Archive for the Law Category

Deliberating Gun Control Delicately (March 19, 2018)

Posted in Boycott Series, Guns, Law, Second Amendment on March 19, 2018 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K(GO) “No psychos.”

GO1     “No psychos.  They give responsible gun owners a bad name.”

K          “Most folks implement the ‘No Psychos’ idea with universal background checks equally for every gun transfer including at gun shows.”

GO2     “That may not work.”

K          “Work with me on this one.  Remember that every psycho who gets a gun takes a gun away from a responsible gun owner.”

GO3     “Hard to argue with that.”

K          “A twenty-one year old male today has a life expectancy of about 61 plus years.  At one gun a month, he will acquire 736 guns, give or take.”

GO1     “There you go.”

K          “So we adopt a minimum purchase age of twenty-one.  On one’s twenty-first birthday, give her or him a gun.  Skip going to the bar and go to the range.  Home on the range, they say.”

GO2     “I hear you.”

K          “One purchase a month is the way to go.  Purchasing a gun without reading a few magazine reviews first may result in you buying the wrong magazine . . . and attached gun.  Buying a gun is not like buying a burger on the drive home.”   

GO3     “That is the difference between a ‘collection of guns’ and a ‘gun collection,’ if you know what I mean.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “The ‘Gun Show Loophole’:  A Dialogue Among Gun Owners.  Oh, And Happy Presidents’ Day (February 19, 2018)” and “Get A Gun; Practice Gun Safety (January 25, 2016)”.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Fe & Pb > ETOH

Gun control means non-psychos hitting their target.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

If you haven’t connected emotionally, you won’t connect intellectually.

Boycott the NRA

Boycott the National Rifle Association

The “Gun Show Loophole”: A Dialogue Among Gun Owners.  Oh, And Happy Presidents’ Day! (February 19, 2018)

Posted in Boycott Series, Guns, Law, Second Amendment on February 19, 2018 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K(GO) “Here’s another perspective.  Psychos have rights.  Right?  What we need is a law that allows every confirmed psycho to purchase one rifle or pistol a month.”

GO1     “A confirmed psycho?”

K          “Multiple convictions for domestic violence, wife beating, violent outbursts, assault charges.  The usual.”

GO2     “No question that the person is a psycho?”

K          “No question.  While we are at it, how about allowing every confirmed psycho to make one purchase one rifle or pistol a week.”

GO3     “Now hold on there . . . .  I’m not so sure.  You say he is a confirmed psycho.  Well, if he is a confirmed psycho, he is the type of person who probably should not have a gun.  But only if he is truly a confirmed psycho.”

GO2     “That is where I draw the line.”

. . .

K          “Great Americans like me can buy a gun.  Great Americans like you can buy a gun.  Psycho Americans like the psycho Americans . . . maybe not.”

GO1     “Sounds about right.”

K          “The only solution is to require a background check as part of every purchase from a dealer or from a private purchaser.”

GO2     “That makes some sense.”

. . .      

. . .

K          “In about five minutes after the meeting that night, I moved the three of them off a position they have never even allowed anyone ever to challenge.”  

J          “They may be willing to listen to someone who has a few guns.  Always structure an argument so that they convince themselves.”

K          “The half-life of the message may be two weeks.  I stayed on message and tabled asking them if they were troubled that the Russians appear to have funded the National Rifle Association’s (NRA’s) bombardment of them almost daily with propaganda during the months before the 2016 election.”

J          “Next meeting.  Next month.”

. . .  

[See the e-commentary at “Get A Gun; Practice Gun Safety (January 25, 2016)”.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

If you haven’t connected emotionally, you won’t connect intellectually.

Boycott the NRA

Boycott the National Rifle Association

Second Annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence (October 16, 2017)

Posted in Awards / Incentives, Civil Rights/Civil Liberties, Constitution, Courts, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Justice, Law, Law School, Noble Prize in Jurisprudence on October 16, 2017 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “A prize dedicated to acknowledging and celebrating the work of someone who really knows something about jurisprudence and the impact of courts, judges, lawyers and police on the lives and livelihood of ordinary citizens.  Someone who lives the conviction that men and women should establish and respect some norms and standards that are promulgated clearly to all and enforced equally in favor of and against all.”

J          “The law schools are vacuous deserts of inbreeding and infighting that gestate little legal gamesters.  The bench is a magnet for wankers who played the legal game profitably and perpetuate the racket for the benefit of the judges and a few lawyers.  Is anyone qualified in America?  Is someone outside American eligible?  Give the nod to another underappreciated and overworked public defender who somehow manages to make a difference.”

K          “They were included within the group of individuals acknowledged and celebrated last year.  The recipient of the second annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence . . . is John W. Whitehead and the Rutherford Institute for his and its dedication to the protection and defense of civil liberties and human rights.  He and the Institute are indeed public defenders of law and policy who have made and are making a difference.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “First Annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence (October 17, 2016)” and “Award Deadlines (Livelines?) (July 25, 2016)”.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

I wasn’t using my civil liberties anyway

Five Red Rich Republican “Catholic” Corporatist “White” Boys . . . Versus . . .  Four Blue Comfortable Democratic “Jewish” Individualist White “Girls” . . . And All By-Products Of The S.I.C.  (October 2, 2017)

Posted in Courts, First Monday In October, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Justice, Kleptocracy, Law, Schooling Industrial Complex, Supreme Court, Technology on October 2, 2017 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “They . . . are . . . back.”

J          “And now a majority does not have our back.”

K          “They are now poised to foist the burdens of existence on the backs of the common man.”

. . .

J          “That is the common thread.  They are all by-products of the S.I.C.”

K          “We need different products, by and by.”

J          “The common thread is that they responded to or rejected the conventional doctrine at the same narrow-minded indoctrinating institutions of the Schooling Industrial Complex (SIC).”

K          “What no one seems to get because no one seems to know and no one seems to care is that scrounging up Supreme Court Justices from the pool of Federal Appellate Court Judges is drawing the worst from the worst.”

J          “I agree.  But no one knows and no one cares.”

. . .

K          “Gorsuch may be a phenotypic Episcopalian, but he is at core a genotypic Catholic.  Thomas acquired deep scars on his journey to ‘Whitehood’ and acceptance and is also a congenital Catholic.  Breyer is intellectually female.  Sotomayor is a secular Jew.  The chasm between the five red rich Republican ‘Catholic’ corporatist ‘white’ boys and the four blue comfortable Democratic ‘Jewish’ individualist white ‘girls’ on the Supreme Court is stark and unprecedented in American history.”

J          “The country believed that it needed to get over and move beyond a debate that arose around Kennedy and his Catholicism that now cannot be raised or even intimated.”

K          “John not Tony.”

J          “John and Tony.  A person simply cannot pledge fealty and loyalty to Rome and to the U.S. Constitution.  Period.”

. . .

K          “To describe it as a war between those who want to ‘Immanentize The Eschaton’ and those who do not want to let others ‘Immanentize The Eschaton’ is too blatant for polite company.  Better to be more discrete and intimate that a group of five is quietly and surreptitiously imposing its religion as the national religion in America.”

J          “What troubles me is that the ‘Immanentize The Eschaton’ wing of the Catholics did not get a foot hold or even one lobbyist on the Court.” 

K          “What if the Court granted the current Pope the right to file an amicus curiae brief in every case?  The current Pope is a member of the ‘Immanentize The Eschaton’ wing.  Would the Supremes be obligated to listen?  To follow without question or hesitation?  That may not be so bad.”

. . .

K          “The Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology is to be announced today.  In the next few decades, the person who proves that an individual is born with the ‘I’ Gene or with the ‘We’ Gene may receive a much deserved Nobel.  At heart, 4.5 Justices have the ‘I’ Gene and 4.5 Justices have the ‘We’ Gene.  Kennedy may still have a heart and a soul and a recessive ‘We’ Gene.”

J          “Tony not John.  The helicopter beanie folks are developing AI (Artificial Intelligence).  They may need to develop AI (Artificial Ignorance) to substitute for the poor decisions and worse judgment of the judges and justices in America.  That is more of a challenge than anyone has contemplated.”

K          “A typical judge pays attention to a high profile case, dismisses the other cases and goes home.  The naïve engineers may not recognize that reality and instead create a sophisticated Digital Decision Device (DDD) that marshals the facts, discerns the law, finds truth, and does justice.”

J          “Unprecedented.  One can only hope.”

. . .

K          “The Supremes are deciding whether we live in a democracy or an oligopoly/kleptocracy in the context of a scam named after Governor Gerry.  The majority on the court owes their jobs to a broken political system and is not likely to fix it.”

J          “The privacy issues turn on whether each Justice personally feels threatened by the changes brought by technology not whether the ordinary person is threatened.”           

. . .

K          “The nascent thought is growing that the Supremes lack legitimacy and accountability in America.  Only the power they exercise that derives from the sword and purse maintains their dominion and domination.”

J          “They have transformed into a lobbying institution on First Street rather than on K Street with the disturbing ability to send out storm troopers to enforce their edicts.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “The ‘I’ Gene; The ‘We’ Gene:  Searching For The Genie In All Of Us (April 3, 2017)”, “Immanentizing The Eschaton: Your Supreme Court And The Great Religious War (October 7, 2013)”, “Adjunktification” In The S.I.C. (Schooling Industrial Complex) (March 13, 2017)”, “One Gun Per White Adult Male? A Flintlock Musket? The “One Man, One Gun” Decision (October 4, 2010)”, “Are Courts Irrelevant? Are Courts Illegitimate? (October 3, 2011)” and “The Supreme Court – Unrepresentative And Illegitimate: The 33.3 Percent Solution (October 1, 2012) and the “First Monday In October” e-commentary in 2014, 2015 and 2016.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

There is no law; there is only ideology

Fall falling; leaves leaving; winter winning

Federal Judges: Institutionalized Bullying (September 18, 2017)

Posted in Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Law, Law School, On [Traits/Characteristics] on September 18, 2017 by e-commentary.org

. . .

L1        “I pursued law to protect the kids from the bullies and discovered to my horror that the bullies are on the bench.”

L2        “Me too.  The legal system is not failing, it is failed.”

. . .

L1        “The Federal Courts are the House of Lords.  The state courts are the House of Commons.  The Federal Courts serve the interests of the U.S. government and the well-to-do/the well-connected and address a few high profile and sexy cases.  The state courts offer occasional relief to the common man.  The racket is also known as ‘Federalism’ in American law.  Charming system.”

L2        “The process is aided and abetted by selecting bullies from the bar to serve as Federal Judges.  The carefully calibrated system of checks and balances rewards those least fit and places them in power.”

L1        “In one case, the lawyer who had been bullied as a little boy spent day and night building the network and contacts to get the Federal Judgeship.  I warned a few of the kids who threw snow balls at him as he stood in line waiting for the yellow Blue Bird to land muttering to himself ‘Someday I will be a Federal Judge, someday I will be a Federal Judge, someday I will be a Federal Judge’.  He did what needed to be done to get into a profitable law school and then got the Federal Judgeship.  He now peers out from his perch at all the kids who threw snow balls at someone they did regard as a peer.  He got and is getting his revenge.  Not by challenging the bullies but by becoming a bully.”

L2        “No surprise.  Bullies were bullied.  It is contagious.”

. . .

L1        “Imagine if you could look up at him – while privately looking down on him – and say ‘How about you and me step outside big boy and handle this like real men?’”

L2        “Bullies need to be confronted.  But for simply challenging a bully, the wimp could unleash his enforcers from the U.S. Marshal’s Service and after roughing you up issue you a ticket to Florence.”

L1        “Now that is not such a bad outcome, really.  Tuscany is beautiful this time of year.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “SCOTUS on TV:  ‘They Might Not Be Such Bastards’ (March 26, 2012)”, “The Paradox Of The Republican Federal Judge:  Republican Federal Judge Syndrome (September 23, 2013)”, “Assigning Blame:  The Lawyers:  50 Percent; The Non-Lawyer Public:  50 Percent; The Judges:  100 Percent (December 3, 2012)”, “Arctic High School Court (May 23, 2016)” and “The Ninth Circuit:  Two-Tiered ‘Just-Us’ Review (February 13, 2017)”.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

September 17 – Have a happy Constitution Day

The Ninth Circuit:  Two-Tiered “Just-Us” Review (February 13, 2017)

Posted in Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Justice, Law, Perjury, Perjury/Dishonesty, Truth on February 13, 2017 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “There are two standards of review in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  If the plaintiff is a favored or famous individual or the matter is a cause célèbre, the Niners read the briefs and write a coherent decision.  If the plaintiff is not among the elite and is some ordinary stiff, the Niners do not read the briefs and instead distort both the law and the facts to make the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s lawyer look like fools.” 

J          “That is, perforce, perjury, but that is never a concern or an impediment.  They swore to uphold the law.  They are not upholding the law.  When they issue a decision, they are not required to attach an affidavit stating that the decision is an honest description of the law and the facts.  They already swore to provide an honest description of the law and the facts.”

K          “Perjury is the American Way.”

. . .

K          “If a case or issue is hip, cool, trendy, sexy and/or well-publicized, the Niners give it the time of day.  The recent case involving the trendy issue du jour provided an opportunity for an ideological pronouncement.  The Niners are more predictable than the sunrise.” 

. . .

K          “Cockroaches work diligently in the dark and scurry away when the lights are turned on.  Judges work diligently when the television lights are turned on and scurry away when the lights are turned off.”

J          “Perhaps the Niners should candidly and honestly state that they will not read a brief filed by a little person unless accompanied by a filing fee four (4) times the filing fee charged to large players and institutions.”

K          “Ten (10) times the filing fee may not be enough.  How much is enough.”

. . .

K          “Too bad we cannot depose God to determine the Truth.  Based on decades of study and careful observation, I calculate that aggregating the acts of perjury perpetrated by each judge and applying the low end of the Sentencing Guidelines would consign most judges to prison for life.”

J          “Now there is one for you.  There are more felons or technically unindicted felons on the bench at large than among the public.  I missed that discussion in my high school civics class.”

. . .

J          “Some ideas are too Truthful to entertain for even a few seconds.”

K          “When you think on it, perjury is the back bone of the American Judicial System.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary “On Standards & Quality (July 20, 2015)”, “The Court Of Truth And Justice (CTJ) (August 29, 2016)”, “Assigning Blame:  The Lawyers: 50 Percent; The Non-Lawyer Public: 50 Percent; The Judges: 100 Percent (December 3, 2012)” and “Perjury, the American Way (February 20, 2006).”

Bumper stickers of the week:

“There is always some kid who may be seeing me for the first or last time, I owe him my best.”  Joe DiMaggio

Courts have failed.  Courts exist to make life easy and lucrative for judges and to make money for obliging and cooperative lawyers.

First Annual Noble Prize In Eco-nomics (October 10, 2016)

Posted in Awards / Incentives, Banks and Banking System, Courage, Credit Unions, Crime/Punishment, Economics, Economics Nobel, FDIC, Journalism, Kleptocracy, Law, Newspapers, Nobel Prize, Noble Prize, Noble Prize in Eco-nomics, Press/Media, Rule of Law, Song Reference on October 10, 2016 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “An award dedicated to acknowledging and celebrating the work of someone on the planet who really knows something about eco-nomics.”

J          “Novel.  Appropriate.  Necessary.  And unprecedented.”

K          “The recipient of the first annual Noble Prize In Eco-nomics is . . . Professor William Kurt Black, Esq. professor of law and economics with the University of Missouri at Kansas City.  With decades of substantial and substantive real world experience, Professor Black examines and explicates the workings of banks and the banking system in the United States and the world with insight and conviction.  In his classic, timely and timeless magnum opus The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, he advances the conservative notion that those in the banking industry who commit systematic and rampant fraud should be convicted.  In an inspiring TEDxUMKC presentation available at TED the national public forum, he notes that bankers deploy banks as weapons of mass destruction against the public.  Unlike so many other law professors and judges who explore the interface of law and economics, he contends that law and economics should serve more than the interests of the wealthy and the powerful.  A felicitous contributor to the public discourse and dialogue, Professor Black’s continuing academic and personal commitment to the common weal and greater good is a good thing.”

. . .

[“This is Walter Kingsbury Brinkley, XYZ News, New York.  Earlier today, the highly coveted Noble Prize In Eco-nomics was awarded to Professor William K. Black, Esq. of the University of Missouri at Kansas City.  In his most celebrated work, Professor Black contends among other observations that the adoption of the rule of law in America is a swell idea.  In a related development, the Swedish bankers convened and announced the 2016 Nobel Prize in E-con-omics given to the individual who has or individuals who have done the most during his, her or their career to advance the interests of the wealthy and powerful.  . . . “]

[See the e-commentary at “Announcing The First Annual Noble Prize In Eco-nomics (May 2, 2016)”, “Award Deadlines (Livelines?) (July 25, 2016)”, “From e-con-omics to eco-nomics? (August 1, 2011)” and “Skip the Nobel in Economics (Oct. 6, 2009).”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

“Yes, as through this world I’ve wandered I’ve seen lots of funny men; Some will rob you with a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen.”  “The Ballad of Pretty Boy Floyd” by Woody Guthrie (c) 1958 (renewed) Woody Guthrie Publications, Inc.

Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank; give a man a bank and he can rob the world.