« Michigan Senate passes (prospective-only) Miller fix proposal | Main | Terrific (though incomplete) analysis of the state and future of modern pot politics »

October 25, 2013

Heading to law school alma mater for (rescheduled) reunion weekend

I am likely to be off-line much if not all of the next few days as I head up to Boston to attend my 20th reunion at Harvard Law School.  I find it hard to believe it has been two decades since I graduated, and the weather forecast suggests I will have a good excuse to use the HLS tunnels to get around just like old times.  I am not sure how many reunion events I will attend, but I am looking forward to showing my kids around Boston and Cambridge.

Notably, even this post has a criminal justice story behind it: this reunion weekend was originally schedule from this Spring but had to be cancelled because it was slated for the weekend that the hunt for the Marathon bomber had essentially shut down Boston.

October 25, 2013 at 08:35 AM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Heading to law school alma mater for (rescheduled) reunion weekend:


The lawyer dumbass turned a small bombing into a multi-billion dollar damage success for the terrorists by shutting down an American city. The lawyer dumbass did not even acknowledge that the terrorist was discovered only after the shut down ended, and the property owner went outside for a cigarette and discovered the terrorist hiding in his boat.

I urge all businesses, all stranded visitors, all others damaged by the lawyer dumbass, including disappointed HLS reunioners, to send the dumbass the bill, and to sue the dumbass if he refuses to pay.

The term, dumbass, is not an epithet. It is a term of art, and meant only in the nicest way. It refers to intelligent and modern students who are turned into cult victims by their law school indoctrination into the supernatural beliefs, delusions, crazy Twilight Zone shit of the criminal cult enterprise that is the law profession.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Oct 25, 2013 9:19:33 AM

Doug --

You should have gone to Stanford. The weather's better, and so is the football.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Oct 25, 2013 9:40:50 AM

One day earlier and you could have taken the kids to hear "Sweet Caroline" at Fenway.

Posted by: Stanley Feldman | Oct 25, 2013 11:25:28 AM

Stan, it is bad enough my father in law is a BoSox fan, I cannot let my kids go that way, too.

Posted by: Doug B. | Oct 25, 2013 12:51:59 PM

Suggested small research project.

Ask HLS alums if anyone ever defined the word, reasonable.

Why is reason the central doctrine of the common law, and not some other word?

Why must the reasonable person be fictitious? They will reply the standard answer, to be objective. Ask, do they know of any other reason?


The answers are from St. Thomas Aquinas, the teacher of Henry of Bracton. Bracton is Brittany, so this pig was French, not even English. He wrote up 450 cases, and we have been practicing his tort and criminal jurisprudence.

Intellect is not a reliable guide to moral decisions. It is subject to the temptations that beset man since the Fall from the Garden of Eden.

Reason is a far better guide. It is the ability to perceive God (not yet through ony faith, but objectively at that point in history). The most reliable guide to reason, St Thomas argued in the tightest IRAC prose you will ever read, is the New Testament. The New Testament is the story of Jesus. Because of that reason is the central guide to common law decisions. It is not liable to temptations. It perceives the will of God, and follows the New Testament, and Jesus. So the reasonable person is basically Jesus, according to the technical, Scholasticist definition.

In 1300, William of Occham declared Scholasticism a failure. One cannot show the existence of God by the objective study of nature. He had to run for his life. But their early descriptions and classifications of natural phenomena led to the Humanistic Renaissance. The Church acknowledged this failure 600 years later. Only the lawyer remains a user. One method of answering difficult questions is the disputation. That is a synonym for the adversarial system of our courts, and has no validation, not even within the Church anymore.

I do not bash the Church. I do not bash the Medieval predecessors. That was really good stuff for the era. French culture was the same as today. All lawyers were John roberts types, having a slick, meaningless answer to every question, except in three languages, English, French and Latin. Any lawyer allowing a case to reach substance was disgraced. All cases were settled on procedure. Very French.

I bash the clueless lawyer dumbass.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Oct 26, 2013 9:30:27 AM

▬► Supremacy Claus re “dumbass”

CCEA, to me , as an abbreviation for “cognitively challenged equus asinus” sounds more refined than “dumbass” ; especially when one is an M.C. at a law school reunion .

P.S. Thanks for the history .

Posted by: Just Plain Jim (Just Another Guy) | Oct 26, 2013 10:28:47 AM

▬► Professor Berman & family.

Safe travel and environment to , at and from the reunion .

DJB/tbm Nemo etc. ☺

Posted by: Just Plain Jim (Just Another Guy) | Oct 26, 2013 10:31:48 AM

Jim: I have often explained, dumbass, is not an epithet. It is a lawyer term of art.

It refers to a process of cult indoctrination. It starts with intelligent, modern students, even some who know a lot of science. At the end, out comes someone who believes in mind reading, future forecasting, and that standards of conduct should be set by a fictitious character. They accept the legal immunity of the government, originally justifed by Henry because the Sovereign speaks with the Voice of God.

Not even in 1275 AD, not even the Medieval church held such insane beliefs. According to their faith, the Church believed God could do the above judging your mortal sins upon arrival in heaven. I cannot dispute faith, only respect it. One has to respect how religion does a good job of getting ordinary people to work, to care for their families, and to not attack the neighbors, far better than the criminal law. So now religion is under all out attack by the lawyer controlled government, as a competitor for moral authority.

It is not a legal education. It meets all criteria for legal indoctrination. No matter how smart, rich and powerful the lawyer, he will be crushed by the hierarchy should he ever cross it. If the public is oppressed, the lawyer is doubly oppressed, and the ordinary street judge is triply oppressed by this cult hierarchy.

What the lawyer does not realize because he is so terrorized is that his own condition will markedly improve if this treasonous elite, around 15,000 traitors, can be eradicated.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Oct 26, 2013 11:44:07 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB