Archive for the Law Category

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, 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.

Get A Gun; Practice Gun Safety (January 25, 2016)

Posted in Boycott Series, Guns, Law on January 25, 2016 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “Get a gun.”

J          “Or two.”

. . .

K          “When there is no rule of law, you are compelled to get a gun.  And there is so little rule of law in America.”

J          “You are on your own.  Me too.”

. . .

K          “Guns are high-tech hole punches that punch holes in paper and clay, and in four-legged animals, and in two-legged animals.  Target shooting, and hunting, and personal protection.  I now encourage everyone to acquire and learn how to use a gun responsibly for personal protection.”

J          “An owner must be willing to use it and know how to use it.  I regard a gun as our last stand and our last statement.  A pistol to protect your person and a shotgun to protect your property and family.  Go with a revolver.  Less chance of failure and you don’t litter the landscape with brass or leave your fingerprints.”    

K          “Semi-autos have their place.  By your side.”

J          “A 12 gauge pump is indisputably the way to go for the castle and family.  Three inch shells, double-aught buck attract attention.”

. . .

J          “Once that lead is unleashed, getting it back in the barrel is problematic.”

K          “Everyone should be forced to stare at a few gunshot wounds as part of the safety training.  It ain’t television.”

. . .

J          “I lived without background checks at gun shows and estate sales for decades.  The state background checks instituted recently are a nuisance, yet they are necessary and tolerable.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary under the Category Guns and at Punt, Pass and Kick:  The End Is Far (February 24, 2014).]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Keep calm and carry a gun

Boycott the NRA

Gun nut who favors keeping guns out of the hands of nuts

Boys v. Girls / Reds v. Blues / Republicans v. Democrats / Catholics v. Jews / Institutionalists v. Individualists / Don’t Let Others Immanentize The Eschatoners v. Let Others Immanentize The Eschatoners: The Great Divide At The Supreme Court Today (October 5, 2015)

Posted in Capital Punishment, Death Penalty, First Monday In October, Global Climate Change, Global Warming, Hypocrisy, Immanentizing The Eschaton, Law, Religion, Supreme Court on October 5, 2015 by e-commentary.org

. . .

L1          “Breyer is an all-pro guy, but, admit it, he is too smart to be male.  And Sotomayor was born with a plastic spoon in her mouth and is not a sustaining member of the Don’t-Let-Others-Immanentize-The-Eschaton wing of the Catholic church who dominate the Court today.”

L2          “So on one side of the great chasm are the Red Republican Catholic Institutionalist boys (Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy) and on the other side are the Blue Democratic Jewish Individualist girls (Breyer, Ginsberg, Kagan and Sotomayor).  The divide could not be more clean and elegant.”

L1          “Or more stark and cavernous.  The Justices are seated by seniority but now should be seated with an aisle to divide them into two camps.  The sports announcer could chortle:  ‘In this corner, we have the Reds; in this corner, we have the Blues.’”

L2          “That would be way too honest and candid.  The big problem remains the lack of lawyers, leaders and intellectuals on the Court.  The biggest problem is that they are drawn from the worst pool of candidates – judges from the federal appellate courts who are probably the most intellectually dishonest group of lawyers.”

. . .

L1          “They are not listening to the Pope on topics ranging from global climate change to the death penalty, from the death of the planet to the death of the person.”

L2          “Or the Pope’s comments on income inequality.  Roberts and Alito are trying to outdo each other promoting business over the individual and protecting the government from the individual.”

. . .

L1          “Those in the majority claim to be Roman Catholic but do not vote or behave like the majority of Roman Catholics.  They are roman Catholics.”

L2          “Sans serifs.  Depends on the day of the week.  A Catholic on Sunday and a quasi-Catholic on the first Monday in October and thereafter.”

L2          “The opinions of the Pope are what lawyers describe as purely advisory.”

L1          “That independence of thought is not entirely undesirable.”

L2          “Accord.”

. . .

L1          “No more than three Justices from one law school.  No more than three Justices from one religion.  No more than three Justices from the WaNeBos region.”

L2          “If no more than three Justices can be confirmed who believe that we should let others immanentize the Eschaton and no more than three Justices can be confirmed who believe that we should not let others immanentize the Eschaton, how do we fill the other three slots?”

. . .

[See the e-commentary include in the “First Monday In October Series” and see The Paradox Of The Republican Federal Judge: Republican Federal Judge Syndrome (September 23, 2013) and SCOTUS on TV: “They Might Not Be Such Bastards” (March 26, 2012).]

Bumper stickers of the week:

It all comes down to one Red Republican Catholic Institutionalist guy – The Fulcrum

Pray

Here Comes Da Judge; Dere Goes Da Justice (August 31, 2015)

Posted in Courts, Federal Courts, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Law, Law School, Magazine Reference on August 31, 2015 by e-commentary.org

. . .

B-W L          “I told my client in a personal meeting face to face in the office that we were assigned a judge who would rule against us without reading any of the pleadings.  Zero percent chance of success.  An appeal was too expensive.  The client said to proceed making the arguments and angle for an angle, some angle, any angle.  You should always send a separate letter as an attachment to an e-mail and by snail mail to the client confirming your concerns that the outcome may not be favorable as discussed.  I slow rolled things playing for time with no grand plan.  Out of the blue, an entity moves and is allowed to intervene; the judge steps out of the case without comment.  New judge takes over case; new judge follows the law; client prevails.  You need to get lucky some times.”

W-E L S          “We are spending the third year trading war stories like this in the student lounge.”

B-W L          “And that part of the process is not even covered by tuition.  I told another client that we drew the right judge and could expect a favorable outcome.  Some judge gets deployed overseas to join in killing innocent folks and a new judge is assigned.  A judge who liked to use the expression ‘a no-brainer’ and met that qualification.  However, the argument required a brain.  He employed his patented ‘no brainer’ analysis.”

W-E L S          “Dead.”

B-W L          “DOA.  Upon notice of the reassignment, the first reaction was utter dread.  Game over.  A death notice from the court.  You may not realize that your state still has the death penalty in civil cases.  And not a shot was fired.  How do you explain it to a client who is utterly disgusted with the whole process.  He kept yelling that he wanted the first judge and wanted me to get the first judge back.”

. . .

B-W L          “MSU is a military expression that applies to the law.  Making Stuff Up.  The facts and the law.  No one will ask the fundamental question whether all the money, public and private, spent to indoctrinate a young law student is worth fomenting the illusion and delusion.  Is there value in the truth?”

W-E L S          “Can I get a refund on my tuition?”

. . .

B-W L          “Few if any of your law professors ever practiced law.  You are obligated to repeat and are rewarded for propagating the myth.  That is the Game.”

. . .

[B-W L: Battle-Weary Lawyer; W-E L S: Wide-Eyed Law Student]

[See the e-commentary at Playin’ The Legal Game (March 28, 2011) and Assigning Blame: The Lawyers: 50 Percent; The Non-Lawyer Public: 50 Percent; The Judges: 100 Percent (December 3, 2012).]

Bumper stickers of the week:

“Your honor, we will be filing a motion this afternoon to transfer this case to an entirely different judicial system.”  “The New Yorker” cartoon in office.

MSU:  The motto of the American judicial system

A system of men and women not a system of laws.

The first thing we do let’s banish the American-acculturated judges.

“You Can’t Be Smarter” (August 10, 2015)

Posted in Bureaucracy, Courts, Entertainment, Journalism, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Law, Law School, Newspapers, Personal Stories Series, Personal Story, Press/Media, Television on August 10, 2015 by e-commentary.org

. . .

P          “You might as well leave law school with some useful insight.  When you begin practice, ferret out the longest serving person at the firm.  That person likely will be female and the secretary for a senior partner.  Take her to lunch.  Ask for advice.  Listen carefully.”

. . .

SS          “Your biggest challenge?  You must accept that you can’t be smarter than the judge.  That will vex a person like you.  And don’t expect much civility or any humility from the bench.  Good luck.  You will need it.”

. . .

YL          “So it is like law school but with consequence.  It is like high school writ large.”

SS          “And I am downstream from the bullying and arrogance of the judges and the senior partner.”

. . .

YL          “Looking back, I realize that professors were and judges now are the greatest impediments to advancing sound ideas.”

SS          “They don’t teach you much in law school.”

. . .

[Jon Stewart left The Daily Show recently.  See the e-commentary at Brian, Jon And Journalism Today (February 16, 2015).]

Bumper sticker of the week:

Better to know the judge than the law

High-Frequency Trading = Cybercrime (June 8, 2015)

Posted in Crime/Punishment, Cyberactivities, Law on June 8, 2015 by e-commentary.org

. . .

7          “Imagine the surprise a part-time summer intern for the federal government will receive upon learning that his or her personal data was purloined decades later by someone or something unknown.”

. . .

9          “High-Frequency Trading (HFT) is Cybercrime.  Period.  And the government does absolutely nothing about it.”

7          “Because it is done by the Owners, it is allowed.  If it were done by the Chinese or by the Russians or by the Iranians, bombs would fly.”

9          “High-Frequency Trading (HFT) is Cybercrime.  Period.”

7          “And the government does absolutely nothing about it.”

. . .

7          “There may be a few individuals within the government who know what is going on but are throttled from doing anything about it by those in power.”

9          “High-Frequency Trading (HFT) is Cybercrime.  Period.”

. . .

[See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-frequency_trading.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

High-Frequency Trading (HFT) is Cybercrime.  Period.