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.

Saturday, November 03, 2007

Wickedpedia's hypocrisy

Wickedpedia says,

Wikipedia tries to address the problem of systemic bias, and to deal with zealous editors who seek to influence the presentation of an article in a biased way, by insisting on a neutral point of view.

The only points of view that Wickedpedia insists on presenting are the views of the Wickedpedia administrators.

Wickedpedia also has the nerve to proclaim in a headline that "Wikipedia is not censored".

The corruption at Wickedpedia has reached the point of no return, because anyone with any decency would have left the organization by now. Wickedpedia is tyrannized by arrogant administrators who think that there is one set of Wickedpedia rules for them and another for everyone else. For example, the official Wickedpedia rules say that citation of personal blogs is prohibited (except where a blogger wrote about himself), but in Cheri Yecke's biography the administrators allowed some personal blogs because they were "notable" while censoring my personal blog because it was "crappy." That reminds me of the "best butter" that the March Hare put in the Mad Hatter's watch in Alice in Wonderland:

The Hatter was the first to break the silence. `What day of the month is it?' he said, turning to Alice: he had taken his watch out of his pocket, and was looking at it uneasily, shaking it every now and then, and holding it to his ear.

Alice considered a little, and then said `The fourth.'

`Two days wrong!' sighed the Hatter. `I told you butter wouldn't suit the works!' he added looking angrily at the March Hare.

`It was the best butter,' the March Hare meekly replied.

`Yes, but some crumbs must have got in as well,' the Hatter grumbled: `you shouldn't have put it in with the bread-knife.'

The March Hare took the watch and looked at it gloomily: then he dipped it into his cup of tea, and looked at it again: but he could think of nothing better to say than his first remark, `It was the best butter, you know.'

Personally, I don't think that citations of personal blogs should be prohibited, but if there is a rule, that rule should either be followed or, if exceptions to the rule are allowed, those exceptions should apply to everyone.

Also, Wickedpedia allows just a single administrator to ban a contributor permanently and Wickedpedia uses the disreputable practice of IP address blocking, which usually indiscriminately blocks a large number of users and is often ineffective anyway.

I suggested that editing disputes be resolved by just posting the disputed item along with a note that the item is disputed and links to external websites where the item is discussed or debated. That would (1) avoid any suggestion that the item is endorsed by Wikipedia and (2) avoid cluttering up Wikipedia with long debates over disputed items. An online encyclopedia does not have to look like a printed encyclopedia, which cannot instantly link to external references where disputed items are discussed or debated. My suggestion was ignored.

Wikipedia is well summed up by Wikitruth:

Wikitruth is a website dedicated to the subject of flaws and issues with the Wikipedia, another website run by Jimbo Wales and a massive, insane army of Wikipedians that he controls with his mind rays. It's very hard to really explain Wikipedia, but if you visit it, it says it wants to be "the free encylopedia that anyone can edit". Instead, however, it is often filled with crazy people, experiences some issues with manipulative personalities, and falls prey to abuse and censorship. And that's a real shame.

To say that Wickedpedia sucks would be a gross understatement.
.

Labels:

57 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It looks like the fatheaded dunghill has made another false analogy. Perhaps that is why his blog is crappy.

Why should Wikipedia give equal weight to sanity and insanity?

Sunday, November 04, 2007 7:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Big Ed said...

Disagreeing with Larry is wicked.

How lame!

Sunday, November 04, 2007 11:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Shemp Fafarman said...

Crappy, non-notable

Sunday, November 04, 2007 6:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

< To say that Wickedpedia sucks would be a gross understatement. >

"Gross" without a doubt.

Monday, November 05, 2007 12:12:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Thank you.

Monday, November 05, 2007 12:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone have a clue of how Larry's logic to garbage translator goes? It would be interesting to know how everything gets past him.

Monday, November 05, 2007 6:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> It would be interesting to know how everything gets past him. <

It is probably a mental burnout due to his diet of beer and candy bars.

Monday, November 05, 2007 3:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

An interesting statistic:

Googling "Larry Fafarman" +"I'm from Missouri" yields five references, two of which are repeats.

Googling "Larry Fafarman" +Lunatic yields 36 references.

Tuesday, November 06, 2007 8:44:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous driveled,

>>>>> Why should Wikipedia give equal weight to sanity and insanity? <<<<<<

Do you really think that statement is witty, you stupid fathead?

The "best butter" story went completely over your stupid head.

Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:15:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Yecke wiki article allowed some personal blogs because they were either

A) Directly affected by some of the actions that Yecke was making to erase her association with intelligent design using reputationdefender

or

B) Wrote/commented about social/educational issues that Yecke's prior actions affected, mainly the intelligent design/creationism in science curriculum controversy

and

C) Most importantly, cite sources and other references used to make their opinions or assertions without using profanity or insults, trying to distort/hide factual information, or outright lying in the face of facts (criteria in which Larry's comments and blog have consistently failed to meet).

The only hypocrisy is you yourself, Larry. And no matter how many times you scream fathead, dunghill, or cry censorship, water will never be dry, fire will never be cold, and your lies will never become the truth.

Tuesday, November 06, 2007 2:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> The "best butter" story went completely over your stupid head.<

I see. The March Hare is Larry.

Tuesday, November 06, 2007 3:17:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> The Yecke wiki article allowed some personal blogs because they were either <<<<<<

Wrong. The reason given by the Wickedpedia administrators was that the other blogs were "notable" while my blog was "crappy."

>>>>>> A) Directly affected by some of the actions that Yecke was making to erase her association with intelligent design using reputationdefender <<<<<<

Only Wes "Ding" Elsberry's blog was affected, but the blog of Florida Citizens for Science and Sleazy PZ Myers' Pharyngula blog were also cited.

Anyway, lots of blogs are "affected" by one thing or another, but that does not give any blog any special privileges. It is not Wickedpedia's job to bail out Ding Elsberry. And if an exception to Wickedpedia's rule against citation of personal blogs is made for one blog, then fairness requires that it be made for all blogs.

>>>>>> B) Wrote/commented about social/educational issues that Yecke's prior actions affected, mainly the intelligent design/creationism in science curriculum controversy <<<<<<

So does this blog.

>>>>>> C) Most importantly, cite sources and other references used to make their opinions or assertions without using profanity or insults, trying to distort/hide factual information, or outright lying in the face of facts <<<<<<

Wrong, dunghill -- this blog is very well documented. Fatheaded Ed Brayton's "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" blog is an example of a blog that is poorly documented.

Arbitrary censorship of comments is infinitely worse than calling names.

I am fed up with your cluttering up this blog with your worthless crap.

Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> And if an exception to Wickedpedia's rule against citation of personal blogs is made for one blog, then fairness requires that it be made for all blogs. <

This is absurd. If one blog is cited then every blog should be cited, no matter how non-notable and crappy they are?

>>>>>> B) Wrote/commented about social/educational issues that Yecke's prior actions affected, mainly the intelligent design/creationism in science curriculum controversy <<<<<<

> So does this blog. <

But not in a scientific and rational manner. Your blog consists mainly of articles that you find by a Google search followed by a misinterpretation or a non-sequitur. Your replies to follow-up posts are always just insults or repetition of disproven ideas. You rarely answer direct questions, presumably because you lack the ability to do so.

> this blog is very well documented. <

The points on which you are challenged are rarely documented at all.

> Fatheaded Ed Brayton's "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" blog is an example of a blog that is poorly documented. <

Document that.

>>>> Arbitrary censorship of comments is infinitely worse than calling names. <<<<

> I am fed up with your cluttering up this blog with your worthless crap. <

The worthless crap is your non-responsive responses to posted comments. If you don't want this blog to be known as crappy, as it currently is, grow up.

Wednesday, November 07, 2007 8:17:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Once again, ViU takes advantage of my no-censorship policy while ridiculing my opposition to Internet censorship.

Because of my no-censorship policy, I cannot delete ViU's crap. All I can do is pray that ViU drops dead and goes to hell, and I am not even religious.

Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:41:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

>> Once again, ViU takes advantage of my no-censorship policy while ridiculing my opposition to Internet censorship. <<

You could save a bit of time by programming a key to type that statement. You have posted it verbatim many times when you were losing an argument. A situation in which you often find yourself.

couldn't answer a question

> I cannot delete ViU's crap. <

You could ban me like you did ViW and then claim no knowledge of it.

Thursday, November 08, 2007 7:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that Larry actually believes that he is fooling someone. (other than himself)

Thursday, November 08, 2007 11:27:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> You could save a bit of time by programming a key to type that statement. You have posted it verbatim many times when you were losing an argument. <<<<<<

So that's it. You can come here and present any stupid, asinine argument or question you want and then when I don't answer, you can claim that I am "losing the argument." The disreputable bloggers you so admire have a much easier way of dealing with stupid comments -- they just delete them.

Only one of your questions is worth answering, and I have answered it many times already:

>>>> Fatheaded Ed Brayton's "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" blog is an example of a blog that is poorly documented. <

Document that. <<<<<<

Fatneaded Ed said in regard to the question of whether the new Dover school board should have tried to avoid attorney fees by repealing the ID policy immediately,

First, the fact that everyone involved had advised the board that rescinding the policy would not moot the case. And I mean everyone -- the plaintiffs' attorneys, their own defense attorneys, their own legal counsel, even the judge himself had publicly stated that the case would not be mooted by voluntarily rescinding the policy.

This is a perfect example of Fatheaded Ed shooting off his mouth. I know for a fact that so far as the public record is concerned, only the judge in that list above gave such advice -- by publicly stating that the school board election results would not affect his decision. Also, an attorney prepared a written report advising the school board to try to avoid the attorney fees by repealing the ID policy immediately. And BTW, Judge Jones had no business giving legal advice to the school board. In particular, his advice undermined the school board's position for seeking an out-of-court settlement. More info is here.

Thursday, November 08, 2007 12:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

It looks like Larry has censored my response to his last post. I guess he had no answer.

Thursday, November 08, 2007 5:01:00 PM  
Anonymous chris torvik said...

> when I don't answer, you can claim that I am "losing the argument." <

You tend to dodge around when you are losing an argument. Debating you is like trying to catch a lizard under a can.

> The disreputable bloggers you so admire have a much <

So far no disreputable bloggers other than Larry have been mentioned.

> Only one of your questions is worth answering, and I have answered it many times already: <

Restating your original position without support is not answering the question.

> I know for a fact that so far as the public record is concerned, only the judge in that list above gave such advice -- by publicly stating that the school board election results would not affect his decision. <

That doesn't seem to be giving that advice. It doesn't seem to be giving advice at all.

> Voice in the Urbanness said...
It looks like Larry has censored my response to his last post. I guess he had no answer. <

Larry censoring? What else is new?

Thursday, November 08, 2007 5:17:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Chris Torvik? Not the real Chris Torvik! I thought that Chris Torvik was a fictional character.

>>>>> I know for a fact that so far as the public record is concerned, only the judge in that list above gave such advice -- by publicly stating that the school board election results would not affect his decision. <

That doesn't seem to be giving that advice. It doesn't seem to be giving advice at all. <<<<<<<

So you think that Fatheaded Ed was wrong about Judge Jones too?

Judge Jones was giving legal advice here -- he was advising the new school board members not to bother repealing the ID policy because such repeal would not affect his decision. Furthermore, this legal advice was from the horse's mouth -- the judge himself.

Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Chris Torvik said...

> Judge Jones was giving legal advice here -- he was advising the new school board members not to bother repealing the ID policy because such repeal would not affect his decision. <

A sane mind would not make that interpretation. Ask your therapist at tomorrow's session.

> Furthermore, this legal advice was ... <

Not legal advice by any stretch of the imagination.

Friday, November 09, 2007 3:25:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

Near the end of a long post, Ed wrote

First, the fact that everyone involved had advised the board that rescinding the policy would not moot the case. And I mean everyone -- the plaintiffs' attorneys, their own defense attorneys, their own legal counsel, even the judge himself had publicly stated that the case would not be mooted by voluntarily rescinding the policy.

This fragment of a paragraph was not new information and had been previously documented. The new info, which included analysis of a blog posting and numerous court cases, was exhaustively documented. Larry lies.

>>>This is a perfect example of Fatheaded Ed shooting off his mouth. I know for a fact that so far as the public record is concerned, only the judge in that list above gave such advice -- by publicly stating that the school board election results would not affect his decision.<<<

Now that is utter bullshit. In fact, the same news article in which Jones supposedly gave the advice, the defense lawyers had this to say:

"It's not as simple as let's dismiss the case and walk away with paying $1," said Thompson, who spoke with Napierskie prior to his motion. "By merely dismissing the case, even if that were agreed upon, would not eliminate the plaintiffs' ability to ask for reasonable attorney fees."

Also, the school board's legal counsel gave them the same advice, as shown in a news article prior to the December meeting, and in the minutes of the December meeting.

McIlvaine said the issue did come up during a board orientation and that her impression from the district's solicitor, Stephen Russell of Stock and Leader, was that "it doesn't seem that it could be turned back."

McIlvaine and Reinking said they would seek more information from Russell before making any decision.


The meeting minutes are no longer available, but Panda's Thumb preserved the relevant portion:

2. David Napierskie. 6495 Cabot Road. Dover voiced his concerns of the legal ramifications of the Intelligent Design case and the dropping of the case now. Mr. Napierskie also presented legal briefs to the school board for their review.

3. Board president Reinking noted that legal counsel advised the board that the trial is over and can not change the outcome of any vote. Mrs. Reinking promised to include the community and staff in any decisions made on Intelligent design. Intelligent design will be on the agenda for the January 3rd of meeting. There will be discussion at that time on the issue.


Members of the plaintiffs' legal team posted on Panda's Thumb that the plaintiffs' attorneys had also advised the new board that the decision couldn't be mooted, though the attorneys are on record saying that a court order would have been acceptable. Of course, a court-ordered settlement still leaves the district liable for attorney fees, per Buchannon.

Larry lies again.

>>>Also, an attorney prepared a written report advising the school board to try to avoid the attorney fees by repealing the ID policy immediately.<<<

And the attorney was a personal acquaintance of the outgoing board member, and was a real estate lawyer. Real estate law does not involve nominal damages, so it is not surprising that the lawyer was unaware that mootness was precluded by precedent.

>>>And BTW, Judge Jones had no business giving legal advice to the school board. In particular, his advice undermined the school board's position for seeking an out-of-court settlement.<<<

Here's what Jones had to say about the matter:

Judge John E. Jones III said the election results don't figure into his ruling.

This simple statement is not only correct, but part of the FRCP, Rule 25(d). The rule states:

(d) Public Officers; Death or Separation From Office.

(1) When a public officer is a party to an action in an official capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action does not abate and the officer's successor is automatically substituted as a party. Proceedings following the substitution shall be in the name of the substituted party, but any misnomer not affecting the substantial rights of the parties shall be disregarded. An order of substitution may be entered at any time, but the omission to enter such an order shall not affect the substitution.

(2) A public officer who sues or is sued in an official capacity may be described as a party by the officer's official title rather than by name; but the court may require the officer's name to be added.


"the action does not abate" means that the substitution of a public officer does not moot a case. This was not legal advice, just a simple statement of fact that the parties are responsible for knowing, but that laypeople might not know. If anything, it should have provided a prod to the board if they were contemplating a settlement, as it reminded them that nothing would change unless they initiated it.

Unfortunately, because of the way it was reported (in the middle of an article on the mootness issue), it appeared on first glance that the judge was talking about whether the board could moot the case by taking action, when all he was really speaking about was whether the election had an automatic impact on his decision. As above, the FRCP is unequivocal: "the action does not abate". As a result, I bear some responsibility for Larry's incorrect conclusion.

Larry was misled.

However, if Larry still insists on incorrectly claiming that the judge spoke on the matter, then he runs into another problem with his claim that the plaintiffs' attorneys didn't make a statement. From yet another news article:

"The suit goes on," said plaintiffs' attorney Steve Harvey of Pepper Hamilton. "The mere election of a new board does not change anything."

Which is the same thing Judge jones said.

Friday, November 09, 2007 6:22:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Kevin driveled,
>>>>>> This fragment of a paragraph was not new information and had been previously documented. The new info, which included analysis of a blog posting and numerous court cases, was exhaustively documented. Larry lies. <<<<<<<

You are the liar, dunghill. It was not "exhaustively documented," and there is documentation to the contrary.

>>>>>> In fact, the same news article in which Jones supposedly gave the advice, the defense lawyers had this to say:

"It's not as simple as let's dismiss the case and walk away with paying $1," said Thompson, who spoke with Napierskie prior to his motion. "By merely dismissing the case, even if that were agreed upon, would not eliminate the plaintiffs' ability to ask for reasonable attorney fees." <<<<<<

OK, it has been a long while and my memory failed in regard to Thompson from the TMLC. But he was obviously biased because he wanted to appeal. The news article said,

"The case was tried with the assumption that regardless of who won or lost an appellate court and maybe ultimately the (U.S.) Supreme Court would take a look at it and change the law," Thompson said. "If they don't appeal, what they've done is short-circuit the entire legal strategy that was put in place by the Thomas More Law Center."

>>>>>> McIlvaine said the issue did come up during a board orientation and that her impression from the district's solicitor, Stephen Russell of Stock and Leader, was that "it doesn't seem that it could be turned back."

McIlvaine and Reinking said they would seek more information from Russell before making any decision.
<<<<<<

You are only making my case for me by citing vague, wishy-washy statements: "her impression," "it doesn't seem," and "they would seek more information from Russell." Also, Russell was being rehired around this time -- his rehiring was announced at the December meeting -- so his status as the board's counsel at this time is questionable.

>>>>>> 3. Board president Reinking noted that legal counsel advised the board that the trial is over and can not change the outcome of any vote. Mrs. Reinking promised to include the community and staff in any decisions made on Intelligent design. Intelligent design will be on the agenda for the January 3rd of meeting. There will be discussion at that time on the issue. <<<<<<

What "legal counsel" -- Thompson or Russell? Russell had just been rehired. And was this just the "impression" that the news article spoke of? Was Russell paid for this advice? Is there any evidence of any written advice from Russell? Napierski's attorney prepared a written report. From King Lear:

Kent: This is nothing, fool.

Fool: Then 'tis like the breath of an unfee'd lawyer; you gave me nothing for't.


Also, Reinking's promise to include the community in a discussion on Jan. 3 was obviously hollow -- everyone knew that Jan. 3 would be too late.

>>>>>> Members of the plaintiffs' legal team posted on Panda's Thumb that the plaintiffs' attorneys had also advised the new board that the decision couldn't be mooted, <<<<<<

Where? That is just plain bullshit. Comments posted in a blog are not reliable -- Wikipedia's official policy prohibits citation of blogs, with narrow exceptions. Also, the first news article that you cited said that the plaintiffs' attorneys declined to comment. Anyway, the plaintiffs' attorneys were obviously biased.

>>>>>> Of course, a court-ordered settlement still leaves the district liable for attorney fees, per Buchannon. <<<<<<

Wrong -- Buckhannon is about liability for attorney fees where there is a voluntary cessation, not where there is a court-ordered settlement. Buckhannon says,

Numerous federal statutes allow courts to award attorney’s fees and costs to the "prevailing party." The question presented here is whether this term includes a party that has failed to secure a judgment on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree, but has nonetheless achieved the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant’s conduct. We hold that it does not.

The above quotation of the Supreme Court disproves the claim that there is liability for attorney fees when a case is declared moot because of voluntary cessation. Further discussion is here.

>>>>>>And the attorney was a personal acquaintance of the outgoing board member, and was a real estate lawyer. <<<<<<<

What evidence is there that the attorney was a personal acquaintance of Napierski, and does it matter? What attorney would give bad legal advice as a "favor" to a friend? And why are real estate lawyers second-class lawyers?

Anyway, when Fatheaded Ed said, "And I mean everyone," he was plainly wrong, because Napierski's attorney submitted a different opinion.

>>>>>> Real estate law does not involve nominal damages, so it is not surprising that the lawyer was unaware that mootness was precluded by precedent. <<<<<<<

You are so full of living crap, dunghill, that it is coming out your ears.

>>>>>> Here's what Jones had to say about the matter:

Judge John E. Jones III said the election results don't figure into his ruling. <<<<<<

I know -- and that was improperly giving legal advice to defendants. And if my interpretation is wrong, then Fatheaded Ed was also wrong about Judge Jones. In fact, Fatheaded Ed himself claimed that Judge Jones gave legal advice to the defendants.

>>>>>> "the action does not abate" means that the substitution of a public officer does not moot a case. This was not legal advice, just a simple statement of fact that the parties are responsible for knowing, but that laypeople might not know. <<<<<<

You lousy pettifogger, the issue here was not substitution of a public officer but was repeal of the ID policy by the board.

>>>>>>"The suit goes on," said plaintiffs' attorney Steve Harvey of Pepper Hamilton. "The mere election of a new board does not change anything."

Which is the same thing Judge jones said. <<<<<<

Harvey's statement does not excuse Judge Jones' impropriety in giving legal advice to the defendants. As I said, Jones undermined the school board's negotiating position for seeking an out-of-court settlement.

Friday, November 09, 2007 9:01:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Chris Torvik driveled,

>>>>>> Judge Jones was giving legal advice here -- he was advising the new school board members not to bother repealing the ID policy because such repeal would not affect his decision. <

A sane mind would not make that interpretation. <<<<<<

So you are saying that Fatheaded Ed was wrong here about Judge Jones too.

Friday, November 09, 2007 9:09:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

Kevin wisely opined,
>>>>>> This fragment of a paragraph was not new information and had been previously documented. The new info, which included analysis of a blog posting and numerous court cases, was exhaustively documented. Larry lies. <<<<<<

>>>You are the liar, dunghill. It was not "exhaustively documented," and there is documentation to the contrary.<<<

You're right. He didn't document Moongate Water Company v. Dona Ana Mutual Domestic Water Consumers , 420 F.3d 1082 (10th Cir. 2005).

Oh, wait, he did.

Well, he didn't document Gator.com Corporation. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, (9th Cir. 2005)

Oh, wait, he did.

Well surely he couldn't have documented Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Affordable Media, LLC, 179 F.3d 1228, 1238 (9th Cir.1999)

Well, no, but only because he was pointing out that Francisco's citation proved Ed's point. Same with the next reference, which is a book and thus unlinkable.

City of Mesquite v Aladdin's Castle? Documented.

So where's your documentation that he failed to document his new information?

>>>OK, it has been a long while and my memory failed in regard to Thompson from the TMLC. But he was obviously biased because he wanted to appeal. The news article said,<<<

He may be biased, but he's also the attorney who successfully argued in several other Circuits that voluntary cessation can't moot a case with nominal damages. He is therefor the premier legal expert on the question.

>>>You are only making my case for me by citing vague, wishy-washy statements: "her impression," "it doesn't seem," and "they would seek more information from Russell."<<<

It sets up the following quote, idiot. Napierski requested they talk to Russell, they said they did talk to him and got his initial view, and asked for a follow up, which he delivered at the next meeting.

>>>Also, Russell was being rehired around this time -- his rehiring was announced at the December meeting -- so his status as the board's counsel at this time is questionable.<<<

Russell wasn't being rehired, as he was never fired in the first place. What was announced at the December meeting was that the board was reversing the decision to no longer have him attend all board meetings, (he was instead invited to just ones he was needed at). Russell continued to act as the board solicitor during the whole affair. The board decided to use outside representation for the case itself, but Russell continued to act as solicitor for all other matters, and attended several meetings during the course of the case.

>>>What "legal counsel" -- Thompson or Russell? Russell had just been rehired. And was this just the "impression" that the news article spoke of? Was Russell paid for this advice? Is there any evidence of any written advice from Russell?<<<

Russell, you priapatic caprophage. Of course he was paid - he's on retainer, and yes it was in writing.

>>>Napierski's attorney prepared a written report. From King Lear:

Kent: This is nothing, fool.

Fool: Then 'tis like the breath of an unfee'd lawyer; you gave me nothing for't.<<<

And the written report from Napierski's attorney is worth what the board paid for it: nothing.

>>>Also, Reinking's promise to include the community in a discussion on Jan. 3 was obviously hollow -- everyone knew that Jan. 3 would be too late.<<<

At the time, it was uncertain that it would indeed be too late. Besides which, the discussion could then include what to do in regard to the judge's decision, since their legal experts had assured them there was nothing they could do aside from entering a court-ordered settlement, which requires payment of attorney fees.

>>>>>> Members of the plaintiffs' legal team posted on Panda's Thumb that the plaintiffs' attorneys had also advised the new board that the decision couldn't be mooted, <<<<<<

>>>Where? That is just plain bullshit. Comments posted in a blog are not reliable -- Wikipedia's official policy prohibits citation of blogs, with narrow exceptions. Also, the first news article that you cited said that the plaintiffs' attorneys declined to comment. Anyway, the plaintiffs' attorneys were obviously biased.<<<

I found something even better - a newspaper article in which Walczak explained that the case was structured specifically so that it couldn't be mooted. From Ed's blog:

C. The structure of the complaint. Even if it does come up, it appears that the plaintiff's have solid legal grounds to demand that the case be completed and a ruling issued, regardless of the change in the board's makeup. The ACLU's lead attorney, Vic Walczak, told a newspaper yesterday that they prepared for this possibility and the complaint was designed to avoid being mooted:

>>>Beyond that, lawyers for the parents also are seeking a declaratory judgment, and for nominal damages of $1 if they win. Both requests are designed to "prevent the case from being mooted" by the election, Walczak said.<<<


The article is behind a paywall.

The charges of bias are frivolous on Larry's part. Rule 11 punishes lawyers who allow their bias to make fraudulent claims.

>>>>>> Of course, a court-ordered settlement still leaves the district liable for attorney fees, per Buchannon. <<<<<<

>>>Wrong -- Buckhannon is about liability for attorney fees where there is a voluntary cessation, not where there is a court-ordered settlement. Buckhannon says,

Numerous federal statutes allow courts to award attorney’s fees and costs to the "prevailing party." The question presented here is whether this term includes a party that has failed to secure a judgment on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree, but has nonetheless achieved the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant’s conduct. We hold that it does not.

But Buckhannon also said this:

We have held that even an award of nominal damages suffices under this test. See Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992).6

In addition to judgments on the merits, we have held that settlement agreements enforced through a consent decree may serve as the basis for an award of attorney’s fees. See Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122 (1980). Although a consent decree does not always include an admission of liability by the defendant, see, e.g., id., at 126, n. 8, it nonetheless is a court-ordered “chang[e] [in] the legal relationship between [the plaintiff] and the defendant.” Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland Independent School Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 792 (1989) (citing Hewitt, supra, at 760—761, and Rhodes v. Stewart, 488 U.S. 1, 3—4 (1988) (per curiam)).7 These decisions, taken together, establish that enforceable judgments on the merits and court-ordered consent decrees create the “material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties” necessary to permit an award of attorney’s fees. 489 U.S., at 792—793; see also Hanrahan, supra, at 757 (“[I]t seems clearly to have been the intent of Congress to permit . . . an interlocutory award only to a party who has established his entitlement to some relief on the merits of his claims, either in the trial court or on appeal” (emphasis added)).


>>>The above quotation of the Supreme Court disproves the claim that there is liability for attorney fees when a case is declared moot because of voluntary cessation. Further discussion is here.<<<

And here is what Buckhannon has to say about whether a case with damages could be declared moot because of voluntary cessation:

And petitioners’ fear of mischievous defendants only materializes in claims for equitable relief, for so long as the plaintiff has a cause of action for damages, a defendant’s change in conduct will not moot the case.10 Even then, it is not clear how often courts will find a case mooted: “It is well settled that a defendant’s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice” unless it is “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Nominal damages are a form of damages, per Farrar, so per Buckhannon, the case could not have been mooted for voluntary cessation. And as noted, it's up to the judge. Based upon the opinion he released, there was zero chance he was going to moot this case.

>>>What evidence is there that the attorney was a personal acquaintance of Napierski, and does it matter?<<<

Personal correspondence with friends who live nearby, if you must know. You seem to think it matters, since you seem to harp so on bias.

>>>What attorney would give bad legal advice as a "favor" to a friend? And why are real estate lawyers second-class lawyers?<<<

I never claimed or implied that real estate lawyers are second-class. I would expect a real estate lawyer to be very good at property law, and I would expect a constitutional lawyer to be good at constitutional law. I would not expect a real estate lawyer to be well-versed in constitutional law, just as I would not expect a constitutional lawyer to be well-versed in property law. Or you could just read my original follow-up sentence.

>>>Anyway, when Fatheaded Ed said, "And I mean everyone," he was plainly wrong, because Napierski's attorney submitted a different opinion.<<<

But Napierski's attorney was not involved in the case, so he is not included in the "everyone". However, Ed, myself, and you were all wrong about the judge.

>>>>>> Real estate law does not involve nominal damages, so it is not surprising that the lawyer was unaware that mootness was precluded by precedent. <<<<<<

>>>You are so full of living crap, dunghill, that it is coming out your ears.<<<

Resorting to insults without a substantive response again? I wouldn't take my car to an electrician, nor would I ask a mechanic to fix my house wiring. Why would I take a con law question to a real estate lawyer?

>>>>>> Here's what Jones had to say about the matter:

Judge John E. Jones III said the election results don't figure into his ruling. <<<<<<

>>>I know -- and that was improperly giving legal advice to defendants. And if my interpretation is wrong, then Fatheaded Ed was also wrong about Judge Jones. In fact, Fatheaded Ed himself claimed that Judge Jones gave legal advice to the defendants.<<<

And I'm saying that Ed, you, and I were wrong. It is an unfortunate result of a poorly written news article.

>>>>>> "the action does not abate" means that the substitution of a public officer does not moot a case. This was not legal advice, just a simple statement of fact that the parties are responsible for knowing, but that laypeople might not know. <<<<<<

>>>You lousy pettifogger, the issue here was not substitution of a public officer but was repeal of the ID policy by the board.<<<

So you agree that Jones did nothing wrong, I take it?

>>>>>>"The suit goes on," said plaintiffs' attorney Steve Harvey of Pepper Hamilton. "The mere election of a new board does not change anything."

Which is the same thing Judge jones said. <<<<<<

>>>Harvey's statement does not excuse Judge Jones' impropriety in giving legal advice to the defendants. As I said, Jones undermined the school board's negotiating position for seeking an out-of-court settlement.<<<

That wasn't the point, you moron. If, as you appear to maintain, Jones statement constitutes giving advice to the board, then Harvey's statement also constitutes giving that same advice to the board. This belies your original statement:

>>>I know for a fact that so far as the public record is concerned, only the judge in that list above gave such advice -- by publicly stating that the school board election results would not affect his decision.<<<

You did not know that for a fact. Rather, you made it up out of thin air. In fact, Ed documented the Walczak, Thompson, and Judge Jones quotes in earlier posts, and linked to the post where the meeting minutes were documented. Not to mention the complete fabrication of the "re-hiring" of Russell.

I now pronounce you full of shit. You may kiss my ass.

Friday, November 09, 2007 1:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Chris Torvik said...

The March Hare said:

>So you are saying that Fatheaded Ed was wrong here about Judge Jones too. <

No. I am saying that you didn't understand what Ed said anymore than you understood what the judge said.

It looks like Kevin has revealed that the emperor has no clothes (as usual). He has exposed you as a lying pettifogger.

Friday, November 09, 2007 2:55:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Pettifogger Kevin Vicklund strikes again --

>>>>>> So where's your documentation that he failed to document his new information? <<<<<<

What? Those court cases are irrelevant. The issue here is the truthfulness of Ed Brayton's following statement:

First, the fact that everyone involved had advised the board that rescinding the policy would not moot the case. And I mean everyone - the plaintiffs' attorneys, their own defense attorneys, their own legal counsel, even the judge himself had publicly stated that the case would not be mooted by voluntarily rescinding the policy.

As for Judge Jones, there are only two possibilities:

(1) Judge Jones improperly gave the defendants the above advice, regardless of whether that advice was good or bad, or right or wrong. His statement undermined the new school board members' bargaining position for seeking an out-of-court settlement.

(2) Ed was mistaken about Jones giving that advice.

Take your pick.

>>>>>> He may be biased, but he's also the attorney who successfully argued in several other Circuits that voluntary cessation can't moot a case with nominal damages. He is therefor the premier legal expert on the question. <<<<<<<

He is also quite wrong.

>>>>>> It sets up the following quote, idiot. <<<<<<

You stupid fathead, the news article said, "McIlvaine and Reinking said they would seek more information from Russell before making any decision," but the news article did not say that they got more information from Russell.


>>>>>> Napierski requested they talk to Russell, they said they did talk to him and got his initial view, and asked for a follow up, which he delivered at the next meeting. <<<<<<

There is no evidence that Russell delivered a "follow up" at the next meeting.

>>>>> Russell wasn't being rehired, as he was never fired in the first place. <<<<<<

Well, a news article said something about bringing Russell back, so that is where I got the idea that he was being rehired. Anyway, it's immaterial.

>>>>>> Russell continued to act as solicitor for all other matters, and attended several meetings during the course of the case. <<<<<

Again, you have presented no evidence that he attended several board meetings during the course of the case, but that is immaterial.

>>>>> Russell, you priapatic caprophage. Of course he was paid -- he's on retainer, and yes it was in writing. <<<<<<

You worthless piece of crap, the Dec. board meeting minutes said, "Board president Reinking noted that legal counsel advised the board that the trial is over and can not change the outcome of any vote." The meeting minutes did not say whether she was talking about Thompson or Russell, there was no mention of anything in writing, and Russell charged by the hour to attend board meetings and therefore may also have charged for giving legal advice.

>>>>> And the written report from Napierski's attorney is worth what the board paid for it: nothing. <<<<<<

Did Napierski pay for it? No matter -- at least it was in writing and had the attorney's name on it.

>>>>>> I found something even better - a newspaper article in which Walczak explained that the case was structured specifically so that it couldn't be mooted. <<<<<<

I have no intention here of getting into another argument about whether the advice in question was good or bad (I've already won that argument under this post and elsewhere on this blog). My intention was to give an example of where Fatheaded Ed Brayton just pulls "facts" out of thin air, as he did in the statement,

First, the fact that everyone involved had advised the board that rescinding the policy would not moot the case. And I mean everyone -- the plaintiffs' attorneys, their own defense attorneys, their own legal counsel, even the judge himself had publicly stated that the case would not be mooted by voluntarily rescinding the policy.

-- and I have shown this to be a good example.

Friday, November 09, 2007 6:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> (1) Judge Jones improperly gave the defendants the above advice <

By what stretch of the imagination is stating a fact, giving advice?

> regardless of whether that advice was good or bad, or right or wrong. <

Meaningless since it was not advice.

> His statement undermined the new school board members' bargaining position for seeking an out-of-court settlement. <

This may have encouraged them to face reality.

> (2) Ed was mistaken about Jones giving that advice. <

What advice?

> He is also quite wrong. <

You have not shown this to be the case.

Friday, November 09, 2007 7:58:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Chris Torvik driveled,
>>>>>> No. I am saying that you didn't understand what Ed said anymore than you understood what the judge said. <<<<<<

Dunghill, if that was not what Fatheaded Ed was referring to, then what was he referring to?

Friday, November 09, 2007 9:29:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice in the Urbanness driveled,

>>>>> > (1) Judge Jones improperly gave the defendants the above advice <

By what stretch of the imagination is stating a fact, giving advice? <<<<<<

It is not a fact. It is something subject to legal interpretation and debate.

You never tire of making "best butter" arguments, dunghill.

It is probable that you have never been in the clerk's office in a courthouse, because if you had, it is likely that you would have seen a sign saying that court employees are not allowed to give legal advice to litigants. The same is true for judges. If court employees are allowed to give legal advice to litigants, it is inevitable that sooner or later they are going to give wrong or bad advice.

I can't believe the stupidity of some of the commenters on this blog.

Friday, November 09, 2007 10:21:00 PM  
Anonymous voice in the Urbanness said...

> It is not a fact. It is something subject to legal interpretation and debate. <

The judge stating what he would do is stating a fact. It is not subject to legal interpretation and debate.

> It is probable that you have never been in the clerk's office in a courthouse <

I have, when I filed my winning cases, just as you have been when you filed your losing cases.

> you wouldd have seen a sign saying that court employees are not allowed to give legal advice to litigants. The same is true for judges. <

Perhaps that is why the judge did not give legal advice?

> I can't believe the stupidity of some of the commenters on this blog. <

They all seem pretty bright, other than you of course.

Saturday, November 10, 2007 6:40:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> The judge stating what he would do is stating a fact. It is not subject to legal interpretation and debate. <<<<<<

That cannot change the fact that he was giving legal advice to the new school board members and undermining their bargaining position for seeking an out-of-court settlement.

And at most he could speak for himself and not for appeals court judges or Supreme Court justices. And he could not even speak for himself. He could have second thoughts or a petition for rehearing could persuade him to change his mind -- he should at least give the appearance of having an open mind. His statement was apparently just an off-hand remark. Did he ever hear of the Buckhannon case?

If he was just stating what he would do, why didn't he just go all the way and say how he would rule so that the new school board members could have made a fully informed decision? There was even a chance that he would rule against the plaintiffs. It appeared to most that the ID policy failed the first ("purpose") prong of the Lemon test, but he was not required to use the Lemon test.

>>>>> I have, when I filed my winning cases, just as you have been when you filed your losing cases. <<<<<

I haven't lost all of my cases, dunghill, and losing a case does not mean that the case does not have merit. Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Kelo v. New London were all losing cases. And cases where the judge has given no evidence that he knows anything at all about the case -- i.e., there is no oral hearing and no written opinion -- do not count as "losing cases."

Winning your cases were just flukes -- you just happened to have sympathetic judges. You have amply demonstrated here that you have no ability to reason.

Anyway, it is obvious that you did not notice the signs saying that court employees are not allowed to give legal advice.

Saturday, November 10, 2007 12:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> That cannot change the fact that he was giving legal advice to the new school board members <

Where was he giving legal advice? The example you gave was definitely not a case of giving advice by any stretch of the imagination. Are you referring to something else that you have failed to bring up.

> And at most he could speak for himself <

Which is what he did.

> And he could not even speak for himself. <

Yes. He could have been hit by a meteorite before he rendered his judgement.

> he should at least give the appearance of having an open mind. <

A mind does not have to be so open that the wind whistles through your ears. If he said that 2+2+4, you would protest that he should be open to other options.

> If he was just stating what he would do, why didn't he just go all the way and say how he would rule <

Because what he said he would do was on a narrow point where presumably there would be no more evidence. Although you would no doubt argue otherwise, he probably had not completely formed his opinion on the other issues.

A jury may be required to withhold judgment as to the outcome of a case but they are free to believe that the Sun rose in the East that day before waiting for evidence against that event is brought forward.

> I haven't lost all of my cases <

Of course you have. Name a single one that you won. Don't bother to claim that someone else won a case on the same or a similar issue. I mean you yourself. You have lost all of your cases, dunghill.

> and losing a case does not mean that the case does not have merit. <

No. It is just a coincidence that your losing cases did not have merit.

> do not count as "losing cases." <

If you are laughed out of the court and your case rejected, it doesn't matter if the judge comments on your nice shoe shine. You lost.

> Winning your cases were just flukes -- you just happened to have sympathetic judges. <

I had wise and competent judges who could tell the difference between my cases and your crap. Then again I had an edge. I was pro per. We all know that judges lean over backwards for those filing pro per.

You, Larry, have amply demonstrated here that you have no ability to reason.

> Anyway, it is obvious that you did not notice the signs saying that court employees are not allowed to give legal advice. <

And, in fact, they did not.

If you can give an example of where the judge gave legal advice, give it here or stop making an ass of yourself.

Saturday, November 10, 2007 1:22:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViU driveled,
>>>>>> Where was he giving legal advice? The example you gave was definitely not a case of giving advice by any stretch of the imagination. <<<<<<

Wrong. He was in effect telling the new school board members not to bother repealing the ID policy because it wouldn't do them any good. And he was also telling the plaintiffs not to bother negotiating with the new school board.

So what do you think Fatheaded Ed Brayton was referring to when he said, "even the judge himself had publicly stated that the case would not be mooted by voluntarily rescinding the policy"?

>>>>>> And he could not even speak for himself. <

Yes. He could have been hit by a meteorite before he rendered his judgement. <<<<<<<

Maybe being struck by a meteorite would have knocked some sense into him.

Anyway, dunghill, those signs in courthouses don't say that the court employees are prohibited from giving bad legal advice -- they just say that the court employees are prohibited from giving legal advice, period.

>>>>>>> Because what he said he would do was on a narrow point where presumably there would be no more evidence. <<<<<<<<

Another "best butter" argument.

The Hatter was the first to break the silence. `What day of the month is it?' he said, turning to Alice: he had taken his watch out of his pocket, and was looking at it uneasily, shaking it every now and then, and holding it to his ear.

Alice considered a little, and then said `The fourth.'

`Two days wrong!' sighed the Hatter. `I told you butter wouldn't suit the works!' he added looking angrily at the March Hare.

`It was the best butter,' the March Hare meekly replied.

`Yes, but some crumbs must have got in as well,' the Hatter grumbled: `you shouldn't have put it in with the bread-knife.'

The March Hare took the watch and looked at it gloomily: then he dipped it into his cup of tea, and looked at it again: but he could think of nothing better to say than his first remark, `It was the best butter, you know.'


>>>>> Name a single one that you won. Don't bother to claim that someone else won a case on the same or a similar issue. I mean you yourself. You have lost all of your cases, dunghill. <<<<<<

Why do you ask me if you already know the answer or think you know the answer, you worthless sack of shit? And now I can't even name cases where others have won on the same or similar issues. What a dunghill.

Anyway, it's irrelevant -- what counts is who wins the arguments here, and I have won them all handsomely.

>>>>>> We all know that judges lean over backwards for those filing pro per. <<<<<<

That is bullshit. The regular civil courts (not counting small claims courts) are typically very unfriendly towards pro se litigants. It was only very recently that the main county courthouse in the Los Angeles Civic Center set up a special office to help pro se plaintiffs file their lawsuits. Before that, pro se plaintiffs were completely on their own. For example, in one of my lawsuits, I made the big mistake of filing in the superior court instead of the municipal court. The municipal court's clerk's office had a sign saying that suits for under $25,000 (mine was $0) could be filed in the municipal court, but the superior court's clerk's office had no such sign. In fact, an out-of-state or out-of-town attorney could have made the same mistake I did. And lawyers have told me that judges are biased against pro se litigants -- I can believe it.

>>>>>> If you can give an example of where the judge gave legal advice, give it here or stop making an ass of yourself. <<<<<<<

Even your hero Fatheaded Ed Brayton said that Judge Jones gave legal advice -- see above.

Saturday, November 10, 2007 5:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> Wrong. He was in effect telling the new school board members not to bother repealing the ID policy because it wouldn't do them any good. <

Wrong. He was saying exactly what he said. The rest are constructions of your warped mind. In short you don't know of any advice he gave.

> So what do you think Fatheaded Ed Brayton was referring to when he said, "even the judge himself had publicly stated that the case would not be mooted by voluntarily rescinding the policy"? <

It doesn't sound like the judge was giving advice.

> Maybe being struck by a meteorite would have knocked some sense into him. <

Perhaps that is your problem. Were you hit in the head by a meteorite? It could explain a lot.

> those signs in courthouses don't say that the court employees are prohibited from giving bad legal advice -- they just say that the court employees are prohibited from giving legal advice, period. <

You seem to be obsessed with this. You have given no example of where any court employee has given legal advice so what is your point, dunghill?

> Another "best butter" argument. <

Are you referring to the advice that wasn't advice? You are definitely acting as the March Hare.

>>>>> Name a single one that you won. Don't bother to claim that someone else won a case on the same or a similar issue. I mean you yourself. You have lost all of your cases, dunghill. <<<<<<

> Why do you ask me if you already know the answer or think you know the answer <

You worthless sack of shit, you are the one pretending that you once had a win among your numerous losses. I am just challenging you to show us where that win was. As usual you dodge the question.

> what counts is who wins the arguments here <

And you have lost every one since this blog was started. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day but you can't match that.

>>>>>> We all know that judges lean over backwards for those filing pro per. <<<<<<

> The regular civil courts (not counting small claims courts) are typically very unfriendly towards pro se litigants. <

That is bullshit. Pro per litigants win more than half of their cases, this is even after averaging in your unmatched collection of losses.

> Before that, pro se plaintiffs were completely on their own. <

That wasn't a problem for me. Of course you know nothing about law (as you have proven repeatedly).

> For example, in one of my lawsuits, I made the big mistake of filing in the superior court instead of the municipal court. <

The courts are not supposed to be idiot proof. It doesn't take a genius to tell which court a case must be filed in. Of course, some idiots might still make a mistake but that certainly wasn't the only mistake on your filing. After you filed in the proper court you were laughed out of court anyway. Of course the judge was against you and the paranoids were out to get you.

> In fact, an out-of-state or out-of-town attorney could have made the same mistake I did. <

Highly improbable. No competent attorney would file without determining the proper jurisdiction.

> And lawyers have told me that judges are biased against pro se litigants -- I can believe it. <

Ones that wanted you to hire them. Honest lawyers would have told you the truth.

> Even your hero Fatheaded Ed Brayton said that Judge Jones gave legal advice -- see above. <

There is no example above, fathead.

Saturday, November 10, 2007 6:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Hector said...

You are wasting your time, ViU. The March Hare has redefined the word "advice". Of course for him words mean whatever he wants them to mean.

Saturday, November 10, 2007 9:14:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViU driveled,
>>>>>> So what do you think Fatheaded Ed Brayton was referring to when he said, "even the judge himself had publicly stated that the case would not be mooted by voluntarily rescinding the policy"? <

It doesn't sound like the judge was giving advice. <<<<<<

Poop or get off the can, dunghill. Either Judge Jones was giving legal advice or Fatheaded Ed's above statement is wrong. Which is it?

>>>>>> You have given no example of where any court employee has given legal advice so what is your point, dunghill? <<<<<

No -- I gave examples of signs in courthouses saying that court employees are prohibited from giving legal advice, bozo.

>>>>> I am just challenging you to show us where that win was. As usual you dodge the question. <<<<<<

I don't answer impertinent questions, jerko.

>>>>>> And you have lost every one since this blog was started. <<<<<<

Wrong -- I have shown you to be a stupid, fatheaded ignoramus.

>>>>> Pro per litigants win more than half of their cases, <<<<<

If that were true, dunderhead, no one would bother hiring an attorney.

>>>>>> Before that, pro se plaintiffs were completely on their own. <

That wasn't a problem for me. <<<<<<

Bullshit, jerko. There is always a lot to learn. If suing pro se were so easy and if pro se litigants had a big success rate, no one would bother to hire an attorney. Attorneys are very expensive.

>>>>>> The courts are not supposed to be idiot proof. <<<<<<

Have you noticed, you stupid fathead, that the names of a lot of attorneys in federal district court briefs have the words "pro hac vice" after their names? Do you know what that means? It means "this time only," meaning that even though the federal court system is national, an out-of-state attorney must get special permission to participate in a particular case, and must often be sponsored by a local attorney. Local district court rules differ and this requirement helps prevent mistakes.

>>>>> No competent attorney would file without determining the proper jurisdiction. <<<<<

Obviously, both the superior court and the municipal court had jurisdiction over my case, dunghill. But the municipal court was a better choice because the fees were much lower and appealing was cheaper and easier (a municipal court judgment could be appealed to a superior court rather than a state appeals court). But an out-of-state attorney might not be familiar with all the local rules and options and might not even know what questions to ask. As I said, the municipal court had that sign about suits under $25,000 but the superior court did not have a sign, even though a sign was more needed there.

>>>>>> And lawyers have told me that judges are biased against pro se litigants -- I can believe it. <

Ones that wanted you to hire them. Honest lawyers would have told you the truth. <<<<<<

Wrong again, dunghill -- they knew I was not going to hire them. In fact, one was at the other end of the country.

Hector driveled,

>>>>> You are wasting your time, ViU. <<<<<

And he is wasting my time too, you worthless piece of crap.

Saturday, November 10, 2007 11:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> Either Judge Jones was giving legal advice or Fatheaded Ed's above statement is wrong. Which is it? <

I can't believe that even you are really that thick. Ed's statement does not have Judge Jones giving legal advice. You doesn't seem to understand that.

> I gave examples of signs in courthouses saying that court employees are prohibited from giving legal advice, bozo. <

And you have given no example of where any court employee has done so, cretin.

>>>>> I am just challenging you to show us where that win was. As usual you dodge the question. <<<<<<

> I don't answer impertinent questions, jerko. <

It seems quite pertinent. You have never won a single case. Your dodging around does not change that. It only makes you look more pathetic.

>>>>> Pro per litigants win more than half of their cases, <<<<<

> If that were true, dunderhead, no one would bother hiring an attorney. <

Not everyone is as sharp as those filing those cases. You obviously aren't. Perhaps you should have hired an attorney and then you wouldn't have been the laughing stock that you were.

> There is always a lot to learn. <

And you have learned nothing.

> Attorneys are very expensive. <

But you might have won at least one case. As it is, you were a total failure, as you continue to be.

> Local district court rules differ and this requirement helps prevent mistakes. <

We are not talking about complexities. We are talking about basics.

> But an out-of-state attorney might not be familiar with all the local rules and options <

But he would know what questions to ask. (Unless he was an idiot like yourself)

> As I said <

Mindless repetition again.

We can summarize your position:

1. You don't understand the word "advice". Look it up in a dictionary.

2. You have lost every single case that you have ever filed. You are trying to dodge this.

Sunday, November 11, 2007 6:54:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> I can't believe that even you are really that thick. Ed's statement does not have Judge Jones giving legal advice. You doesn't seem to understand that. <<<<<<

For the umpteenth time, dunghill, Fatheaded Ed was talking about legal advice. He said, "even the judge himself had publicly stated that the case would not be mooted by voluntarily rescinding the policy."

"You doesn't"? Even your grammar is bad.

I think it is pretty clear by now that sensible readers understand that I am justified in not responding to your drivel.

Sunday, November 11, 2007 10:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> For the umpteenth time, dunghill, Fatheaded Ed was talking about legal advice. <

Mindless repetition.

> He said, "even the judge himself had publicly stated that the case would not be mooted by voluntarily rescinding the policy." <

For the umpteenth time, dunghill, stating a fact is not giving legal advice.

I think it is pretty clear by now that sensible readers understand that you have no answers.

Sunday, November 11, 2007 8:58:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> For the umpteenth time, dunghill, stating a fact is not giving legal advice. <<<<<<

So attorneys never state facts when giving legal advice (and I am not conceding that Jones stated a fact)?

What a stupid fathead you are.

Sunday, November 11, 2007 9:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Polonius said...

> So attorneys never state facts when giving legal advice (and I am not conceding that Jones stated a fact)? <

This doesn't seem to be what either ViW, nor Ed Brayton said but it does give a hint at the differences between real logic and the workings of your mind.

Perhaps a basic class on logical syllogisms would help?

Monday, November 12, 2007 9:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

The March Hare (Larry) actually believes that he made a rational statement.

The bottom line is that the judge never gave legal advice. The school board may have made decisions based on his statments but they may also have made the same decisions based on their calendars and the calendar was not giving legal advice either.

Monday, November 12, 2007 11:20:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViU driveled,
>>>>> The bottom line is that the judge never gave legal advice. The school board may have made decisions based on his statments but they may also have made the same decisions based on their calendars and the calendar was not giving legal advice either. <<<<<<<

You stupid dunghill, even your big hero Fatheaded Ed Brayton said that Judge "true religion" Jones was giving legal advice:

First, the fact that everyone involved had advised the board that rescinding the policy would not moot the case. And I mean everyone -- the plaintiffs' attorneys, their own defense attorneys, their own legal counsel, even the judge himself had publicly stated that the case would not be mooted by voluntarily rescinding the policy. (emphasis added)

Jones was in effect telling the new school board members, "don't bother repealing the ID policy or trying to negotiate with the plaintiffs, because it is not going to do you any good." Giving legal advice in the form of an opinion or a statement of fact instead of a recommended course of action is still giving legal advice.

Monday, November 12, 2007 1:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

Idiot. Mindless repetition will not make a falsehood true.

> Ed Brayton said that Judge "true religion" Jones was giving legal advice: <

You have not shown where that was the case. Put up or shut up.

> even the judge himself had publicly stated that the case would not be mooted by voluntarily rescinding the policy. <

Which is stating a fact. It is not giving legal advice. This seems to be where your brain cracks.

> Jones was in effect telling the new school board members <

Jones was not telling the new school board members what to do. He was making a statement of fact. If the school board members then react to those facts, that is not because they have been advised. It is perhaps because they were informed of a point of which they were not aware.

> Giving legal advice in the form of an opinion or a statement of fact instead of a recommended course of action is still giving legal advice. <

Sorry March Hare. It is not.

Monday, November 12, 2007 8:28:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> Ed Brayton said that Judge "true religion" Jones was giving legal advice: <

You have not shown where that was the case. <<<<<<

What the ---? Fatheaded Ed said that Judge Jones and those other people "advised" the board.

Well, ViU, the Dover school board has been widely accused of ignoring the board solicitor's advice by adopting the ID policy. However, by your definition, he didn't give the board advice. In fact, his predictions were not even facts but were just guesses. He said,

They [TMLC] have background knowledge and have talked to school boards in West Virginia and Michigan about possible litigation. However, nothing has come about in either state. This suggests to me that no one is adopting the textbook because, if they were, one can safely assume there would have been a legal challenge by someone somewhere . . . I guess my main concern at the moment, is that even if use of the text is purely voluntary, this may still make it very difficult to win a case. I say this because one of the common themes in some of the US Supreme Court decisions, especially dealing with silent meditation, is that even though something is voluntary, it still causes a problem because the practice, whatever it may be, was initiated for religious reasons. One of the best examples comes out of the silent meditation cases in Alabama which the court struck down because the record showed that the statute in question was enacted for religious reasons. My concern for Dover is that in the last several years there has been a lot of discussion, news print, etc. for putting religion back in the schools. In my mind this would add weight to a lawsuit seeking to enjoin whatever the practice might be.

I am just going to stop responding to your asinine comments, you lousy troll, because my responses are obviously a waste of time. I am not even going to waste my time reading your comments anymore. My non-response does not mean that I have conceded anything. You can scream to high heaven that I don't respond to your comments. You can hypocritically proclaim that my not responding to your comments is worse than other bloggers' arbitrary censorship of comments. See if I care.

Because of my no-censorship policy, I can't delete or block your crap. All I can do is pray that you drop dead and go to hell so that you will stop cluttering up this blog.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> by your definition <

By a dictionary's definition. You don't seem to realize that predicting rain is not the same as advising people to wear raincoats. They have many other options to avoid the rain.

> he didn't give the board advice.<

True. He didn't.

> I am just going to stop responding to your asinine comments <

You might as well. You never say anything meaningful.

> my responses are obviously a waste of time. <

They are. They contain mostly insults, false analogies, and poor logic.

> My non-response does not mean that I have conceded anything. <

You have not conceded anything but you have lost argument after argument and then you throw a hissy fit when you know you have no valid answers. The readers can clearly see when you have lost. They have a lot of experience at seeing you losing arguments, just like your unbroken record of failure in the courts.

> other bloggers' arbitrary censorship of comments. <

Which you have never been able to show an example of.

> Because of my no-censorship policy <

I see. It is the little green men who you say publish the Los Angeles Times that have been deleting the posts. What happened to ViW?

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Polonius said...

The level of this "crappy" blog could be brought up a great deal if people made a few changes. I would suggest:

1. Use normal English definitions for common words. Don't try to make new definitions or twist actions to try to fit things that they do not. Larry has still not given an example of "advice" for example. Just because someone acts on new knowledge does not mean that stating it was giving advice. Give this one a rest, Larry.

2. If you can't answer a question, it doesn't help to just restate your previous failed argument in slightly different words.

3. Don't prove you are losing the argument by saying your arguments are a waste of time. It says only that you realize you can't answer.

4. Don't try the "best butter" claim. So far it has only been used by the one who most exemplifies the March Hare himself.

I was fairly neutral a few weeks ago but while the arguments of ViU get somewhat tiresome and argumentative and several others seem only interested in kicking someone when they are down, Larry is the most hopeless. He seems to be inviting ridicule with his absurd positions.

Let's clean this up.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 12:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Hector said...

Polonius, you left one thing out. That is Larry's continued harping about being "arbitrarily censored" on other blogs. As far as any of us know, this has never happened and Larry has never given an example of it. He has been banned for cause for quite predictable reasons considering the level of his posts here. Then again, he has redefined the terms "arbitrarily" and "censored".

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Joe Blow said...

ViU,

Larry is right, you know. You can't say that something is not advice just because it was presented as a fact or an opinion without an explicit recommendation of a course of action. As for Judge Jones' statement of "fact," the only "fact" -- assuming he was being honest -- was that the results of the election and, implicitly, an immediate repeal of the ID policy by the anti-ID new school board members, would not affect his decision. It was not a statement of "fact" in a general sense because the effects of voluntary cessation on mootness and attorney fee awards are debatable. As Larry pointed out, in the Supreme Court case of Buckhannon, voluntary cessation resulted in a finding of mootness and a denial of an attorney fee award.

The Constitution says that the President's appointments shall be made "with the advice and consent of the Senate." Are you saying that the word "advice" here was not intended to include the Senate's official statements of facts, opinions, and intentions?

If you don't like calling Judge Jones' statement "advice," the term "statement of intention" could be substituted. Regardless of what it is called, it had the effect of (1) discouraging the school board from repealing the ID policy immediately and (2) undermining the school board's bargaining position for negotiating an out-of-court settlement.

Larry's rebuttals of your comments here are excellent. You stubbornly refuse to admit that you painted yourself into a corner by insisting that Judge Jones only made a statement of "fact" and was not giving advice. Larry's refusal to answer or read any more of your frivolous comments is perfectly understandable.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> Joe Blow said... <

Larry, Why not just present your position under your own name? This is the sock puppetry and Charley McCarthyism that got you banned from a great number of sites.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:32:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Thank you so much for your support, Joe Blow! Pay no attention to that jackass ViU -- he can't answer your arguments so all he can do is just accuse me of Charlie McCarthyism. He is complimenting me in a way because he is saying in effect that he doesn't think that anyone else can argue as effectively as I do.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 6:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Sherry D said...

This is sad. Larry doesn't even realize that we all see through him.

Seeing how defenseless he is, I would think that we should ease off a bit and leave him to his world. It won't get any better.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 6:43:00 PM  
Anonymous joe blow said...

I am not Larry, you stupid dunghill. Drop dead and go to hell and take your big hero Fatheaded Ed Brayton with you.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 7:41:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Right on, Joe Blow. It is a darn shame that a visitor can't come here and support the blogger without being called a "sock puppet."

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 8:15:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whoosh. That is the sound of another one flying over Larry's head.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 9:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Schizophrenia can be dangerous if left untreated, Larry.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 5:58:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home