judges, they are free to ignore its findings completely. I think that the following factors are very damaging to the "persuasive" quality of the Kitzmiller opinion:

(1) A Discovery Institute report revealed that the opinion's ID-as-science section was virtually entirely copied from the plaintiffs' opening post-trial brief while ignoring the defendants' opening post-trial brief and the plaintiffs' and defendants' answering post-trial briefs. This shows that Jones exercised no independent judgment in ruling on the ID-as-science question.

(2) Judge Jones said in a Dickinson College commencement speech that organized religions are not "true" religions. This statement showed great hostility towards organized religions and IMO showed that Jones is unfit to decide establishment clause cases.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 1:23:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

VIW driveled,
>>>>>> I sued California in federal court over a state tax <

And were laughed out of court.

> The defendant, the state of California, could not even reply to the argument <

You argument didn't deserve a response. <<<<<<

You profoundly retarded nincompoop, even a former top administrator of a California state auto emissions control agency testified in state court that the smog impact fee required the approval of the US Environmental Protection Agency. It was a federal case.

Now just get lost before I get really unhappy with you.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 1:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

I see that you have censored my message on this which pointed out the fact that all of your court cases have failed. So much for your "Association of Non-Censoring Blogs".

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 4:08:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice in the Wilderness said...
>>>>>> I see that you have censored my message on this which pointed out the fact that all of your court cases have failed. So much for your "Association of Non-Censoring Blogs". <<<<<<

ViW, you lousy worthless piece of shit, then how do you explain why the above comment is still here? And I should delete the above comment because I delete gossip.

Some of my court cases are not even available online. What kind of credibility to do you think you have when you make that statement?

You are just frustrated because you are unable to counter my airtight arguments in favor of my smog impact fee lawsuit.

One of the reasons why I pursued my smog impact fee cases was that I was pissed off at the dishonorable TJ "Mad" Hatter for dismissing my case without an opinion. I was told that he had a bad reputation for doing that and I was half hoping that some appeals court judges who had a grudge against him for doing that would take revenge by reversing his dismissal of my case, since -- as I showed above -- there were good grounds for doing so. Lower court judges who gives no opinion can greatly increase the workload for appeals judges who must then try the cases de novo (of course, the appeals court judges often lighten their workloads by not giving opinions themselves). I later realized that I was wasting my time with the lousy courts. I went directly to a Los Angeles Times automotive writer and he wrote an article about the fee in which I was mentioned. I also had fairly good success on the Internet.

My court cases were very educational. The legal research I did taught me, for example, that so much of what I read about the Dover case -- such as the notion that Judge Jones was obligated to rule on the ID-as-science issue -- is a load of crap. And a lot of this crap is written by attorneys.

And I thought I told you to get lost.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 8:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> ViW, you lousy worthless piece of shit, then how do you explain why the above comment is still here? <

Larry, you lying moron. I am sure that I am not the only one that saw the post which preceded the above before you censored it.

> And I should delete the above comment because I delete gossip. <

This is an excuse you give to delete anything for which you have no answer. Your record of total failure in court is not gossip. It is the issue at hand. If you don't want your legal record to be an issue, don't bring it up to begin with.

If there were other members of your Association of Non-Censoring Blowhards, they would probably vote you out for failing to practice what you preach.

> Some of my court cases are not even available online. <

All of the cases that you have filed on this planet are on Westlaw. Those filed on other planets, or existing only in your mind, may not be.

What kind of credibility to do you think you have when you make that statement?

> You are just frustrated because you are unable to counter my airtight arguments in favor of my smog impact fee lawsuit. <

He seems to have done a very good job of countering your paper thin arguments. So hav Kevin and several others. He is always kicking your ass. That's why you don't like him.


> I was pissed off at the dishonorable TJ "Mad" Hatter for dismissing my case without an opinion. <

Childish insults aimed at the judge do not improve your case.

> I was told that he had a bad reputation for doing that <

Now that is gossip. I am pointing it out so you can learn what it is. Perhaps, like so many words, you have made a new definition for it.

> I later realized that I was wasting my time with the lousy courts. <

Yes. If you are batting zero, it is time to either get a new bat or give up the game. You knew that a new bat wouldn't solve your problem.

> This article, which supports the notion that intelligent design is just repackaged or disguised creationism, is full of factual errors. <

> bloggers who arbitrarily censor have shown a willful intent to suppress dissenting points of view. <

Confession is good for the soul, Larry. I am glad that you have finally seen it.

Thursday, April 12, 2007 2:21:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> I am sure that I am not the only one that saw the post which preceded the above before you censored it. <<<<<<

You lousy dunghill, I didn't delete that comment, but why should I leave any of your crap here, anyway? Deleting your crap would not be arbitrary censorship because you are just making insults and ad hominem attacks and are not making any contribution to the discussion here. I have bent over backwards to keep comments that don't belong here.

>>>>> If you don't want your legal record to be an issue, don't bring it up to begin with. <<<<<

I didn't bring it up -- Peter Irons brought it up. He said that student articles in law journals are just called "notes" rather than "articles," as though law students are not capable of writing good articles because they do not have legal experience. So I pointed out that I came up with a good argument even though I had no formal education or experience in the law whatsoever. My overall record in the courts is not relevant to that point that I was trying to make.

Furthermore, you obviously are not able to come up with a counterargument to the argument that I presented to the court, and I was vindicated when a former top administrator of a California auto emissions control agency testified in state court that the smog impact fee required the approval of the US EPA. It was a federal case.

>>>>> All of the cases that you have filed on this planet are on Westlaw. <<<<<

It is not relevant and you couldn't prove anything to the other readers anyway, dunghill, because not all cases are listed in Westlaw and because most people do not have subscriptions to Westlaw. And I presume that most other readers don't care, anyway -- they are interested in what I am saying now, not in how many lawsuits I won as a pro se litigant against crooked judges who are prejudiced against pro se litigants.

>>>>>> I was pissed off at the dishonorable TJ "Mad" Hatter for dismissing my case without an opinion. <

Childish insults aimed at the judge do not improve your case. <<<<<<

This is not a "childish" insult. TJ "Mad" Hatter was behaving in a childish manner.

>>>>>>> I was told that he had a bad reputation for doing that <

Now that is gossip. <<<<<<

So? If you can gossip, why can't I?

>>>>> You knew that a new bat wouldn't solve your problem. <<<<<<

It did. I started to make some real progress after I gave up on the courts. Unfortunately, by that time, the game was practically over.

Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:07:00 PM  
Anonymous voice in the wilderness said...

> You lousy dunghill, I didn't delete that comment <

It just went away on its own?

> Deleting your crap would not be arbitrary censorship because you are just making insults and ad hominem attacks and are not making any contribution to the discussion here. <

You are describing yourself. Can you find a single case here where you have not been the first one to resort to ad hominem attacks? Perhaps there are a few but I haven't seen them.

Just because you can't refute, or even understand an argument does not say anything about its validity. At the same time, your endless repetition of drivel long since proven to be false does not enhance the intellectual level of this blog.

>>>>> If you don't want your legal record to be an issue, don't bring it up to begin with. <<<<<

> I didn't bring it up -- Peter Irons brought it up. He said that student articles in law journals are just called "notes" rather than "articles," as though law students are not capable of writing good articles because they do not have legal experience. <

Which is not bringing up your legal career by any stretch of the imagination.

> So I pointed out that I came up with a good argument even though I had no formal education or experience in the law whatsoever. <

Translation. You brought it up.

> My overall record in the courts is not relevant to that point that I was trying to make. <

If someone claims to be competition for Annie Oakley, the fact that in a dozen attempts they could not hit the ground with a manure sack could be an admissible rebuttal.

>>>>> All of the cases that you have filed on this planet are on Westlaw. <<<<<

> It is not relevant and you couldn't prove anything to the other readers anyway, dunghill, because not all cases are listed in Westlaw and because most people do not have subscriptions to Westlaw. <

Anyone with a basic knowledge of the Internet can access anything on Westlaw at no cost. The fact that you and a few other dimwits do not know how to do this doesn't mean that the material isn't there. You are closing your eyes again to make the world go away.

If you claim that there actually is a case you won anywhere on this planet, present it here. I have made an accurate statement and you are accusing me of inaccuracy. Prove it or stop your lies.

> not in how many lawsuits I won as a pro se litigant against crooked judges who are prejudiced against pro se litigants. <

But you never had a case involving such a judge.

> This is not a "childish" insult. TJ "Mad" Hatter was behaving in a childish manner. <

It is a childish insult.

> So? If you can gossip, why can't I? <

A moot point. I have not gossiped, Anonymous has not gossiped. You have gossiped.

> I started to make some real progress after I gave up on the courts. <

Your legal career improved greatly after you gave up law!

Thursday, April 12, 2007 6:02:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home