tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post7138819150059163943..comments2023-10-22T09:32:13.417-04:00Comments on Big Trial | Philadelphia Trial Blog: Will Father Avery Be Hauled Back to Court in a Jump Suit?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04116104602505815614noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-6399295109924719352012-04-26T21:18:05.667-04:002012-04-26T21:18:05.667-04:00Given the mechanics of posting, what I referred to...Given the mechanics of posting, what I referred to in my own preceding comment as the immediately foregoing comment turns out not to be so. My prior comment referred to commenter NEILALLEN’s bit.<br><br>Now to this KOPRIDE material. <br><br>I have never tried to determine the identity of any ‘followers’ of my blog essays, and didn’t even know that it was possible to do so to the extent that one could assert that “most of the ‘followers’ on Pertinax’s blog are convicted sex offenders”. In fact, I don’t believe it is possible.<br><br>Which – who can be surprised? – reduces once again a KOPRIDE assertion to something even far less appetizing. <br><br>Of what conceivable relevance it would be to a mature, competent, and professional mind is very hard to establish. But then again, that is not – I have been saying – what we have been dealing with here. <br><br>But I have been giving some thought to a certain aspect of all of this material. It has struck me as an odd trope – and not restricted to commenters on this site – that one could be accused of being “paid” to make comments that do not agree with the party-line, as some interests might wish it to be enforced. Where, I had thought to myself, would anybody even get such an idea. <br><br>Then, catalyzed by the series of comments from last night, several dots suggested a connection: Why, if s/he were an attorney, had KOPRIDE not simply given his/her name right here on the site, instead of trying to inveigle me (‘seduce’ would perhaps be a bit excessive) to email him/her at a private email address so as to be given ‘proof’ of KOPRIDE’s purported status as an accomplished and successful attorney? <br><br>Is KOPRIDE not an attorney? Or – even more interesting - Is KOPRIDE an attorney whose connection somehow to the instant matters is something s/he would not like to expose? <br><br>Surely the presentations made on this site are not indicative – as I have been saying – of a competent and rational and logical legal mindset. <br><br>Their focus on the narrow aspect of statutes, various Rules and text-book completely ignore the larger context I have been trying to establish for what – I have been saying – is a larger context for this case. Such expansion of context is like increasing the number of pixels in a television screen: the more pixels, the higher the resolution and thus the clearer and sharper the picture. Always a desiderandum in accurate comprehension and examination. <br><br>Unless, of course, one is actually working (modo ulterioro) toward precisely the opposite. <br><br>All of KOPRIDE’s presentation on this site, it seems to me, has worked toward narrowing (and controlling) the view of this trial.Pertinaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15407357930254142688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-63724022567088240632012-04-26T11:31:31.653-04:002012-04-26T11:31:31.653-04:00Is it possible – I asked myself – that KOPRIDE’s r...Is it possible – I asked myself – that KOPRIDE’s rather extraordinarily focused (to put it politely) pressure toward such an end is the result of his/her having been ‘sent’ to this site to ensure that the party-line is followed and any dissent or deviation from it somehow discredited or squelched? <br><br>This trial, after all, is high-profile and several non-Party interests have a great deal riding on it. <br><br>Such a possibility would go no small way to explaining a presentation that can largely be characterized as forcefully and rigidly insistent. And not only on matters of law or on interpretations, but also on the general discussive framing of the trial. And the whole joined to a genuinely and forcefully derogatory stance toward any differing approaches and an effort to reduce them to ridicule. <br><br>All of this would serve a purpose remarkably congruent with the general advocacy-type insistence that everyone focus on the ‘stories’ and not on anything larger or wider. <br><br>I have no way of knowing if KOPRIDE is some sort of agent along those lines, or if s/he is merely a particularly … extraordinary … type of personally-dedicated commenter. But the thought has occurred to me.<br><br>Similarly, having both a) failed to silence me and b) not impressed me into submission with assertions either conceptual or credential, KOPRIDE may indeed wish to find a way to disengage. Or – in an alternative – having eagerly grasped the fact that I have a blog (approaching 200 essays which I doubt s/he has read, let alone ‘comprehended’) s/he has – as s/he has demonstrated above – quickly sought to reduce me to ridicule or incredibility by the usual suspect methods of false characterizations and ‘guilt’ by association and inferences about me personally … anything, in fact, except engage the ideas which I not only have put into those essays but also put rather briefly but clearly in last night’s comments extant above. <br><br>Ideas concerning legal philosophy and their connection to the most profound realities of national principles – matters which should rightly engage the attentions of any practicing attorney or legal educator. Especially in these ominous times for the rule of law and philosophy of Law in this country. <br><br>S/he now reports that s/he will disengage. A felicitous prospect that I will do nothing to prevent. And let the record show that I have never sought any more direct connection to KOPRIDE than is necessary to conduct commenting on this site. And let the record further show that it was not I who sought to initiate a personal email exchange.<br><br>Whether s/he chooses to do so because s/he needed an excuse to break off a game s/he was not controlling, or whether s/he simply considers that the fact of my blog – larded rottenly with such gambits as he has chosen to deploy – have now reduced either me to baffled and cowed silence or the readership to a general disinterest in my further commenting, or indeed whether s/he has made here yet another assertion that will prove to be other-than-true … we shall see. <br><br>I will say that what began as a simple desire to bring a larger and deeper but vitally relevant comprehension to this trial has taken some interesting turns indeed. <br><br>But as a reader might infer from my comments made last night, none of this is unfamiliar in the context of legal and political and cultural history. Although its appearance here was unexpected. As is so much in life. Funny indeed how the night moves. <br><br>So much remains to be done.Pertinaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15407357930254142688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-5882282743443239812012-04-26T10:09:43.177-04:002012-04-26T10:09:43.177-04:00Most of the "followers" on Pertinax'...Most of the "followers" on Pertinax's blog are convicted sex offenders. Some list their status as registered sex offenders or when you look at the other blogs they are following they are also related to convicted. The blog itself is directed to the sex offender community. In America, you are free to start and sustain a blog and express outrage over how pedophiles, rapists, and sex offenders are treated; and cast aspersions on all victims; but that doesn't mean that folks won't question your attachment to that issue. And while civil liberties groups like the ACLU do defend unpopular causes, they don't devote blogs to attacking the victims. Pertinax is no civil libertarian with a wide interest in civil rights. In fact with the exception of pedophiles, rapists, and sex offenders, he seems to feel women, minorities, and other traditional victims of civil right's violations are suffering from "mania." <br><br>Again, Pertinax's blog itself is a very strange "Alice in Wonderland" rant where the world is upside down. Where all victims are frauds or pawns, women are radical feminist, and even admitted convicted pedophiles were wrongly convicted. There is not one shred of empathy for the victims. Equally importantly, it is torturous reading. You think his comments here are rambling and incoherent, he has two separate 5000 word posts defending poor NAMBLA chaplain, Paul Shanley. <br><br>I have no inclination or intention to engage directly with Pertinax. Indeed, I feel embarrassed that I even engaged with him in the first place or gave him any attention.kopridehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-62048283859649013332012-04-26T00:35:26.065-04:002012-04-26T00:35:26.065-04:00At the very least, Pertinax is a devout pedophile ...At the very least, Pertinax is a devout pedophile apologist like Dave Pierre from themediareport, where Dave is actually trying to sell books about how innocent these pedophile priests are, and this is a trying time in that business.<br><br>More likely, since Pertinax knows and defends Paul Shanley, one of the first members of one of the first pedophile organizations, called NAMBLA, he is more likely to be a pedophile priest. I'm guessing he is actually Fr Gordon Macrae, who is a friend of Dave Pierre and themediareport, who has a fondness for Greek mythology in his blog, and who is trying to get himself out of jail after he pleaded guilty to having sex with 3 of the 10 known children who accused him.<br><br>This would also explain why he says that innocent men plead guilty to child rape crimes all the time.<br><br>Pertinax also has a lot of time in prison to work on his blog and comment on this one.neilallen76http://www.blogger.com/profile/04966954580793318142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-18332697213694207202012-04-25T22:09:27.533-04:002012-04-25T22:09:27.533-04:00Few Germans in 1933 imagined that they were approv...Few Germans in 1933 imagined that they were approving and cheering a future that would do them and the world so much damage. But the dynamics – politically and legally – were ineluctably set in train shortly thereafter by the first Enabling Law and, quickly thereafter, the first changes in jurisprudence and jurispraxis. And things only continued to get worse. <br><br>These dynamics were by their very nature hostile to law as envisioned in the West’s long development of it. Yet so many were lulled by the honest concern about the problems which the ‘reforms’ were claimed to be designed to solve, and so many more were enlisted to acquiesce and ignore any misgivings they might have had by the assurance that the ‘emergency’ was so very great that any concern for traditional Western legal principles was ‘weak’ and ‘obstructionist’ and ‘unpatriotic’ and – before too long – a sign that one defended (fill in the blank). <br><br>As Martin Niemoller ruefully noted: First they came for the trade unionists, but I wasn’t a trade unionist so I did not speak up; then they came for the Communists, but I wasn’t a Communist so I did not speak up; then they came for the Jews but I wasn’t a Jew so I did not speak up; then they came for me and there was nobody left to speak up. <br><br>The same dynamics are far too evidently operative in the sex-offense-emergency legislation of the past 20 years, and have both mutated and migrated into other areas of national affairs. Worse, they have come by an increasing number of citizens to be seen as a good thing. Which, on the surface, they might well be. <br><br>But beneath the surfaces, and in terms of the consequences they inevitably breed, such is not the case. <br><br>When I look at the case at bar – and a high-profile case it is indeed – I am looking with all of this in mind. <br><br>A classically liberal education, sustained beyond the first diploma and degree, will have that effect, if it is allowed to. <br><br>If the Parties Defendant in this case have committed crimes, then that’s as may be and it will out in the end. But my concern is for the vitally fundamental issues that serve to derange societies and cultures and – most specifically – American society and culture at their very roots and in their most basic principles and in their Law. <br><br>This reality hovers over the case at bar to the extent that is rendered high-profile precisely by derangements in the public mind inflamed by – I would say – motives exterior and ulterior to the crimes themselves. While the crimes may well be real (and surely the practices and attitudes of many clerics at all ranks left very much to be desired) yet those could be dealt with in a trial pure and simple. <br><br>But this trial possesses the queasy hallmarks of what in other times and places was called a ‘show trial’, and that most surely is not a sign of health in a Western legal system. <br><br>Thus my concern for clear and careful and serious and sober thinking, as well as for a larger comprehension of what is going on. To ignore those things, I believe, is to allow certain darknesses to ripen their poisonous fruit under the guise of efficient and ‘strong’ justice and the ‘emergency’ of the crimes (at this point alleged to have been) committed. <br><br>I recall for you the final comment in his own defense made to Spencer Tracy’s American judge at Nuremberg by Burt Lancaster’s convicted German judge in the film “Judgment at Nuremberg” from half a century ago: looking over how the German legal system had bit by bit been ‘turned to the dark side’ in its efforts to become more efficient and useful in its defense of the Volk, the German judge said “It wasn’t supposed to turn out like this”. <br><br>No one – in my opinion – should be light-hearted about what is going on in Philadelphia. No matter how it may turn out.Pertinaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15407357930254142688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-32567484371257767102012-04-25T22:02:28.251-04:002012-04-25T22:02:28.251-04:00Well, what they hey? I will add the following, alt...Well, what they hey? I will add the following, although I apologize to the general readership for stating what may well seem the obvious. <br><br>Some of the recent comments – made upon the discovery of my blog – provide note-perfect demonstrations of the concerns I have voiced continually in my own comments on this site. <br><br>Specifically, that I (or anybody who doesn’t follow the party-line) is “defending pedophiles” (larded over with the added frosting of presuming that I too must be such a person). <br><br>To most simply and vividly capture my general concern, substitute ‘Jews’ or ‘kulaks’ after that ‘defending’ in the above phrase. That is the core of my concern: that ‘emergency law’ and ‘revolutionary law’ (embraced – willy or nilly and generally without attribution – critical legal studies and other recently-elaborated ‘philosophies’ of law) must necessarily deform jurisprudential and even legislative integrity as envisioned by the Framers, especially in the creation of the inevitable “Necessary Enemy”. These are dynamics that have proven lethal wherever they have been adopted in the world’s political (and legal) systems. <br><br>Also, the note-perfect demonstration of scanning through what must be over 1300 pages of text in that blog to find my comments (from the above point of view) on “Fr. Shanley”. Whom, but of course, I am accused in the comments of “defending”. <br><br>My concern was not with Shanley’s particulars as it was with the dynamics of the case as it played out, and how those dynamics reflect eerily and ominously the ‘principles’ from historical phenomena that brought so much wrack and ruin to the polities that embraced them. <br><br>Too much to think about for certain mindsets, no doubt. As I have been saying on this site all along. <br><br>Should anyone find forthright indication that I am “defending” anything in the blogs – aside from the Framing Vision and the first principles of American law that flow from it – kindly bring it to my attention. <br><br>By the same token, I am not ‘defending’ anybody in the case at bar. I am examining the trial from the larger point of view that I have outlined (at the very useful invitation of certain commenters) here today.<br><br>And while it may be superfluous, may I ask the readers’ indulgence to point out something that is no doubt to many already rather obvious: that leading the charge in the adolescent-primitive race to the keypad was none other than a commenter who has loudly held and continues to holds him/herself forth as being the very acme and epitome of professional competence and comprehension in matters legal, if not indeed a highly respectable and accomplished trial attorney and shaper of legal minds. <br><br>If the Nazis and Mussolini’s Fascists and assorted hooligans riding the crest of political influence and even power across recent eruptions in world history were possessed of anything, it was a lumpish, bullying and demonstrably primitive animus, nonetheless robust for all its evanescent and temporary strut across the stage of events. <br><br>But it was this animus that animated and – to use the term in its Thomistic sense – ‘informed’ such lethal and repellent regimes. And, further, that the very robustness of their self-presentation seduced or over-awed weaker spirits – not so primitive by nature – into accepting that baleful but brassy influence. To their great cost and detriment.Pertinaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15407357930254142688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-91284828853537685042012-04-25T20:39:48.334-04:002012-04-25T20:39:48.334-04:00Ah well now. Rather than keep to matters demonstra...Ah well now. Rather than keep to matters demonstrated here, we shall proceed to the blog. <br><br>Fair enough, although it is clear just what certain minds have already - nicely - demonstrated what they do with factoids. <br><br>The "SO community" is the courtesy term for all of those concerned for the effect of recent changes in sex-offense law and - should the rather substantial corpus of material actually be read - how those changes reflect ominous derangements in the larger national sense of Law. <br><br>While I place no value on assertions made on the web, I can respond that I am not a member of that 'community' through any conviction.<br><br>My concern has been that the general run of sex-offense law in the past 20 years has been - whatever its good intentions - a source of introducing profoundly deranging influences into Law as it exists in the American political and legal universe, and indeed reflects much more the dynamics of the Nazi era 'emergency law' mentality and the Soviet 'revolutionary' law mentality. <br><br>My concerns are thus larger than the specific "SO community" although it encompasses them since these ominous legal-philosophical derangements (whatever their good intentions) will have inevitable and ineluctable consequences for the integrity of the Framing Vision and for American law if they are not remedied.<br><br>Thus I examine cases of relevance, specifically from the point of view of how the derangements in current sex-offense law impact the integrity of the Law as it derives from the Framing Vision. My intent being to demonstrate that if one adopts philosophical assumptions from an alien political universe, such adoption cannot but have effects on the American legal universe as well. <br><br>That being said, I invite the readership to take careful note of how (as has already been somewhat demonstrated in recent comments by various commenters) certain mentalities will process the information that I have a blog. <br><br>And since I make no profit from the blog, I certainly invite one and all to peruse it, and perhaps if their reading comprehension is up to it, derive some benefit from it. <br><br>My 2009 mini-series on the 1995 'Poritz' decision, and the subsequent Supreme Court decisions flowing from it, might be of especial interest since after a period of almost 20 years, one can see how those courts' reasoning has played out. <br><br>As for the kazoo-mentality that would revel in making all manner of adolescent if not primitive conclusions more appropriate to a high-school cafeteria at noontime, well ... to paraphrase the purportedly fictional character of Jesus, "the challenged you always have with you".<br><br>So much remains to be done. As LBJ said: "Let us continyuh". <br><br>My thanks to those who provided entree for me to mention the blog. I frankly never would have presumed to mention it on my own.Pertinaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15407357930254142688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-38910078317791078312012-04-25T20:12:40.129-04:002012-04-25T20:12:40.129-04:00The "string of cites" comment - most ver...The "string of cites" comment - most very clearly - refers to discussions carried on in these comments on this site and to conversations among attorneys and no reference whatsoever was made to courtroom or trial procedure. <br><br>Once again, you seem remarkably unable to demonstrate "reading comprehension" (though you have accused - indeed declared almost infallibly - others to be so afflicted on this site). <br><br>A reading of my comments cannot yield a fraction (if even that) of the straw-man positions you construct and then proceed so confidently to 'demolish', if not actually refute.<br><br>Again and again I point out with no animus that if this marked tendency is operative in any of your (purported) professional carryings-on, then I cannot see how this tendency can work anything but mischief. <br><br>And thus I will say this: if for the purposes of argument you are an attorney, then what I have seen demonstrated on this site is thought-process that is palpably deficient in even the most basic comprehension capacity, and that characteristic (amply demonstrated here, as I say) is wedded to a very largely unjustified confidence in making global assertions. <br><br>I would console myself if it were not so. <br><br>And as for the demonstrated capacity for "mouse-terbation" (sorry, but it seems so apt) that I have seen in many otherwise comprehension-challenged persons, especially of a fundamentalistic mindset (religious or secular) ... I am operating on the conclusion that things in this area border (if not teeter) on the clinical and that's not a border I intend to cross. <br><br>As General Sherman rather nicely pointed out heading south from Atlanta, he intended to march THROUGH Georgia, not fight IN Georgia. (Apolgies for the capitals but I can't figure if there's a way to italicize among the posting options here.)<br><br>I can only imagine that to make such presentations as I have seen on this site, in a support-group venue where there are perhaps many who are either wounded or eager to here their favorite mantras 'justified' 'by a lawyer'or someone at least claiming a very substantial education, would simply fuel fires that would be better tamped and somewhat banked.<br><br>Thinking about that, I wonder to what extent that scenario has taken place here and there, involving any such attorneys or persons (over-)confidently asserting their 'knowledge'.Pertinaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15407357930254142688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-79766334876003870052012-04-25T13:34:47.165-04:002012-04-25T13:34:47.165-04:00Petinax, What were you convicted of that entitled ...Petinax, <br><br>What were you convicted of that entitled you to become the spokesman for the Sex Offender Community?kopridehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-51603209295414247722012-04-25T13:26:56.372-04:002012-04-25T13:26:56.372-04:00Pertinax's blog is also directed to members of...Pertinax's blog is also directed to members of the SO community, which careful reading makes clear is the "sex offender" community: <br><br>"The sex-offender community will recall that it is precisely this problem that the so-called Containment Model of sex-offender management seeks to solve by using a lie-detector as part of the post-release ‘management’ regimen: a ‘managed’ sex-offender will have his reports to the parole officer and therapist (and victim advocate) subjected to a lie-detector. Alas, it’s considered bad clinical form to use a lie-detector on those asserting ‘repressed memories’, and courts don’t even trust the things enough to allow their results into evidence. But it’s the very thing to use on sex-offenders."<br><br>In other words, Pertinax is most likely a member in good standing of the SO community or Sex Offender community. <br><br>"Shanley’s Appeal raised four points, only two of which are of significant concern to the SO community, as far as I can make out: that the trial judge erred in allowing testimony related to “repressed memory” and that the prosecutor made improper arguments during her closing." <br><br>So, probably Pertinax, I probably will cease my exchange with someone who considers themselves a noble spokesman of the Sex Offender community. Other than to ask the name of your parole or probation officer?kopridehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-82331512114211931322012-04-25T13:20:08.725-04:002012-04-25T13:20:08.725-04:00From Pertinax's blog: "I want to go over ...From Pertinax's blog: <br><br>"I want to go over the January 15, 2010 Opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in the case of Paul Shanley, former priest accused of assorted sexual charges against male youngsters, in which recovered or repressed memories played a great part."<br><br>No, Paul Shanley is not just a former priest accused of assorted sexual charges. The AOB's own archives contained evaluations where Shanley admitted at least 9 encounters with young boys and the church itself concluded the allegations were true. He was the chaplain for NAMBLA, <br><br>From the much discredited NYT which discussed the records released by the AOB: <br><br>"The documents, which include letters and internal archdiocese memos, show that the Boston officials received the first of about 15 complaints about Father Shanley in 1967, from another priest who provided the names and phone numbers of three boys whom he said Father Shanley had taken to a secluded cabin in the woods.<br><br>And the documents show that in the 1970's, the Boston Archdiocese received information that Father Shanley was giving public and impassioned defenses of pedophilia, including comments at what was apparently the formative meeting in Boston of the North American Man-Boy Love Association in 1979.<br><br>In another speech, in 1977, according to a letter to the archdiocese from a woman in the audience, Father Shanley, who at the time was in charge of the archdiocese's ministry to alienated youths, discussed pedophilia. In the letter, he is quoted as saying, ''The adult is not the seducer -- the 'kid' is the seducer, and further the kid is not traumatized by the act per se, the kid is traumatized when the police and authorities 'drag' the kid in for questioning.''" <br><br>Really, this is one of the causes that Pertinax is so upset about?kopridehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-91138128537036543162012-04-25T13:04:43.851-04:002012-04-25T13:04:43.851-04:00I've just read Pertinax's blog as well. In...I've just read Pertinax's blog as well. In Pertinax's world, victims of sexual assault are really just experiencing "sense offenses" which, in most cases are either false, attorney fraud, or part of a radical feminist conspiracy. One post defends Paul Shanley, the convicted pedophile and former Chaplain of the North American Man Boy Love Associaton, as being the victim of unfair legal process. Google "Sense Offenses" and you will find his blog containing pages and pages of odd ramblings on what he perceives as victims rights run amok with literally no comments by readers. The whole gestalt being an angry white male screaming his victimhood into the silence. Initially, I thought he was a priest but now I am leaning more to a convicted sex offender that had to register on state registry, or a father's rights guy that lost custody of his kids. The opinions are very similar to the rants of those two groups.kopridehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-70271308651492216282012-04-25T10:14:16.544-04:002012-04-25T10:14:16.544-04:00"The value of this late-breaking development ..."The value of this late-breaking development is,"<br><br>Are you talking about the late-breaking development that Lynne's lawyers have taken the position that because the Cardinal appointed even known pedophiles as assistant pastors, there is nothing reasonable that Lynne could have done to protect anyone. In other words, the conspiracy began at the very top, and Lynn was powerless to do anything to protect these kids. Read Ralph's latest post. So, are you spinning yourself as an angel of light to protect poor Msg. Lynne from the evil Cardinal who forced him to appoint known pedophiles to parishes? Because that is the reality that this case is turning to. Not your position that abuse is being sensationalized; but Lynne's position that he had no choice but to do the Cardinal's bidding and place known admitted pedophiles back into the parishes.kopridehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-17822328284378529392012-04-25T10:05:36.236-04:002012-04-25T10:05:36.236-04:00"Your likening of yourself to Christ Resurrec..."Your likening of yourself to Christ Resurrected simply must be allowed to hang out there where you put it."<br><br>If I likened myself to Christ Resurrected, I would be comparing myself to a fictional superhero, or a dead guy. I am neither. I am very much alive and living in the material world. <br><br>"Nor have I ever suggested that "the court is in error" or that the trial judge has (to the best of my limited knowledge of the daily proceedings) been unfair."<br><br>You're right. Your posts in support of DPierre's Struggle against the ignorant fools who dare to believe that Priests have abused children in the past, particularly the priests who pleaded guilty to it, (or as Dpierre would say in German "Mein Kampf,") did not explicitly state that the trial court was wrong. You did suggest that she is being influenced by the high profile nature of the case and or public opinion, which most trial judges would find highly offensive, but you did not specifically state it. Unfortunately, sometimes you are judged by the company you keep and the people you associate yourself with.kopridehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-1821691184445339482012-04-25T09:57:58.092-04:002012-04-25T09:57:58.092-04:00"If - for the sake of argument - commenter KO..."If - for the sake of argument - commenter KOPRIDE is indeed an attorney, then the rigidity and two-dimensionality of the thinking that I have seen demonstrated here is either the product of some alter-ego lurking beneath the surface or else would indicate to me a mindset conducive neither to providing client services nor to teaching other professionals in the fullest sense of that activity. That would be my opinion, although I offer all of my exchanges on this site in support thereof."<br><br>Welcome to the world of lawyers. If the law supports your position, you are rigid in your contention. There really are rules and laws that govern the day. It's not about feelings, beliefs, guesses or surmises. If my client is right, and the law supports his position, i will be absolutely rigid and unflinching in representing my client. <br><br>As for two-dimensional thinking; until we can file a hologram with the judge, we are limited to the two dimensions of the printed page and the sound of our own voice as recorded on a two dimensional transcript. Now I understand that you are concerned with matters outside of the material dimension, perhaps the 4th Dimension?, and even cited Pete Seeger as support for your proposition that astrophysics and religion are roughly equivalent. In response, I can only cite Madonna, "For we are living in a material world and I am a material [boy]" If I am faced with a Daubert motion challenging the admissibility of scientific evidence, I can't just say, "hey miracles happen, maybe god did it," I have to establish that the scientific theory meets certain standards of reliability.<br><br>"I have delivered myself of my opinion as to the quality of your reasoning and comprehensiveness of your grasp of matters, especially when considered in proportion to the strength and universality of your demonstrated reasoning on this site. I make no larger statements unless you give grounds to do so by making claims as to your purported expertise and credentials and your confident denigration of others’."<br><br>If your client is on death row because you as an attorney failed to provide a simple string cite, a self proclamation of sincerity in a brief as an excuse would be poorly received by the court, and little consolation to your client. Just saying.kopridehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-44280527635064787802012-04-25T09:43:38.821-04:002012-04-25T09:43:38.821-04:00"Or perhaps you are under the impression - as..."Or perhaps you are under the impression - as you perhaps unwittingly admit - that legal discourse is primarily a simple string of back-and-forth cites?"<br><br>If that his impression, he is basically correct. A trial judge doesn't care what the trial attorney "surmises," the attorney's personal opinion about how prejudice and publicity may affect the court's rulings, or the vocabulary and beauty of the attorney's oration. In most cases, the judge wants the trial attorney to simply stand up, state his objection, and cite the rule or case. The adversary then has the same opportunity to argue what rule applies and legal authorities that support his or her position. And if there is a string of citations that supports one side, the court is going to follow the string of law regardless of the intelligence or ability of the trial lawyer. If it is a complex legal matter, the trial judge will ask for a brief and will be far more persuaded by the cited legal authorities than the attorney's colorful arguments or ad hominem attacks on his adversary. <br><br>"A string of cites is useless if they are not needed for the instant purpose, or if they are irrelevant, or - as I have pointed out in previous comments - if they are wielded by less than skillful minds. "<br><br>Again, wrong in the legal sense. A stupid lawyer with the law on his side and a rule or string of cites supporting his position will win that issue. The church's lawyers are very very skillful, but they will lose an issue if the prosecutors have better authority in support of their legal proposition. Trial judges follow the law or they get reversed by the appellate courts. <br><br>"And again I get the sense that a number of people do think that they know what they're doing in matters legal if they can wield a mouse or watch enough TV (for the record, I don't watch the TV show referenced above, or any legal-themed show)."<br><br>Are you speaking of yourself and DPierre who has never done anything in matters legal; or are you speaking of the attorney who provided an email address that you can confirm that he has done more than "wield a mouse" or watch TV.kopridehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-18346659080546982552012-04-25T01:45:35.501-04:002012-04-25T01:45:35.501-04:00For what reason or upon what specific points, woul...For what reason or upon what specific points, would you say in your informed opinion, are cites in case law required in these discussions? <br><br>Or perhaps you are under the impression - as you perhaps unwittingly admit - that legal discourse is primarily a simple string of back-and-forth cites? <br><br>Further, if perhaps you had not noticed from your reading of all the comments, or perhaps from any clinical experience you might have (from the one side of the desk or the other), a duelling Google match with certain types is counterproductive as well as being, as I said, legally unnecessary for the discussions that have taken shape here. And, for the record, I do think that the boundary where the clinical begins to apply is rapidly approaching.<br><br>A string of cites is useless if they are not needed for the instant purpose, or if they are irrelevant, or - as I have pointed out in previous comments - if they are wielded by less than skillful minds. <br><br>And again I get the sense that a number of people do think that they know what they're doing in matters legal if they can wield a mouse or watch enough TV (for the record, I don't watch the TV show referenced above, or any legal-themed show).Pertinaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15407357930254142688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-26510827027694706932012-04-25T01:31:50.496-04:002012-04-25T01:31:50.496-04:00A brief observation on process here. The peanut-ga...A brief observation on process here. <br><br>The peanut-gallery is being reinforced, a remarkable coincidence if such it be. <br><br>The value of this late-breaking development is, I would say, in realizing the type of dynamics as well as the level of mentality and mindset which predominate in certain quarters. Yet as I have been saying, this is a reality whose role is greatly under-appreciated within circles that prefer to spin themselves to the public as mature angels of light.Pertinaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15407357930254142688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-7276761782184544942012-04-25T01:26:16.772-04:002012-04-25T01:26:16.772-04:00The foregoing extended comments on matters theolog...The foregoing extended comments on matters theological is more familiar to high-school religion teachers, who are charged with the task of dealing with adolescent minds. <br><br>I will thus leave it to someone more competent in that line who might wish to undertake the task. I've done as much as I could.Pertinaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15407357930254142688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-61192009971068180582012-04-24T23:26:45.360-04:002012-04-24T23:26:45.360-04:00Kopride, I have read a great deal of pertinax'...Kopride, I have read a great deal of pertinax's writings on other sites, and I couldn't help but wonder if he wasn't one of the translators for the 'ahem' new translation of the Mass. Your last paragraph is wonderful.colkochhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03432916690101599393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-18545294275214147692012-04-24T23:14:10.391-04:002012-04-24T23:14:10.391-04:00Pertinax, neither you nor DPierre are taking up th...Pertinax, neither you nor DPierre are taking up the challenge offered by Kopride to cite pertinent case law. That would make your challenges more credible. As it appears now, you could be formulating your hypothesis and assumptions on the basis of watching hundreds of hours of Law and Order.colkochhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03432916690101599393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-4603587760041318942012-04-24T22:35:55.876-04:002012-04-24T22:35:55.876-04:00"I am not sure to which of the numerous NYT a..."I am not sure to which of the numerous NYT articles you refer, but the bias would be in terms of violating genuine Scientific Method (recall my distinction between a Study and a survey, for example) and not a matter of the NYT violating the tenets of Catholicism - which that corporate entity is under no obligation to observe in the first place. "<br><br>The NYT follows generally accepted journalism practices. Scripture doesn't follow any practices. It is second hand hearsay that went through many authors, editors, versions, and translators; and is usually vague enough that it can be interpreted in numerous ways, or simply characterized as metaphor or allegory if facts, archeology, or science discredits its assertions. So ancient scripture must be taken as truth, but journalism must be viewed with skepticism. And scripture neither relies upon a survey, study, poll, or science. <br><br>"Scriptural interpretation of 2000 year-old documents is admittedly highly complex, as is the study and interpretation of any ancient documents: so much is not known and the material is patient of many different scholarly opinions."<br><br>So does palm reading, alchemy, and astrology. Analyzing the star charts to figure out what will happen is very complex. And none of the scholarly opinions are tested against the scientific method.<br><br>"Otherwise Catholicism becomes an orchestra without a conductor and without a score, each player sawing or banging or tootling away at the melody s/he feels would sound nice. "<br><br>And that's a worse outcome than a Cardinal orchestrating a cover up of sexual abuse spanning decades with the assistance of lawyers? So at least you agree that the priests involved in this case were acting under the supervision and control of a single conductor.<br><br>"Curiously, I might add, the complexity of looking at 'historical' material is precisely overlooked or ignored in the instant matter of Catholic sex-abuse allegations. Funny how the night moves."<br><br>Actually, the prosecutors are doing a nice job using the long-hidden "historical" material which was long kept hidden in the AOP's secret archives. I assume that those highly paid defense lawyers will put that evidence in perspective.<br><br>"I would seriously question the viability or reliability of assuming a substantive conflation of the Cathlic view and that of "fundies" and of then making assertions based thereupon. "<br><br>Right, because your faith is better than their faith. And I assume that your faith is better than muslims and jews--because those folks are misguided. You could even make an argument that those misguided folks might be better off if you forced them to accept your truth by force. Any history of that in the "historical" record of this 2000 year old institution with the primacy over the truth.<br><br>"I would, lastly, say that the gravamen of my concerns over so much of your presentation on this site is precisely that it violates the spirit and the letter of Scientific Method, demonstrating instead what is indeed a rather 'fundamentalist' (albeit in the secular mode) disregard for careful reasoning and for the humility necessary to treat one's opinions or feelings as only a hypothesis and not as the substance of some comprehensive and indubitable illumination. "<br><br>in modern legal writing, we are taught to write plainly without non sequitors, pretentious language, legalese, or awkward modifiers. Basically, you build your argument around your active verb, delete all unnecessary adjectives and adverbs, and state plainly and precisely what you mean. By any reasonable measure, that quoted sentence above is a complete abortion. If by reversing Roe v. Wade, abortions like that would be banned, I might be in favor of it.kopridehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-66536561410299744992012-04-24T22:12:53.005-04:002012-04-24T22:12:53.005-04:00"The fact that religious belief cannot be val..."The fact that religious belief cannot be validated scientifically is a truism of the most primary sort. Religion deals with a non-material dimension that is not accessible to science."<br><br>So its like the Twilight Zone, i.e. fiction.<br><br>"Then again, reading current general astrophyscial hypotheses about the universe and it beginnings or current operations or future developments is not unlike reading religious beliefs. Funny how the night moves."<br><br>No astrophysics make specific observations of the universe through very powerful scientific equipment and make calculations using published theorems that must be peer reviewed and proved or disproved. If there are gaps in their theories or observations, they do not just assume that there is an all powerful creator that started it all. In other words, a scientist continues to look for data to answer the questions that cannot be answered with current scientific knowledge or technology. A religious person simply asks other people to accept on faith that there was an all powerful being that created it all, without supplying any scientific basis for how a being could create the vast universe or the more difficult problem of how a being capable of creating the universe sprung spontaneously to existence. And there is no peer review or formula that can be proved or reviewed from religion. In fact, each religious group is incredibly confident that the other religion is wrong.<br><br>"The range of that term covers a spectrum that extends from backwoods fundamentalists to devout Catholics and everything in-between. "<br><br>Right, a fundie believes that the world was created in 7 days; a devout catholic believes that a priest can perform a magic trick of turning a stale cracker into the flesh of a long dead jew-- who exactly is the backwoods guy on this spectrum?<br><br>"then the Church, certainly, does not require them to accept faith-propositions as "absolute truth"."<br><br>Well, you are a cafeteria catholic. The RCC absolutely believes that the moral teachings of the Magisterium are the infallible truth; and the Magisterium does not utilize the scientific method.kopridehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-75298529508972524382012-04-24T19:56:06.339-04:002012-04-24T19:56:06.339-04:00I feel bad for Ralph Cipriano who's done a sup...I feel bad for Ralph Cipriano who's done a superb job reporting this case. His blog has been taken over by pedophile apologists who cannot summon up a single word of empathy for children. One of them even supposes that a man would plead guilty to rape of a child and go to prison for it even though he's innocent. These commenters do illustrate, however, the difficult job of the prosecutors in trying to nail down people who are so deep in denial.SarahTX2http://www.blogger.com/profile/13127925134697324637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-84984238646151636822012-04-24T19:19:36.003-04:002012-04-24T19:19:36.003-04:00To make response fully to the foregoing would be a...To make response fully to the foregoing would be a task that I don't think would have much success. <br><br>But a few points:<br><br>The fact that religious belief cannot be validated scientifically is a truism of the most primary sort. Religion deals with a non-material dimension that is not accessible to science. Then again, reading current general astrophyscial hypotheses about the universe and it beginnings or current operations or future developments is not unlike reading religious beliefs. Funny how the night moves. <br><br>"Faith-based people" covers a lot of ground and is, I would say, far too vague a category to make adequate analysis and ground universal assertions. The range of that term covers a spectrum that extends from backwoods fundamentalists to devout Catholics and everything in-between. <br><br>Catholic teaching has no reason, certainly, to be "insulted" since it claims a difference in dimensions which, if its boundaries be properly observed, separates the reality of faith and the reality of scientific investigation of the material dimension. <br><br>"Scientifically inclined people" is equally nebulous: if you mean people inclined to use the Scientific Method in assessing carefully the realities of this material dimension, then the Church, certainly, does not require them to accept faith-propositions as "absolute truth". (In that regard, I note that the Vatican has recently said that the existence of extra-terrestrials would not impact adversely the tenets of Catholic faith.)<br><br>I am not sure to which of the numerous NYT articles you refer, but the bias would be in terms of violating genuine Scientific Method (recall my distinction between a Study and a survey, for example) and not a matter of the NYT violating the tenets of Catholicism - which that corporate entity is under no obligation to observe in the first place. <br><br>Scriptural interpretation of 2000 year-old documents is admittedly highly complex, as is the study and interpretation of any ancient documents: so much is not known and the material is patient of many different scholarly opinions. But as the ground for belief, the Church for 2000 years has claimed the right to claim primacy of spiritual interpretation of them. Otherwise Catholicism becomes an orchestra without a conductor and without a score, each player sawing or banging or tootling away at the melody s/he feels would sound nice. <br><br>Curiously, I might add, the complexity of looking at 'historical' material is precisely overlooked or ignored in the instant matter of Catholic sex-abuse allegations. Funny how the night moves.<br><br>I would seriously question the viability or reliability of assuming a substantive conflation of the Cathlic view and that of "fundies" and of then making assertions based thereupon. <br><br>I would, lastly, say that the gravamen of my concerns over so much of your presentation on this site is precisely that it violates the spirit and the letter of Scientific Method, demonstrating instead what is indeed a rather 'fundamentalist' (albeit in the secular mode) disregard for careful reasoning and for the humility necessary to treat one's opinions or feelings as only a hypothesis and not as the substance of some comprehensive and indubitable illumination. <br><br>I appreciate the opportunity afforded by bringing the Scientific Method back to mind.Pertinaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15407357930254142688noreply@blogger.com