ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, September 15, 2017

Justice's casino

This is why it is a fool's game to assume that any legal case is a certainty of any kind, no matter what the law says, and no matter how much legal precedent you can cite.
Recently retired federal appeals court Judge Richard Posner said he rarely looked to legal rules when deciding cases and often sought to skirt Supreme Court precedent.

"I pay very little attention to legal rules, statutes, constitutional provisions," Posner told the New York Times in an interview published Monday. "A case is just a dispute. The first thing you do is ask yourself — forget about the law — what is a sensible resolution of this dispute?"

When confronting a case with some form of legal obstacle in the way, the former 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge said he would look to circumvent whatever prevented him from reaching his desired result.
Any good lawyer will tell you that the law is whatever the presiding judge tells you it is. I was once the only witness in a civil case in which the documentary evidence precisely supported my testimony. It was as black-and-white, as open-and-shut, as a case could be. There was simply no way around the obvious conclusion. None at all.

But instead of simply deciding for the plaintiff, the judge offered a settlement of a coin toss. Heads and the plaintiff won the total amount sought. Tails and he only won half. Knowing that he had no case, the defendant's attorney accepted the settlement and won the coin toss. The plaintiff received only half of what he was rightfully owed.

And that is why I have never had one single iota of confidence in the U.S. legal system ever since. Nothing that I have seen happen in it ever since has surprised me. Literally anything can happen; justice has nothing to do with it. The Italians call the legal system "un casino" and I think they are entirely right to do so.

Labels:

113 Comments:

Blogger Vlad September 15, 2017 11:03 AM  

A coin toss? That's ridiculous. Was the judge by any chance named Harvey Dent?

Anonymous Randomatos September 15, 2017 11:07 AM  

Casino pretty much sums it up - cash and prizes for the house (lawyers and judges), especially in family court. Pay out enough loot to keep suckers coming.

Blogger RM Chris September 15, 2017 11:15 AM  

Hence the bypass of the legal system in so many places around the world.

Anonymous Anonymous September 15, 2017 11:20 AM  

So very many people disputed Murray Rothbard's vision of market anarchy because they could not see the private sector delivering "justice". I always wonder if these people can point to anyplace in the world were there is real impartial justice now.

There was "law and order" for thousands of years before there was a nation-state. There has been no "rule of law" (like in our American mythology) since the rise of the nation-state.

Oh well.

Blogger Lucius Cincinnatus September 15, 2017 11:21 AM  

Posner gave an interview at U of Chicago where he teaches law, which can be heard on the FIRE podcast called So to Speak, its horrifying to hear what he has to say, especially about pro life protestors.

Anonymous lpdbw September 15, 2017 11:23 AM  

After my divorce, my attorney told me that I had a nearly airtight case to take to the court of appeals due to arbitrary and capricious decisions by the trial judge (a man-hating woman).

He then warned me that it is the mission of the appeals court to find any possible way to justify the lower court's decisions. He warned me airtight cases boil down to about a 50% win rate, and he wouldn't normally advise taking anything less to an appeal.

He turned out to be correct. They confirmed 4 out of 5 of the lower courts orders, and only overturned the one where they couldn't find even the flimsiest of excuses.

No justice in Illinois courts.

Blogger Anno Ruse September 15, 2017 11:24 AM  

I once showed up to court for a minor criminal matter, a clerk told me I was free to go, then an arrest warrant was issued for me because the clerk didn't write down that I'd attended. That's just one of the many idiotic scenes that played out. It's been my opinion ever since that if you're going to break the law, go big.

Anonymous TLM September 15, 2017 11:27 AM  

.... it is a fool's game to assume that any legal case is a certainty of any kind, no matter what the law says, and no matter how much legal precedent you can cite....

...And that is why I have never had one single iota of confidence in the U.S. legal system ever since....

And yet you're going back to the well with this Torba Texas lawsuit, odd?

Anonymous Aeoli Pera September 15, 2017 11:29 AM  

Great post illustrating the phenomenon.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera September 15, 2017 11:31 AM  

Justice is a luxury good, only available to first-world countries or the rich and influential.

Blogger VD September 15, 2017 11:32 AM  

And yet you're going back to the well with this Torba Texas lawsuit, odd?

Yes. Think through the implications of that.

Anonymous Viiidad September 15, 2017 11:32 AM  

I spent yesterday morning as a witness in a traffic case. The judge was pretty decent. At one point, a witness was called in. His pants were sagging, so she sent him out again to pull them up, then mocked him for being unable to wear his pants properly, finally sending an officer out to help him cinch up his belt. I was highly amused.

Anonymous Wraithburn September 15, 2017 11:34 AM  

@TLM

After all of the noise from the #AltRetards that the whole thing would fail because there was no case, why does this not scare you?

Anonymous User September 15, 2017 11:37 AM  

Fake American judges can't adjudicate American law.

Anonymous VFM #6306 September 15, 2017 11:39 AM  

Viiidad wrote:I spent yesterday morning as a witness in a traffic case. The judge was pretty decent. At one point, a witness was called in. His pants were sagging, so she sent him out again to pull them up, then mocked him for being unable to wear his pants properly, finally sending an officer out to help him cinch up his belt. I was highly amused.

Pant Dives Matter!

Blogger RobertT September 15, 2017 11:39 AM  

I used to testify as an expert witness. There are two things I know for sure. 1. The best place for a criminal to be in right smack dab in the middle of the court system. The entire system is designed to protect guilty. Justice is not on the docket. 2. the best way to get the judge on your side is to develop a relationship with him. Which can be done in a short amount of time. I remember one time when the judge began asking me personal questions about his personal income tax while I was testifying. And although the opposing side mounted all kinds of challenges to my testimony, guess who won.

Anonymous Anonymous September 15, 2017 11:41 AM  

(((Posner)))

Anonymous Thales September 15, 2017 11:41 AM  

...and Posner was one of the good ones!

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother September 15, 2017 11:43 AM  

Fully pozzed

Blogger Hazel Motes September 15, 2017 11:43 AM  

Witness the beginning of VD's slow retreat from the Gab case - he doesn't want to tell you that he just got laughed at, but we all know that's why we got this sour grapes post.

Blogger Aeoli Pera September 15, 2017 11:45 AM  

Never a bad time for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTWdP5DMdsM

The voice actors are reading from a real court transcript.

Blogger Aeoli Pera September 15, 2017 11:46 AM  

VD wrote:And yet you're going back to the well with this Torba Texas lawsuit, odd?

Yes. Think through the implications of that.


Presumes a survival instinct.

Anonymous Viiidad September 15, 2017 11:51 AM  

Aeoli Pera wrote:Never a bad time for href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTWdP5DMdsM

The voice actors are reading from a real court transcript.


This is freaking hilarious.

Anonymous Laz September 15, 2017 11:51 AM  

"Justice is a luxury good, only available to first-world countries or the rich and influential." I guess you never heard of a lynch mob.

Blogger The Remnant September 15, 2017 11:52 AM  

As an attorney I can tell you that judges like Posner are rampant. Most attorneys don't seem to care because the only thing that matters to them is the bottom line, which is helped by chaotic and unpredictable jurisprudence. The template for Posner was Earl Warren, whose decisions were arbitrary and based on nothing more than his feelings, and which still wreak havoc today. Yet it is these judges who are praised and eulogized the most, kind of like presidents, the "greatest" of whom are the ones who ignore the law while pillaging and plundering.

Blogger August September 15, 2017 11:53 AM  

You definitely don't want to have to try your case in Virginia.

Anonymous Viiidad September 15, 2017 11:56 AM  

Viiidad wrote:Aeoli Pera wrote:Never a bad time for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTWdP5DMdsM"

The voice actors are reading from a real court transcript.


This is freaking hilarious.


...until it gets to the middle. Sheesh. How many obscenities can you jam into eleven minutes?

Blogger pyrrhus September 15, 2017 11:57 AM  

An extremely prominent attorney, later Solicitor General of the United States, said in an address to the University of Chicago Law School that "any case can go either way, never forget that."

Blogger Stilicho September 15, 2017 11:57 AM  

Posner religiously tried to justify his rulings in terms of economics which he himself didn't understand (being a krugman lite at best), but his gambit often served to confuse those he didn't know enough to cut through his bullshit. Posner alone should suffice to destroy the myth of the intelligent jewish lawyer. Pompous, term-dropping bullshit artist--yes. Intelligent? Not even close to what he gives himself credit for.

Blogger VD September 15, 2017 12:00 PM  

Witness the beginning of VD's slow retreat from the Gab case - he doesn't want to tell you that he just got laughed at, but we all know that's why we got this sour grapes post.

Gab backed away from the Google case. I, on the other hand, have not backed away from anything.

Blogger pyrrhus September 15, 2017 12:00 PM  

"As an attorney I can tell you that judges like Posner are rampant. Most attorneys don't seem to care because the only thing that matters to them is the bottom line, which is helped by chaotic and unpredictable jurisprudence. The template for Posner was Earl Warren, whose decisions were arbitrary and based on nothing more than his feelings, and which still wreak havoc today. Yet it is these judges who are praised and eulogized the most, kind of like presidents, the "greatest" of whom are the ones who ignore the law while pillaging and plundering."
Absolutely, and no ethics either. We had a Judge in a major case whose daughter was working for the other law firm, and didn't see a problem with that....

Blogger Koanic September 15, 2017 12:01 PM  

This is good news for Alt-Justice entrepreneurs such as myself.

Anonymous Überdeplorable Psychedelic Cat Grass September 15, 2017 12:08 PM  

Viiidad wrote:Aeoli Pera wrote:Never a bad time for href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTWdP5DMdsM

The voice actors are reading from a real court transcript.


This is freaking hilarious.


Hilarious! I love how the jurors are a combination of other characters and Futurama characters, including a brain slug.

pyrrhus wrote:"As an attorney I can tell you that judges like Posner are rampant. Most attorneys don't seem to care because the only thing that matters to them is the bottom line, which is helped by chaotic and unpredictable jurisprudence. The template for Posner was Earl Warren, whose decisions were arbitrary and based on nothing more than his feelings, and which still wreak havoc today. Yet it is these judges who are praised and eulogized the most, kind of like presidents, the "greatest" of whom are the ones who ignore the law while pillaging and plundering."

Absolutely, and no ethics either. We had a Judge in a major case whose daughter was working for the other law firm, and didn't see a problem with that....



Trump should've fired every last one of those judges.

Anonymous TLM September 15, 2017 12:09 PM  

GAB filed against Google. Torba posted the Complaint. Milo is mentioned, but no VD. His legal team seems to have their sh*t together.

Blogger James September 15, 2017 12:14 PM  

User wrote:Fake American judges can't adjudicate American law.

Most Americans don't even know there is a difference between legal and lawful. Something can be illegal but not unlawful. Legal pertains primarily to the form of the law, which has been crafted by lawyers. This is one of the reasons our laws have been used to create a de facto government and judicial system, rather than the de jure systems originally created. Your (((masters))) always do things "legally" to subvert your rights and your countries.

I find it amusing that Americans, who created a jury system that was actually supposed to be the "judge" of an issue in court, have acquiesced to calling the black robed petty tyrants that rule the courtroom, "Your honor" instead of "Your shiftiness" or "Your asswipe". Why do we rise when the douches enter the court? Contempt of court can result in jail time, fines, and losing the case, since these whores need their ears tickled. Admittedly, this is more common in Federal and civil courts as State courts often require their judges to be elected. But, State courts have become similar circuses. And being lawyers, its all about the money, ultimately. A judge can retire based on one faulty ruling, if the bribe is sufficient.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 15, 2017 12:17 PM  

Wasn't Posner appointed by Saint Ronnie of Reagan?
Bet he had a real high rating from the ABA.

Blogger pyrrhus September 15, 2017 12:17 PM  

I suspect, however, that all Western legal systems are highly corrupt at this point. Patrick Henry punctured the theory of an "independent" judiciary by asking who was signing their checks...and that has become all too obvious in the last 75 years.

Blogger robwbright September 15, 2017 12:18 PM  

Several years ago I had a client who was convinced that he would win his case because the law was on his side (and it was. Entirely. And the facts mostly were, too). The former Judge acting as mediator was trying to get the case settled and told my client (this was to be a bench trial):

"It doesn't matter if the law is entirely on your side. You have AT LEAST a 20% chance of losing ANY case at trial. If I'm the Judge, I might dislike your shirt color and that alone might make me decide I don't want you to win. Even if your shirt color is the only reason I rule against you, I can write the decision in such a way that the Court of Appeals will affirm."

My boss and I repeatedly tried to get him to accept the settlement - as it was quite reasonable, given the risks at trial.

My client refused to settle and went to trial. He's a pretty private person and an introvert. At trial, he was nervous on the stand... which made him appear evasive. He wouldn't answer any questions on cross exam in a clear and straightforward way.

The Judge on the case ruled in the other party's favor. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

People can't believe it until they go through it. Thankfully 2/3 of our local judges DO pay at least some attention to the law.

Attorneys in this area refer to our court of appeals as our "Court of Affirmance".
About a year ago, I managed to get them to reverse a rape conviction - and other attorneys were quite surprised to see it - to the point that the most prominent criminal defense attorney called me to congratulate me.

Blogger VD September 15, 2017 12:18 PM  

Stop trying to comment here, David Power and Hazel Motes. This is not a free speech zone.

Go back to Gab or the Daily Stormer, as you prefer.

Anonymous Andrew Anglin #2 September 15, 2017 12:20 PM  

Hazel Motes
See I didn't mention Anglin this time -

But you just did! The latest email clearly said "No mentioning" and you just did! Just type "you know who" next time, ok?

Blogger Aeoli Pera September 15, 2017 12:23 PM  

Viiidad wrote:Viiidad wrote:Aeoli Pera wrote:Never a bad time for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTWdP5DMdsM"

The voice actors are reading from a real court transcript.


This is freaking hilarious.


...until it gets to the middle. Sheesh. How many obscenities can you jam into eleven minutes?


JERRY
JERRY
JERRY

Blogger RC September 15, 2017 12:26 PM  

Yes, I have lived this to the tune of millions flushed in a federal civil case: packed jury of all women in a very technical case, judge the former partner of the plaintiff, and made it impossible to appeal the verdict. The opponent's closing argument included a story about a lemonade stand (and I stole their lemonade) and actual crocodile tears from the lead attorney. I shall never forget that Lady Justice has long been dead. It's a red pill moment and radically changes the way one lives.

Anonymous BBGKB September 15, 2017 12:26 PM  

I thought it was only jewish judges who thought that way, the Kritarchy.

OT: Good news in Chicago no one to sue when video evidence showed a looting niggerette was killed by a NAZI named Darwin, hundreds protested in front of the Hotel before security footage came out
http://www.newsweek.com/kenneka-jenkins-chicago-hotel-surveillance-footage-665400

Blogger Stilicho September 15, 2017 12:29 PM  

The primary goal of appellate judges is not to affirm whatever the trial court does (although there is an element of that baked into the system and the degrees of deference given to the trial court' decision). Their primary goal is to act upon the appellate judges' biases and political inclinations. If those align with the trial judge's rulings, then affirmation will occur.

Anonymous nightskyradio September 15, 2017 12:32 PM  

Posner wasn't the only one arbitrarily pushing "sensible" resolutions -

"When faced with such inconsistencies, judges are supposed to effectuate statutes in a sensible manner. But the main argument in the case does not appeal to any good sense. Instead, it appeals to a theory of legal interpretation that abjures good sense in favor of textual literalism: This is the text, they say, and that is all that matters — even if the ensuing result is an "odd" one."

That was written by Ofer Raban, who teaches constitutional and criminal law at the University of Oregon School of Law.

Raban also rationalizes legalized theft by government. Original article at http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/12/a_frivolous_challenge_to_the_a.html

Blogger justaguy September 15, 2017 12:32 PM  

The basic issue in whether or not a government can maintain a system of laws or a rule of men (judges acting on their own) is one of the virtue of the citizenry. As the progressives have controlled the education system for generations and have almost eliminated traditional western religion (Protestant Christianity) from the public square and too much of the population, you get egregious cases becoming commonplace.

In too many cases, the law, precedent and facts are clear, and the result is clear, but… without religion, there is no absolute morality, so “society” has taught the educated that “other values” apart from natural and revealed law should take precedence. So we get the situation in Judges 17:6 or 21:25 every man did as they saw fit.

Why is anyone surprised at the lawlessness of the courts or the government when in many big cities you have to bribe officials to get anything done.

Anonymous patrick kelly September 15, 2017 12:35 PM  

And lo, in September of 2017 the concern of trollz rose across the land.

And nobody cared.

Anonymous szIlk September 15, 2017 12:42 PM  

No longer a justice system, now it's just a system.

Blogger pyrrhus September 15, 2017 12:43 PM  

Posner was regarded as conservative because of his papers casting economic doubt on many aspects of antitrust theory, and indeed the Chicago school, led by Bork, led to judicial restraint on the antitrust bar. Problem was, Posner was still a social liberal, and as he got older, that took over to a ridiculous extent...Never trust a judge who is a social liberal...

Anonymous Kudos The Lexecutioner September 15, 2017 12:57 PM  

This is why I no longer practice law for a living. After you have lost both sides of the same issue with the same facts before two different judges, the blinders come off.

As Dickens' Mr. Bumble said: "If the law supposes that - the law is a ass."

As they say, justice is a process, not a result.

Yeah, like processed cheese food product spread, and just as real.

Anonymous Hon. Rev. Dr. Marvin P. Williams, Esq. September 15, 2017 1:01 PM  

Judge Posner is a brilliant and wonderful man. A colleague of mine from the Black Legal Alliance once appeared in his court room to defend a young man of color who had been accused of murder. When my colleague presented the fact that the victim had several white bedsheets in his linen closet - which were obviously the raw materials for future KKK uniforms - Judge Posner dismissed all charges against the defendant. It was a great victory for black folks everywhere. Just a little anecdote I thought I would share about Judge Posner, who I consider one of America's greatest living jurists.

Anonymous Kreator September 15, 2017 1:01 PM  

Wait a minute here, Vox.

A coin toss? A COIN TOSS? In an American court room?

Vox, you understand that this is beyond me, and I live in Greece, a country that after 81' has been turning itself in a third world Banana Republic, not America.

I mean, if this is true, then Trump, Putin, Le Pen and Golden Dawn cannot form a new New World Order soon enough!

The swamp needs to be flushed down and the swamp creatures need execution, by the hundreds!

Blogger seeingsights September 15, 2017 1:10 PM  

And the level of legal uncertainty is highest when the courts deal with social issues. Really, that the President can ban travelers to the US is clearly in the Federal code, but that doesn't matter to left-liberal judges.

Anonymous Lawyer Guy September 15, 2017 1:13 PM  

In my state almost no civil cases go to trial. The ones that do are usually personal injury or extreme discrimination where the plaintiff is betting on the jury sending a message.

There is a complex system of checks, one is submitting motions for summary when discovery is mostly over. With computers it is mostly impossible to hide facts by dumping documents on the other side like you see in old movies.

One of the big things we do in state court in my state is the case eval panels. 3 long term lawyers in the general area of your case are assigned to the panel and they receive a brief on the evidence and arguments from each side. Then I go in with the other attorney and speak privately with them. They issue a settlement number. If either side rejects that number and then the result at trial is worse than the number the panel assigned, the losing side has to pay the legal fees and costs for the winning side. Obviously there is some game playing that goes on, but this really helps settle cases

Anonymous Gen. Kong September 15, 2017 1:14 PM  

A coin toss? That's ridiculous. Was the judge by any chance named Harvey Dent?

No, probably Dindu Nuffinz. Know what the guy who graduamacated at the bottom of the law skool class is called?? Your Honor! Are there sufficient numbers of lampposts and trees to handle them all?

Anonymous Grayman September 15, 2017 1:23 PM  

TLDR..... Rule of Law is dead. And has been for a long time. The law is now defined by money and influence.

Anonymous Anonymous September 15, 2017 1:23 PM  

Going into the Devil's court under the Devil's laws to ask the Devil for some justice is not apt to work out in any case.

Anonymous Grayman September 15, 2017 1:27 PM  

Once the social mood changes the purges that may be set off are set to be epic! The "ruling" class are setting the standard now... once the social mood swings a lot of people will be happy to return that "rule by decree" in the form of summary executions in the middle of the street.

Blogger Aeoli Pera September 15, 2017 1:28 PM  

szIlk wrote:No longer a justice system, now it's just a system.

Systems have predictable outputs. The only predictable outputs of the justice system are suffering and waste.

Blogger Johnny September 15, 2017 1:33 PM  

Lawyer Guy wrote:In my state almost no civil cases go to trial.

In the name of protecting over civil liberties, following WWII they made it more difficult and expensive to prosecute crime. We got an expansion of crime and around the time of Richard Nixon being hard on crime got political tractions. Being unable to change what judges do easily, it produced hard assed District Attorneys who overcharge a lot. That produces plea bargains and instead of better trials there are fewer trials. A real butt hole solution. Once charged the defendant is largely stuck with guilty plea or risk being prosecuted for a whole series of heinous crimes. Guilty or innocent, most people settle.

Anonymous Brick Hardslab September 15, 2017 1:35 PM  

The good rev is how you larp. Easily read, fits the tone and subject matter stays focused without being monomaniacal.

Well done.

Blogger 1 September 15, 2017 1:35 PM  

Gotta love Italians. Un casino, Al fresco, lurido(sp?). Their euphemism is awesome.

Anonymous Grayman September 15, 2017 1:37 PM  

Exactly... a facade and charade intended to produce whatever result is politically desirable at the time... A LOT of blood has flowed of this very matter throughout history, the only question is timing.

Blogger Johnny September 15, 2017 1:48 PM  

What we do now is to treat the legal code as holy. By holy I mean the result is regarded as correct if it adheres to the letter of the law even if the outcome is thought to be an abomonation my most people.

The older system was a kind of compromise between what the public at large wanted and what the law required. While it produced some abominations I am beginning to think it was better. Perhaps we should have shorter, quicker, less expensive trials with a more limited judicial review. Verdicts get overturned only with reluctance.

Blogger dc.sunsets September 15, 2017 1:50 PM  

It's silly to even briefly imagine that a system lacking accountability will bring out the best in men.

Our "caretaker/renter" government (executive, legislator or judicial) gives each satrap at every level both power over others and a near complete anonymity/absence of accountability. The "system" has those on the inside, and those on the outside, and insiders all cover for each other.

Absolute monarchy, totalitarian oligarchy or (supposedly) a representative republic, the field, the bats, the balls and the umpires belong to the Home Team and you ain't on it.

Or as Orwell put it in The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, there's always been a High, a Middle and a Low; the High wishes to stay high, the Middle wants to replace the High and the Low is forever clueless. Periods of stability are interspersed with times when the Middle uses the Low to kick out the High, after which the Middle becomes the High and shoves the Low right back into the sewer. Rinse and repeat.

Accountability cannot be created in a monopoly system. That was the attraction of the Market Order, where monopoly is rendered impossible. It is in this last, ignoring as it does the tidal flows of the mass mind, where market anarchism crashes on the rocky shoals of nature.

Blogger tweell September 15, 2017 1:52 PM  

My recent court appearance turned out well in part due to establishing rapport with the judge. When he came in I pegged him as military veteran, academy officer type, and verified this on my phone during a break. When called up, my brother and I treated him as if we were back in uniform.

Our lawyer picked up on the rapport and asked us how we managed it. We told her that veterans know their own, and gave her suggestions on how to deal with him. Set out the basics, elaborate only if he asks, don't waste his time and above all else don't argue with the man. We won. Yeah, the evidence and precedent was on our side, but by the end, the judge was firmly there too.

Blogger DonReynolds September 15, 2017 1:57 PM  

Even the most idealistic civic nationalist will have his faith in the court system sorely tested should he ever get involved with Family Law Court, which often means dealing with the "avenging angels of CPS". In Texas, it is practically automatic if there are any children involved in the separation/divorce. Nothing is more sobering than to believe in the court system and then end up dealing with them.

There are thousands of men who have had worse experiences than my own. But it is a bit like being in a car wreck. Sure, there are many people whose wreck was much worse, but mine was still a bad experience...which I cannot recommend.

You can study the law carefully...it is certainly not a secret. You can bone up on all the relevant court cases that have already been decided. You can confer with your OWN attorney....in one divorce, I hired five different attorneys and still ended up getting railroaded. The truth is....the law in the courtroom is whatever the judge says it is and it really does not matter what you think about it.

Blogger Tatooine Sharpshooters' Club September 15, 2017 1:58 PM  

At least we still have the Constitution . . .

Blogger Johnny September 15, 2017 1:59 PM  

In the early stages of the development of Common Law in England, it to some extent imposed the king's law, and to some extent was only an effort to do what the local population would want if left to their own devices. (That is why it was called common.) On that level it was only an effort to produce a little conformity in punishment and avoid mob violence by enforcing an element of due process. Not such a bad idea actually.

Anonymous vipltd September 15, 2017 2:03 PM  

I might have the greatest stupid judge story ever. Twenty years earlier, this judge had been losing counsel in an enormously famous contracts case which overturned centuries of precedent, generated more law review comment than any case in the history of U.S. law, and became a staple of every contracts textbook thereafter. Granting summary judgment against my client, he said to me, "as you may know Mr. [ ], I know a little something about this area of the law." Our case had nothing whatsoever to to with the issue in the famous opinion, nor had my opponent cited it.

Blogger Koanic September 15, 2017 2:06 PM  

Courts divorced from the violent honor of the individual warrior serve some other function than justice, one best understood in entropic terms.

Blogger dc.sunsets September 15, 2017 2:14 PM  

While part of me hopes that none of this survives The Great Reset, reality suggests that it would take a return to near barbarism to rid our society of pervasive parasitic institutions whose development took centuries and whose beneficiaries are legion.

In most cases, there is simply no justice. Choosing (or getting dragged into) court looks like developing rare but catastrophic cancer; even if you did everything right, you're still at the mercy of Fate. At least with cancer, most people don't have some sort of Pollyanna-like trust in what is destroying them.

It seems most prudent to avoid conflict like avoiding carcinogens. Conflict with people leads to courtrooms, often without the satisfaction derived from killing your adversary.

Blogger tublecane September 15, 2017 2:18 PM  

(((Posner))) had a reputation for being conservative, which I guess may have been true at some point. He was appointed to the court of appeals by Reagan and was associated with the University of Chicago. But when I read his book How Judges Think, I recognized him for the unscrupulous progressive he was.

These people reveal themselves in the fullness of time. Either that, or being in power and in the ruling class cocktail circuit eats out their soul. The '08 crisis either made him abandon his supposedly laissez-faire beliefs and embrace Keynesianism, and possibly worse. Or he was that way all along.

These are the kind of people who for decades were the official opposition.

Blogger Shamgar September 15, 2017 2:18 PM  

casino in italian has connotations of a bordello more than a gambling house.

Anonymous St. Cecilia September 15, 2017 2:19 PM  

In one of his books, Posner wrote that mandatory ADR, the system of forced mediation/arbitration that is the primary reason you can't get your civil case to trial (and why plaintiff lawyers can no longer make a living) is probably unconstitutional under the 7th Amendment. Never seen any other judge acknowledge that.

Blogger Dos Voltz September 15, 2017 2:20 PM  

I have a number of horror stories of cops and judges and prosecutors all manipulating things, lying, changing records, etc., that ruined the lives of some friends and relatives, very decent people.

When you watch these obvious crimes by our officials who lord over us unfold before your very eyes, your heart is pierced and you give up on the naivete and delusional nobility of "America."

Anonymous peppermint September 15, 2017 2:27 PM  

The loss of the rule of law has been ongoing since the beginning of the communist century, but justice was served in the infamous legal cases from the by Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Freddie Gray affairs.

Lawyers were universally hated by non-commies for the entire communist century, but recently people have gone beyond hating lawyers to also hate the professors who teach them communism.

Anonymous Grayman September 15, 2017 2:35 PM  

@dos

The west lost its will long ago, and has been coasting downhill for a while now. Until the west regains its will to live, the will to rise, the will to dominate, nothing will ever change.

https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/djpzwfavwaa2lcn-jpg-large.jpeg?w=768&h=384

When that changes and the west find its will is anyone's guess the longer it takes the messier it will be.

Blogger tublecane September 15, 2017 2:43 PM  

@peppermint

In the Martin case at least, justice was abused by the prosecutors, who had no business whatsoever bringing murder two charges, and I think they knew it. They even wanted to add child abuse charges shortly before the trial went to the jury. It was ridiculous. (Wouldn't be surprised if they were in the pay of the DNC.)

The judge may have sensed that his role in the propaganda play was to be impartial and stop them from making the showbiz aspect too obvious. The whole thing was a delicate balance between mobilizing the black vote, demoralizing whites, and not getting carried away with themselves and actually burying the White Hispanic.

Blogger Mr. Naron September 15, 2017 2:55 PM  

Justice is blind--->Justice wears beer goggles

Blogger bw September 15, 2017 3:11 PM  


The street is the only thing that matters. Court is for uptown people with suits, money, lawyers with three names. If you got cash you can buy court justice. But on the street, justice has no price. She's blind where the judge sits but she's not blind out here. Out here the bitch got eyes.

- Fat Mancho , Sleepers 1996

Blogger tublecane September 15, 2017 3:11 PM  

@tatooine sharpshooter's club

Posner on the Constitution: "let's not let the dead bury the living."

I recall him once saying something along the lines of, "originalism is the falsest of all false hopes." At least he got that right.

Blogger Wynn Lloyd September 15, 2017 3:19 PM  

Yes but to be fair, you had traditional authorities in place most of the time. Monarchs, religious leaders, in republics you had bodies of citizens and traditional institutions.
I'm not disputing your point; merely plugging traditional legal systems.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr September 15, 2017 4:03 PM  

This is why you never, never appoint an attorney to be a judge. Lawyers are trained to manipulate the law to produce a desired result for their client. That's proper...but it's not good training for a judge.

If you want good judges, I recommend getting some senior flight test engineers. Navy ones, by preference - they are used to treating a test plan as a binding contract, and will parse words as precisely as any lawyer...and more precisely than most. And they are accustomed to doing things right the first time. Up at 40,000 ft, there often isn't a second chance.

Anonymous DonReynolds September 15, 2017 5:13 PM  

peppermint

"The loss of the rule of law has been ongoing since the beginning of the communist century, but justice was served in the infamous legal cases from the by Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Freddie Gray affairs."

You reminded me of the Boston Massacre of 1770. British soldiers fired into a crowd of rioting civilians, killing three outright and wounding two others, who later died of their wounds.

Under the Royal Governor, 8 soldiers, one officer, and 4 civilians were arrested and charged with murder.
(Their defending attorney, Mr. John Adams, was later vice president under Washington and the second president of the United States.)

The officer was tried separately and acquitted, since he did not order his men to fire.
Six of the eight soldiers were also acquitted and two were convicted of manslaughter, instead of murder...for which they were branded on the thumb in open court.
The four civilians were tried later and acquitted but one of them had a servant who gave false testimony at the trial and was later convicted of perjury, whipped, and banished from the colony.

In reaction, the British government decided to no longer allow British officials or soldiers to be tried by colonial courts (or persons accused of crimes by British officials). Such cases would be adjudicated in England instead.

As much as the deaths themselves, the reaction of the British government to colonial justice....excluding the colonial juries from deciding cases...created even more lasting resentment.

It is ironic, that the people charged with murder found more lenient justice from a colonial jury than they would have faced in England, with a government determined to prove themselves "just".

Blogger Nobody of Consequence September 15, 2017 5:17 PM  

And whose fault is it? Ours, We the People, because we allow the public schools to fuck with our heads, brain-wash us, and We the People allow the judiciary to run rampant taking no recourse. Blackstone taught correctly:

"For whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself: there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to."

Sir William Blackstone, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book I, Chp3, pg.205/6

We must take action against the judiciary. They are the most responsible for screwing up the Constitution and the Union. Every time you find a judge who has failed to follow the law, it is time to do whatever it takes to get rid of that judge.

The People are the boss not some black-robed faggot with the teeny weeny syndrome. You can look at nearly every supreme court decision since day one and find that the judges have ALWAYS done what they please and never followed the law. The school brain-wash the kids into thinking what the courts say is final. Blackstone's quote above proves that the judges do not have the final say. That is the big lie.

Blogger Aeoli Pera September 15, 2017 5:31 PM  

None dare call them Pharisees.

Anonymous Anonymous September 15, 2017 6:32 PM  

I learned the hard way that the court process as a whole is not designed to uncover the truth and arrive at a legal judgment based on the facts. Moreover, don't believe what you see on TV folks, to any judge or lawyer justice is just a job. They don't much care.

I was working for the Oregon Department of Employment (a.k.a. "the Unemployment Office") when I had a client waylay me on the way out of the office. He thought (wrongfully) that because his unemployment check was late, I had somehow decided to withhold his payment. Luckily, my wife was just driving by to pick me up, so I dove into the car and locked the doors. He never managed to connect a punch on me, but did serious damage to the car by kicking it before my panicked wife managed to get moving.

I decided to press charges. (To my surprise, Oregon had no law against attacking peon-level state employees at the time, so I had to do it myself.) The case basically turned on how much damage he did to my car. If it was over $600, then it was a felony; if it was less, then it was a misdemeanor.

When I had the car repaired, I instructed the shop to prepare two bills: one for the damage the unemployable did, and another for some previous damage I wanted fixed at the same time. I then gave only the bill for the malicious damage to the prosecutor.

During the trial, the prosecutor asked me, "Mr. Dodger, according to this bill, the total damages were $850. Did you have any work done on the car, other than to repair the damage caused by the accused?"

Remember, this is the prosecutor. I'm the accuser. If he really wanted to know the answer to this question, why did he not ask me when I talked to him before the hearing? In any case, I was on the witness stand, and the true answer to the question was "Yes", so that's what I said.

Instead of giving me a chance to clear things up, the idiot sat down, and allowed the defense attorney to rip me to shreds for attempting to persecute this poor indigent individual. It was a weird feeling. I wanted to say, "Stop! You don't understand! But when you're in court it's like getting on a train, and you can't control where it goes. (In this case, off a cliff.) The perp wound up getting released for time served.

Anonymous Anonymous September 15, 2017 7:15 PM  

Nobody of Consequence wrote:"For whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself: there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to."

Sir William Blackstone, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book I, Chp3, pg.205/6


In all fairness, England did not--and does not--have a constitution. In our legal system, the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is the ultimate authority. On the State level, the State Constitution plays an analogous role. Frankly, the thought of a "democratic law" where an appeal to the populace is the ultimate authority fills me with dread.

Blogger Quilp September 15, 2017 7:55 PM  

Highly disturbing while also unsurprising. But to hear a man of Posner's stature openly claim an absolute disregard for the law he supposedly dedicated his life to is just disgusting.

Anonymous Jack September 15, 2017 8:07 PM  

I once had my car broken into. The perp ripped out the stereo using a steak knife, which he left on the car seat amidst the broken glass. I only called the cops to report it because there on the blade of the knife was a big fat fingerprint clearly visible to the naked eye. I explained to the cop, "I know this is a minor thing but this guy probably has committed other crimes so take this evidentiary gift from God and get him off the street please." Cop looked at me like I was insane. Did nothing.

Blogger Chris McCullough September 15, 2017 8:12 PM  

This is why I always take my small claims cases before the council of the Apes.

Blogger ace September 15, 2017 8:24 PM  

I think this post illustrates why faith in the legal system, appeals to legal agreements, and support for the law, in other words the central argument of civnats and libertarians, is a bit of a chimera.

Law is worthless without society. Society is built on a certain degree of memetic and genetic unity. Progressives were on the verge of establishing near-complete victory of memetic unity (at least in the upper class) and might have succeeded if it weren't for their fatal flaw of complete lack of genetic unity. Naturally both of these categories are contextual.

It isn't even enough to say to muh rule of law types that arbitrary rule by progressive zealots is something they should be afraid of, because that has already happened and they're still playing the same tune.

Blogger Rough Carrigan September 15, 2017 8:48 PM  

One of the protections the people have against a bad judge is jury nullification. The establishment does not want ANYone in the U.S. to know about jury nullification.

A little over 20 years ago I got my last summons for jury duty. I had a couple over a 3 or 4 year period before that. When I got the last one it was a year or so after the O.J. Simpson trial where there had been some talk of "jury nullification". On the back of the form you get in my state there's a space to ask any questions. I asked if they could please explain jury nullification to me. They sent me a notice back saying, they didn't need me after all. And since then, 20+ years, I've never gotten another summons for jury duty.

Anonymous Simplytimothy September 15, 2017 8:59 PM  

"We must take action against the judiciary"


Get back to me when you cross the bridge from "we" to "I".

Anonymous AZFloyd September 15, 2017 9:16 PM  

I had a client who had a valid order of protection against opposing party. I get op on the stand and notnonlyndoes he admit that he knew about the oop and had notice, he bragged about banging the shot out of my clients door. Judge was some old hag. Not only does she not find op in contempt, the cunt judge berates my client for being overly pretty. My client asked what happened. I had no words.

Chicks digs jerks. Even if they are judges. We have no rule of law. The civil war can't come soon enough. If the SHTF, I am going to hunt down judges.

Anonymous ScarletNumber September 15, 2017 9:38 PM  

This has been well known since at least 1973

> The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes.

-- Whizzer White, dissent in Roe v Wade

White was a Kennedy appointee, while Harry Blackmun, the author of the majority opinion, was a Nixon appointee.

Blogger Tracy Coyle September 15, 2017 11:02 PM  

Interesting that all the attorneys here failed to mention one key point about the Court system: it is a court of equity. Posner was right. I work for attorneys in the Federal Court system daily. I've seen Fed Judges rule against the evidence and law...to reach a an equitable resolution. I don't always like their rulings but after almost 20 years...

I learned from attorneys in the 7th Circuit. Had cases decided by the 7th.

I will agree with this...never let a man in a black dress decide the outcome of a dispute.... One attorney makes things 10x more expensive, two make it 100x more expensive and three makes it 1000x more expensive....

Blogger Mountain Man September 15, 2017 11:29 PM  

@dc.sunsets
And once in a blue moon - a victim will , after exhausting all of their options, take it upon themselves to implement justice...one way or another.
Usually the result is horrific and earth rattling in its execution.

An example: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-08-20/news/9708200088_1_patrol-car-state-troopers-carl-drega

Being intimately familiar with this situation I can say with confidence that the perp was not a madman. Lacking social skills and socially awkward - yes. But definitely not insane. Despite his limited reading/writing skills he had tried in vain to use the system in place to seek redress....for no less than 20 + years. When he had exhausted all of his options, and failing in his mission - he took the war to them. Sadly, his actions were cataclysmic in their effect. But most tragic of all is that it was entirely preventable if our system of governance and law was truly fair and just.

Blogger Dirk Manly September 15, 2017 11:46 PM  

Most "family law" judges deserve summary execution.

No chartes
No arrest
No trial

Just a bullet through the chest in the immediate area of the heart.

Gives just long enough waking moments to realize that he/she is well and truly fucked, and even if they were in a full O/R with a surgical team all spun up and ready... there's still nothing surgical procedures could repair in time to prevent death.

Blogger Dirk Manly September 15, 2017 11:52 PM  

"casino in italian has connotations of a bordello more than a gambling house."


Well, that sure changes the significance of the Battle of Monte Cassino ;-)

Blogger Sevron September 16, 2017 12:03 AM  

@Aeoli Pera
Only one voice actor. Also, you would probably love Rick and Morty, the show these characters are from.

Blogger Dirk Manly September 16, 2017 12:28 AM  

" If the SHTF, I am going to hunt down judges."

Shakespear wrote

"First, kill all the lawyers
...and then where will be be?"


Change that to

First, Kill all the Judges...and we will ALL be much happier with the replacements.

Blogger Dirk Manly September 16, 2017 12:35 AM  

@Mountain Man

"...the perp ... "

According to what you then said, he wasn't a perpetrator, he was a VICTIM OF THE STATE.

The (or one of the) perpetrator(s) was Judge Vickie Bunnell.

Blogger LP9 September 16, 2017 1:21 AM  

(Poor Scalia.)

To the positive, I've met, served under good judges and lawyers whom are truly imperfect but seek thte best and the sought the right in a mess of wrongs.

To the negative: all a horror show really.

After the casino wrecks your life, ruins your health care, kills your family and leaves you reeling it creates the same level renegade terror I observe in ISIS. You have 2 choices; get up, rebuild or stay down. pple will never know until they've been dragged through the terror.

There are some interesting prep bar exams online and it seems like situational post modernism chaos as many disputes are such chaos.

It appears that with OH courts, I have to argue the facts when the law isnt on my side or when the case is weak, then I have to argue the law when the string of events are questioned, it is a hellish casino.

Overall I like Judge Nap for example but really Americans are livestock under the law or it seems like like an unfair unjust no-win entry.

All the law seems to create are billable hours, fees and distant court dates.

To a vast degree I dont pay any attention to laws, I abide by them but I concern myself with Jesus which isn't lawful under the legal system, not to renegade out but even I have to understand the battle or the disputes I pled to resolve out of court are out of my hands I did my part, tried my best and now its up to some judge to hash out.

On another note I have no time or respect for the brand of certain laws or the hammer of the letter of the law that punishes the oppressed, poor the truly intelligent/successful that manically, financially rapes us while simultaneously trying telling me to shop moar.

Due to the gov of OH's ties to my family name and the auditors ties as well, it appears no one will rep me that operate in OH and WV.

Blogger LP9 September 16, 2017 1:29 AM  

What I hope wins is the higher use of the power of the pen and letter of the law minus the emotionalism; build a strong case and roll the dice.

Not to be defeatist or negative, I just have no hope in the laws of man only hope in God thinking, praying things work out,

Blogger LP9 September 16, 2017 2:00 AM  

I errored, with POTUS Trump, that gives some hope RE America overall including the legal system but the braches of govt will battle it out everytime. Sorry for going negative.

Anonymous simplytimothy September 16, 2017 4:03 AM  

Interesting that all the attorneys here failed to mention one key point about the Court system: it is a court of equity. Posner was right

Posner has very different ideas of what constitutes right and wrong (mocking pro-lifers?) and because of that his sense of equity is warped. By abandoning what We the People say the law is, he has placed himself above the our law.

These disputes will not be reconciled by appeal to law because this judge has placed himself outside the law. He is lawless.

Now you want to appeal to equity? Equity demands he hang. And I will mock him as he hangs.


His rules. Let him hang by em.








Anonymous Lawyer Guy September 16, 2017 9:45 AM  

Formal equity is very rare is US courts, which is why Posner's admissions are so upsetting.

The Wayne County Circuit and 36th District courts (Detroit) are almost all Black judges. They are complete mess, little law and the judges do what they feel like. Even the ones that are not out to play catch up against the Whites for slavery, or openly corrupt, are more like an old timer in a bar trying to settle disputes without finding out what is going on.

Black judges are also fairly lazy, 5 hour work days and an unwillingness to read or think, so it is the perfect storm in their courts. The Federal courts in Black areas are also starting to get Black judges of the same type. You put arbitration clauses in contracts with jurisdiction in Detroit or Marshall Texas the same reason you put them in Jamaica or El Salvador, the courts are likely to be a corrupt and a farce.

Anonymous Gen. Kong September 16, 2017 11:44 AM  

I think this post illustrates why faith in the legal system, appeals to legal agreements, and support for the law, in other words the central argument of civnats and libertarians, is a bit of a chimera.

Not only the post about the "conservative" Posner, but many of the comments as well. That's why all such appeals to notions like "the rule of law" and "muh constitution" are ultimately useless. Just another form of Ghost-Dancing. There is no way out save through much bloodshed. Obviously, that will not take place until the pensions of the Oafcuckers and their fellow badge-gang goondas and the similarly worthless parasites in the Fake Banana Legion all are sucked into the maw of the great squid before its owners depart for better opportunities elsewhere (after which the criminals who presently operate under the color of law will turn upon one another along with any other convenient target). It would be interesting to see who is left standing once the orgy of violence dies down some.

Blogger Lucius Cincinnatus September 16, 2017 11:48 AM  

Posner stated in the U of Chicago interview that the Constitution was set up so the federal courts could fashion a Constitutional common law, that is the judges will decide as things progress what is or is not right.

Blogger Aeoli Pera September 16, 2017 1:54 PM  

Sevron wrote:@Aeoli Pera

Only one voice actor. Also, you would probably love Rick and Morty, the show these characters are from.


Yeah, I hear that a lot and it's probably true. Where does one obtain a show these days?

Blogger Tracy Coyle September 16, 2017 3:49 PM  

I will acknowledge the almost uniform destruction of the Justice system in this country.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts