July 27, 2009
Around the blogosphere
Here are a few of the posts of note from around the blogosphere that should be of interest to criminal justice fans:
From Crime and Consequence here, "So-Called Prosecutor Misconduct"
From The Crime Report here, "Why Is Obama Seeking Rise In Drug Enforcement?"
From Grits for Breakfast here, "Stronger probation praised in drug court setting"
From How Appealing here, "High Court Ruling Shapes Local Control; California Officials To Seek Relief from Court Oversight"
From PrawfsBlawg here, "President Obama and the Paradoxes of Police Power"
From The Volokh Conspiracy here, "If You're Reading This, You're Probably a Federal Criminal"
UPDATE: Here is one more of note from this afternoon:
- From the WSJ Law Blog here, "Spin the Wheel, Get a Corruption Sentence"
July 27, 2009 at 10:35 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Around the blogosphere:
Since I don't have a password to sign in there I'll comment here.
That new proposal by the ABA that Kent reviews is about as self-serving as anything I've ever seen. It's fundamental problem lies in the words: "and find that the attorney's act or omission was purposeful, knowing or intentional".
It's impossible to prove a negative and I don't know how anyone is going to assert that an omission was intentional. If one changes the wording to "known or should have known" I'll buy it. But stated in the absolute way it's stated it's a get out of jail free card for most lawyer misconduct or error.
Posted by: Daniel | Jul 27, 2009 12:53:16 PM
As to the Kosinski argument that federal prosecutors can come after everyone in the US, because of the large number of laws. It is ironic that the best explanation for this scheme was rejected by Volokh. He is a cool guy. Animal porn sites, illegal pharmacy sites, name specific death threats, obscene language, no biggie to him.
Mention the rent seeking theory and the violation of the Establishment Clause by the Scholasticist nature of the core legal doctrines? Gone in 60 seconds, banned. Followed within the hour with a foam at the mouth, crazy, new comments policy, and an invitation to go elsewhere on the big internet.
This federal thug scheme is old. It is copied from the Inquisition. It is not taught, but the Inquisition had a business plan. So blaspheme by eating meat on a Friday, and the penalty was confiscation, not burning at the stake, ending your productivity. The Jews, the Protestants they did burn? Rich people, whose assets reverted to the Church.
So the multiplicity of law and regulation is pretextual and a crime by lawyers.
Here is a set of tools for the mass extinction of these laws.
1) Any legal utterance containing Latin is void for violation of the Establishment Clause. Latin is the foreign language of the Catholic Church and prohibited in our secular nation's government.
2) Any legal utterance written above the sixth grade level is voidable because it fails to give notice. This argument is especially strong in the criminal law. On top of this failure, fancy language violates legality.
3) All laws and regulations should be required to be scientifically proven to be safe and effective. Any law that has not been pilot tested with good data to support its safety and effective should be automatically recalled. This rule is justified by the nature of the law, ghoulish human experimentation.
4) The entire lawyer hierarchy, about 15,000, are in insurrection against the Constitution, especially Article I Section 1, prohibiting judicial review. Round them up, en masse. Give each an individualized fair trial lasting an hour, where the sole evidence is their appellate decision or an executive regulation. Then find them guilty. Take them to the basement of the courthouse, and have a hooded police officer shoot them in the head. That is how the Inquisition ended, too. The French Revolution had 100's or 1000's of Dominican friars beheaded. The church got the message about its business plan. Over.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 27, 2009 1:37:08 PM