Friday, April 29, 2005

A couple of dreams I had while living at the Intnl House in Chicago

Out of seven nights I spent in a room at the International House at the U of Chicago recently this month, I could remember dreams I had in the night on two of those nights.

The first night I remembered any dreams, I saw this text in the darkness; the text was in white color, the letters were at least a quarter inch high. The text was about the connection between viruses and cancer. There were about three or four paragraphs of text.

The other night on which I remembered a dream, I saw Lillian and the Exxon red-head (two Godiva Glamazon type white women) together, they were wearing clothes, their bodies took up about a quarter vertically speaking of my field of view, and about a half horizontally speaking of my field of view. The thought transmitted to me in this dream, was that Lillian and the Exxon red-head are "very electric", and "very exciting" people. These two exact phrases as describing them, was transmitted to me mentally somehow from the dream. I am not sure if the two phrases were written with letters I could see above where I could see Lillian and the Exxon red-head but it was at least as if, these two phrases were written out in letters in my field of view. The two exact phreases, "very electric", and "very exciting", were transmitted to my mind regarding Lillian and the Exxon-redhead in the dream. In the dream I vaguely saw both of them morph into males; seemed as if this might have to do with the birth of sons.

When I awoke, I was thinking that it had seemed to me previously in waking life that Lillian and the Exxon red-head were beautiful, but it had not seemed to me that they were "very electric" or "very exciting". In waking life very few, less than half a dozen of the women I had encountered had seemed to me to be "very electric" or "very electric and very exciting"; "very electric" denotes to me roughly speaking the type whose voice or whose visual appearance can instantaneously transport one into communion with God; and I had not included, in real life, Lillian and the Exxon redhead amongst the very small in number "very electric" group. So I got to thinking, after I had the dream, that there are, perhaps, people who you do not appreciate as "very electric" until you have known them for some minimum amount of time, say a few days or weeks or months depending upon the individual.

Thursday, April 28, 2005

An enlightened medieval monkish frame of mind at neo-gothic U of Chicago's International House

This month I had a chance to for a week, leave my apartment in the suburbs of Boston, and live in the International House at the University of Chicago for a week.

In the Boston burbs I live in an apartment that does not look at all neo-gothic on the outside, and is not at all neo-gothic on the inside. It is in a building two stories high with four apartments on each level. Where as I live as far as the eye can see, there is nothing neo-gothic.

By way of contrast, the International House at the U of Chicago is a big neo-gothic building around ten stories high not counting the tower; and I would guess it is almost a 50 yard by 100 yard block in horizontal dimensions. It looks truly hugely neo-gothic on the outside, and as a consequence it is neo-gothic on the inside, what with its spare, spartan one room apartments, from which you have to take a short walk down the hall to use the bathroom or take a shower. You can see plenty of huge U of Chicago neo-gothic buildings from the International House and its environs.

In the Boston burbs where I had been living, I had encountered these women who were extremely sexy and beautiful and hetero-sexually passionate who wanted to marry me, the Godiva Glamazon type, but, since off the bat I felt not love but lust for them, I had been feeling that I would never have love for these women, and so, therefore, they were not for me; and it had seemed to me that there was no hope that one day I could feel love as well as lust for such women.

But in the neo-gothic International House at the U of Chicago, I was sitting and lying down in my spartan room there, able to get into a frame of mind where it seemed to me that through the power of Christ and the Christian religion, it would be not too difficult to get to the point where I felt love as well as lust, or love without lust, for the absolutely sexy and very beautiful Godiva Glamazon type, regarding whom I had previously felt while in the Boston area, that it would be basically impossible to ever love them, simply because, unlike the unattainable rare ladies of the stratosphere, they these Godiva Glamazon type women, did not cause in me an almost instantaneous reaction of love for them.

While and after staying in my monk's-dwelling-like room at the International House in the University of Chicago, I came to see how in the old days, men often had little choice regarding who they would marry, but nevertheless the Holy Scriptures reverenced by those who first in the middle ages designed and built the great neo-gothic type buildings, advised the preacher to teach men to love their wives; meaning that men who did not love their wives, were considered to be capable of by their own initiative, effecting changes in their lives and in their minds, with the end result that though they did not at first love their wives, they later were able to.

I thought of of how, way back when, in the times when the neo-gothic type buildings were first built, and in the times when the Holy Scriptures were frist written, men did not have the leisure and luxury of conducting their short lives as an endless procrastination of marriage, combined with an everlasting bachelor-ite pursuit of that rare female that instantaneously arouses in one feelings of spiritual electrification and/or emotional love.

David Virgil Hobbs

Friday, April 15, 2005

Have the biochemistry lessons found in Jenner and Smallpox been understood?

One could say that Jenner in 1797, discovering that cowpox inoculates humans against smallpox, was the beginning in the western world of the therapeutic genetic biochemistry so highly emphasized by medical schools today. Jenner noticed that humans exposed to a rash found on the udders of cows, cowpox, were immune to smallpox; he inoculated humans against smallpox, according to the overwhelming majority of modern authorities, successfully.

Earlier I had noticed something others had not noticed, that substances that retard the spoilage of milk tend to act to prevent cancer when consumed by humans, and now reading of Jenner I find that he used a rash found on the udders of cows.

I believe this has to do with how in the natural historic state, the cells of human beings were first built up by milk produced by the mothers of human beings. As the infants matured they turned to foods other than milk, nevertheless the fact remains that when they became adults the cells in their bodies, were cells descended from cells that fed on milk. In my mind, humans are like a type of milk.

Notice the following paralells:

Milk-producing organ in cow gets rash from cowpox
Human-in-cow (milk) gets rash from smallpox
Human gets rash from smallpox

That which preserves milk, prevents cancer in humans
That which preserves humans, prevents cancer in humans

milk + substance-X keeps milk from spoiling
human + substance-x keeps human from spoiling through cancer

That which causes a reash on milk-producing organs in the cow (cowpox), causes a rash in humans (cowpox, smallpox cousin of cowpox).

That which preserves milk preserves humans.

Humans derive health from milk related substances such as cowpox, just as they historically depended on their own human cells built from mother's milk.

The human physically blessed by consumption of substances found in and around milk, vs the human not physically blessed by such, sort of allergic, to substances found in and around milk: which would you think is more apt to survive, given how infants grow up through and around milk?

Looking at the Jenner case, one can see a madness, that for so many centuries nobody in the western world could see the implications of the fact that milkmaids did not get smallpox after getting cowpox; one wonders whether one can see descendants of this old madness in society today.

Virologists and physicians should be looking systematically at infectious diseases, looking at diseases that have a genetic cousin B, that infects animals and also people, and which is milder in its effects on poeple than A is. Jenner utlized a B type virus (cowpox) which confers immunity against A its cousin smallpox, by inoculating persons with B. This most everyone thinks, worked, and basically still does work in modern vaccines which use an atennuated form of cowpox, because cowpox antigens are close enough to smallpox antigens to generate antibodies in infected persons that protect against smallpox.

The scientists should be looking at the cases where a human is infected with a mild form of disease A, that is mild in its effects on the infected compared to the effects disease A has on infected persons.

Yet what do we see in the modern field of virology? We see a scorn for the "empirical" methods of the past, and a reverence for non-empirical methods--working with the new molecular level info that the scientists of today have, that scientists of yore did not have. We see animals used to test potions in, as opposed to surveyed for infection by mild cousins of diseases dangerous to humans. We see little of looking to utilize, animals or people infected with the less dangerous cousins of dangerous diseases.

Often-times, an animal or person who has a mild form of a serious virus dangerous to humans, or is infected with a mild genetic cousin of a serious virus is unavailable. This means certain things are missing. The cousin of or the mild form of the virus could be nonexistent. The mild cousin or form could be in existence, yet it could still have failed to have come into contact with humans or animals so as to have been able to produce relatively mild symptoms.

If the cousin of the dangerous virus has to be created, newly available genetic history info such as for example, virus A differentiated from virus B 7000 years ago due to the interaction of rats with early human agriculture, can be used to create the new mild version; the processes of natural historic genetic differentiation, such as what some might call evolution (or is that devolution?), and such as mutation, can be mimicked.

If the problem is that the mild cousin or form of the dangerous virus exists, but has not yet had a chance to interact with humans or animals to produce mild symptoms in them, it might be possible to solve the problem by bringing viruses into closer ontact with humans and animals, compared to the contact between such in the natural historical state. One would expect this would be done carefully, via experiments on humans preceded by experiments on animals.

Either way, whether through the creation of mild cousin/forms or the introduction of experimental contacts between viruses and the animal world, the goal is to find a mild cousin/form of a dangerous virus so it can be used to inoculate humans against dangerous forms of the virus.

It strikes me as odd that the empiricism of the past should be scorned in favor of a 'test the new computer generated potion in the monkey' mentality. Looking at things empirically, one can see how milder forms of a virus differ from progressively stronger forms of a virus by nature. This can clue one in on the question of what structure he or she should attempt to impart to the new mild form of a virus taht he or she hopes to produce. It should be easier to induce variations that mimic the variations found in nature, compared to the dificulty of attempting to force nature to conform to an abstraction in the head of a scientist.

Looking at things empirically, should clue one in on how change can be induced in a virus, by way of mimicking processes such as perhaps new interactions between animals plants and humans, that gave rise to new different members of various virus families.

Looking at things empirically, one can see that substances that cause mild symptoms in the milk of animals, should be searched for or experimentally produced. Given that the human is so to speak a kind of milk, such substances could well be cousins of substances such as viruses that cause severe dangerous symptoms in man, and useful for the purpose of inoculating humans against the effects of such dangerous substances. It would be relatively easy to alter such substances that produce symptoms in the milk-producing organs and milk of animals, into new substances that produce mild, inoculatory symptoms in man whereas their previous original natural versions did not.

@2005 David Virgil Hobbs
These are my opinions at the present time, which may not coincide with reality

Thursday, April 14, 2005

Conceivable Possible Processes in Therapeutic Biochemistry

1 External Influence Exerted on Outer Membranes of Cells

1-A Indiscriminate influence, changes all cells it encounters

1-B Discriminate, only changes some of cells amongst cells encountered

1-B-1 The discrimination is based on the genetics of the cells encountered by the influence

1-B-2 The discrimination is based on non-genetic characteristics of the cells encountered by the influence

2 Infiltration of Cells

2-A Indiscriminate, infiltrating agent invades all cells

2-B Discriminate, infiltrating agent only infiltrates certain cells

2-B-1 Discrimination based on genetic characteristics of cells encountered by infiltrating agent
2-B-2 Discrimination based on non-genetic characteristics of cells encountered by infiltrating agent

3 Intracellular Influences

3-A Indiscriminate

3-A-1 Agent that infiltrates cells, changes genes in all cells it infiltrates

3-A-2 Agent that infiltrates cells, changes non-genetic aspects of all cells it infiltrates

4 Replacement-new gene introduced into cells

4-A Discriminate, the agent entering the cell, acts the same in all cells it enters

4-A-1 The agent that has entered the cell, carries the new genes into the cell

4-A-2 The agent that has entered the cell, builds a new gene in the cell it has entered

4-B Discriminate, the genetic agent introduced into the cell, behaves differently depending on cell it has entered

4-B-1 The discrimination is based upon the genetics of the cell encountered

4-B-1-1 Depending upon the genetics of the cell the agent has entered, the agent does or does not activate the gene it has brought into the cell

4-B-1-2 Depending on the genetics of the cell the agent enters, the agent does or does not build a new gene inside the cell it has entered

4-B-2 The discrimination is based on non-genetic characteristics of the cells encountered by the agent

4-B-2-1 Depending upon non-genetic characteristics of the cell that has been entered, the entering agent does or does not activate the gene it has introduced into the cell.

4-B-2-2 Depending upon non-genetic characteristics of the cell that has been entere, the entering agent does or does not build a new gene inside the cell it has entered.

5 Cell to cell Infection of characteristics

5-A The cell-transforming processes in 1-4, are caused to vells by other cells naturally and originally in the body that have been altered, as opposed to by a substance artificially introduced into the body.

See also,

@2005 David Virgil Hobbs
The above represents my opinions at the current time, which may not coincide with reality

Key processes in genetic biochemistry

Two key processes are:

1) the clinically introduced New Gene (NG) is able to in a Cell (C1) replace the Old Gene (OG) that is in the cell by nature; and,

2) the clinically introduced New Gene (NG) cause cellss (C1, C2 C3 C4 etc etc) outside of C1 which the NG has entered, to become infected with the NG.

Process 1 is more basic that Process 2 because the NG has to displace the OG in C1 before C1 can transmit it to C2 C3 C4 etc.; and, the NG can be transmitted directly to C2 C3 C4 etc., in the absence of the ability of C1 to infect other cells with the NG.

The NG replacing the OG in cells, requires:

Process A: the entry of NG into C; and,

Process B: the dominance of NG over OG in C.

B can be accomplished without A

A can be accomplished without B

Process A in and of itself accomplishes nothing, if the NG is unable to assert its dominance over the OG in the cell; process B however, in and of itself can accomplish something, by acting to destroy the influence of the OG in cells from without without entering the cells, thereby decreasing the influence of the NG compared to the OG in cells (NG zero OG zero is a tie). Thus Process B is more basic than process A. Process A and Process B are part of Process 1, which is more basic than process 2. Thus the basis of biochemistry is process B, the war to increase the influence of the NG relative to the OG in cells.

Nevertheless to my surprise, I was able to find little about process B while compiling a new timeline of genetic biochemistry ( ) from 14 different timelines of biochemical gene therapy that I found on the internet.

@2005 David Virgil Hobbs This represents my opinion at the present time, which may not coincide with reality

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

MDJR's myopic, example-less, case-less, spiritless approach to biochemistry in MD programs

MDSR represents the incarnation of the combination of alleged quality in medical schools with quantity. MDSR's two favorite topics are, biochemistry and anatomy. Given the fact that MDSR is also into histology, which is related to biochemistry, to some extent, one would have to say that MDSR's favorite topic is biochemistry.

MDJR is the incarnation of medical schools regardless of alleged quality. I list the textbooks that are amongst MDJR's favorites, and that at the same time also show table of contents, excerpt etc. at

Biochemistry by Lubert Stryer

Biochemistry (Chapters 1-34) by Jeremy M. Berg, Lubert Stryer, John L. Tymoczko

Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry, Third Edition by David L. Nelson, David L. Nelson, Michael M. Cox

Textbook of Biochemistry with Clinical Correlations by Thomas M. Devlin

By way of contrast to MDJR's approach, which you can get a taste of at the above links, you can get a look at some of the beginning of my approach, an approach which I consider to be far superior to MDJR's approach to biochemistry in MD programs, at:

@2005 David Virgil Hobbs
These are my opinions at the present time, which may not coincide with fact

Monday, April 11, 2005

JDJEDTJR's respect for Marshall in Marbury v Madison, to this day a source of error

JDJEDTSR is the incarnation of alleged-quality and quantity in law schools. JEDJEDTSR places the most emphasis on six areas of law, in order of their importance to JDJEDTSR: civil procedure, contracts, torts, property, criminal law, and then constitutional law. JEJEDTJR is the incarnation of law schools regardless of alleged quality. JDJEDTJR's favorite constitutional law textbook, is, Constitutional Law, by Kathleen M Sullivan and Gerald Gunther (

In Marbury v Madison, Marbury sued Democrat-republican President Jefferson's secretary of state, George Madison, in the Supreme Court, because Madison, had refused to deliver the certificates appointing Marbury a justice of the peace, that Jefferson's enemy and predecessor, Federalist President Adams, had delivered to his secretary of state, who did not have time to deliver the certificates before the term of Adams ended.

Marbury sought a writ of mandamus from the supreme court, forcing Madison to deliver the certificates of appointment to Marbury. The court ruled 4-0, that it lacked the ability to act in the case, because Marbury's case was an original not an appellate jurisdiction case, and the constitution in such cases gave the court appellate, not original jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the court ruled that an earlier act of congress, that had granted the court original jurisdiction in cases such as Marbury's, was unconstitutional and therefore null and void, because it, this act of Congress, in effect changed the law of the constitution; and in so doing the court established the principle of judicial review.

Contradicting Marshall who wrote the opinion for the court in the Marbury case, I find that the words of the constitution, actually did provide for supreme court original jurisdiction in cases such as Marbury's. I arrived at this conclusion before reading anything that came to this conclusion, but after I arrived at this conclusion, I found a couple of academics whose conclusions regarding this case were similar to mine:

We must recall that article three states unequivocally that this court's original jurisdiction shall in part pertain to "other public ministers." Under our definition of a "public minister," the secretary of state fits precisely into this category. Therefore, Mr. Madison is a public minister, and Mr. Marbury has the right to petition this court to require him, under our original jurisdiction, to deliver the commission to him, and he has done so.
also, similarly,

However, others have stated, that Madison was not an ambassador, or other public minister, or consul, and therefore the court did not have original jurisdiction in his case, because the constitution restricted original jurisdiction for the supreme court to cases involving ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls:

Since Madison was not an "ambassador, public minister or consul" under Article III, a suit against him did not meet the requirements for the exercise of original jurisdiction.

Unless noted, the statements made in the following arguments are statements that are not so to speak copies of statements made by others, and I am unaware of any other similar statements that have been made in the legal world previously.

Marshall erred in that he simply blythely assumed, that when the constitution gave original jurisdiction to the supreme court in cases involving ambassadors, public ministers, and consul, it gave this in cases involving only FOREIGN ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls. There is nothing in the constitution to support Marshall's egregiously erroneous interpretation.

Which leads to the next question, was Madison a "public minister"? The statements I found in academia that touch on this subject, simply assert this or that opinion; they provide no evidence or argument.

My argument is that Madison was a "public minister", because, although the United States to distinguish itself from foreign nations operating under political philosophies different from the revolutionary US philosophy, referred to officials such as the secretary of state using terminology different from that used by foreign nations for such officials; the foreign counterparts of the US secretary of state were and are to this day, due to the precedent set by English governments, referred to as "ministers", working in ministries. See:

Senator Horsey (a Federalist, and so not of Madison's party), also defended the President's recess appointments, arguing that [t]he office then of a public Minister is the medium through which the Executive is enabled to manage our foreign relations, and particularly to conduct negotiations

On the afternoon of September 21, 2001, US President Bush met with visiting Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan in the Oval Office of the White House.

australian minister foreign affairs

UK foreign minister welcomes Iraq election

UK Foreign Ministry: We will continue to take a close interest in the protection of all the rights and freedoms of the Hong Kong people.

New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

4272. KINGS, Ministers of. -- No race of kings has ever presented above one man of [Col 2] common sense in twenty generations. The best they can do is to leave things to their ministers; and what are their ministers but a committee badly chosen? If the king ever meddles it is to do harm. -- TITLE: To Benjamin Hawkins. EDITION: Washington ed. ii, 221. EDITION: Ford ed., iv, 426. PLACE: Paris DATE: 1787

Ambassadors and Other Public Ministers .--The term ''ambassadors and other public ministers,'' comprehends ''all officers having diplomatic functions, whatever their title or designa tion.''

A public minister is he that by the sovereign, whether a monarch or an assembly, is employed in any affairs, with authority to represent in that employment the person of the Commonwealth

Whoever is intrusted by his sovereign with the interests of the nation should be considered a public minister.

Recently, the United Kingdom, the motherland of those who wrote the constitution and participated in the early legal system of the US, began to leave words such as minister and ministry out of its titles for offices and officers, yet the historical influence of the UK's use of words such as minister and ministry can be seen even today in the "state departments" of many foreign nations, which are known in these foreign nations, as "foreign ministries".

In the US government, the secretary of state, in the department of state, supervises appointment and management of US diplomatic personnel and US dealings with foreign diplomatic personnel:

5. The act of digress of April 30th, 1790, s. 25,...The act provides that citizens or inhabitants of the United States who were indebted when they went into the service of an ambassador, shall not be protected as to such debt; and it requires also that the names of such servants shall be registered in the office of the secretary of state.

15) The term "immigrant" means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of non immigrant aliens- (A)(i) an ambassador, public minister, or career diplomatic or consular officer who has been accredited by a foreign government, and who is accepted by the President or by the Secretary of State, and the members of the alien’s immediate family

Naturally, with a two and a quarter century history of sending diplomats abroad, there have been many folks who have been Consuls, Ministers, or Ambassadors. Those interested in researching this should start at the State Department's website: The State department has an awesome library with an unbelievable history

(The secretary of state) Grants and issues passports to American citizens and exequaturs to foreign consuls in the United States; Advises the President on the appointment of U.S. ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other diplomatic representatives;

On Monday December 13, 2004 former Secretary of State Colin Powell honored the first group of CultureConnect Ambassadors and sports envoys in a special ceremony at the Department of State. Click here to learn

The first job of the Visa Office (in the department of state) is to issue diplomatic visas to members of foreign missions. There are three categories of diplomatic visas: A-1 visas are issued to Foreign Service officers, career diplomats, and to ambassadors and other high-ranking diplomats, such as consuls and vice consuls.

The United States Department of State, often referred to as the State Department, is the Cabinet-level foreign affairs agency of the United States government, equivalent to foreign ministries in other countries. It is administered by the United States Secretary of State.

the federal department in the UnitedStates that sets and maintains foreign policies; "the Department of State was created in 1789"

(the secretary of state) Grants and issues passports to American citizens and letters of recognition to foreign consuls in the United States; Advises the President on the appointment of U.S. ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other diplomatic representatives;

The language of the constitution is such, that one can see that although not all persons referred to as "officers" by the constitution are "public ministers", "public ministers" are, nevertheless, a type of officer. True, when the constitution comes the closest that it does come to discussing officials such as the Secretary of State, it refers to them as "officers". However this does not mean that the Secretary of State cannot be an "officer", as well as a "public minister", just as a center forward on a soccer or football team is a forward, and at the same time a player.

Marshall has been widely praised and glorified, for having established by clever arguments in the Marbury case, that the Supreme Court, has the right to "Judicial Review", meaning the right to veto acts of congress it finds to be unconstitutional. Yet Marshall did not base his reasoning on the most obvious and logical basis, which is that the constitution provides that alterations to it be processed through constitutional conventions:

Article V. - Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Instead, Marshall declared that the obvious original intent of the framers of the constitution was that the constitution should have veto power over unconstitutional acts of congress. In so doing, Marshall established a precedent in the US, that documents such as constitutions, which in reality may be intended to eliminate anarchy and confusion until one by one matters are settled by votes, are documents regarding which one can assume that the writers intended that the documents have veto power over subsequent voting.

Marshall's opinion in Marbury has been deified and glorified; observers tend to think of it as a brilliant or important or ethical opinion. Yet after mis-reading that the constitution was referring only to foreign diplomatic personnel in granting the court original jurisdiction with regards to such, Marshall, like the constitution before him, failed to pay sufficient attention to the meaning of the term "public minister". The worship of Marshall by devotees such as JDJEDTJR has led to assumptions that a law refers to a subset of a set when it plainly and obviously refers to the set not the subset, and to a failure to adequately define terms. To this day one can see how the economic productivity of the US is impaired due to inadequate definition of terms in contracts and property law.

What do you get when rulings that are considered brilliant or important or good are based on faulty reasoning, as Marshall delivering the opinion of the court in Marbury v Madison is? What you get, is that faulty reasoning becomes fashionable. To this day, we see how in the US, faulty reasoning is winked at because it can lead to good or important or brilliant results; yet they ignore, that the society characterized by faulty reasoning, will of course be less prosperous than the society characterized by correct reasoning, and, that, more often than not, faulty reasoning leads to more misfortune than correct reasoning does.

When an admired court decision is based on the court, in error, plunging into secondary and unnecessary arguments, the end result is that the society that admires the decisions, and individuals in that society such as JDJEDTJR, acquire an unfortunate predilection for secondary and unnecessary argument.

The way to resolve issue A, is to bring it before the court so that it may be considered. The way to resolve issue A, is not, to bring it before the court through the application of erroneous reasoning to issue B. Yet due to the infatuation with rulings such as Marbury v Madison, we have today in fashion the bring A into focus by screwing up on B approach.

@2005 David Virgil Hobbs
These are my opinions at the present time which may not exactly or even remotely correspond with fact.

Sunday, April 10, 2005

white folks in a trailer, smart white folks around a table: dreams

Dream of night after April 9

I saw Heather and Lillian and some white people in what looked like a trailer. The trailer was crowded, it looked to be about nine feet wide and maybe 20 feet long. It was daytime, there was a gray light in the trailer as on cloudy days. There were white males in the trailer with them, who appeared to be of average build and height or smaller, seemed some of them had beards and mustaches. Someone in the trailer said that some other guy in the trailer, said that Heather had a relationship with or was hot for him, I remember not exactly which. This got me feeling jealous regarding Heather. It was as if, while I had not heard anything about Heather and some guy other than me, I lacked high priority interest in Heather, but after I heard about it, all of a sudden she became more important and worthy of high priority attention in my eyes, something related to my ego.

In this same dream in another scene I was around a glossy, brown table with some people who were it seemed white, intelligent, and not much larger than average in terms of height and weight. One of them was a short thin white brown haired clean shaven guy. One of these guys I was around the table with was Adam Rudolph, who went to the same high school I did but graduated a few years ahead of me.

Saturday, April 09, 2005

JDJEDTJR's basic criminal law case out-dated, over-ruled by misreasoned new precedent?

JDJEDTSR is the incarnation of alleged quality combined with quantity in law schools. His Fifth favorite topic, after civil procedure, contracts, torts, and property, is criminal law. JDJEDTJR is the incarnation of law schools regardless of alleged quality. JDJEDTJR's favorite criminal law texts are those by Dresser and the one by Kadish, Criminal Law. Since I could not find online a detailed table of contents, excerpts etc. for the Dresser casebook and outline, but could for the Kadish casebook, I here focus on the Kadish casebook ( Criminal Law and Its Processes: Cases and Materials (Casebook) by Sanford H. Kadish, Stephen J. Schulhofer (Hardcover - April 1, 2001) ( ) .

Kadish cites many cases but the most famous case he cites, is, in his section on "THE JUSTIFICATION OF PUNISHMENT-what to punish", Bowers v Hardwick, 1986 in the Supreme Court, in which the Supreme Court ruled that nothing in the constitution protects sodomy. Problem is that in the year 2003, after the Kadish casebook came out in 2001, Bowers v Hardwick was over-ruled by the Supreme Court in an opinion written by Chief Justice Kennedy.

Kennedy's Supreme Court over-ruled Bowers in Lawrence v. Texas, in a decision which gives cause for alarm (please excuse this(?) and subsequent ignorant failures in etiquette of Supreme Court cases) in the sense that it gives rise to the suspicion that economically active elements in the nation will not be able to trust that the courts of the land will show any common sense in the interpretation of written law.

Writing the majority opinion, Kennedy made the following points (paraphrased=P):

1 "We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution"

2P Kennedy cites in his favor a prior Supreme Court case, Griswold, in which a state was prohibited from banning contraception on the grounds such is an intrusion into privacy.

3 "In Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972), according to Kennedy, the Court invalidated a law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons. The case was decided under the Equal Protection Clause, id., at 454"

4 "lthough the Court (Roe v Wade) held the woman’s rights were not absolute, her right to elect an abortion did have real and substantial protection as an exercise of her liberty under the Due Process Clause"

5 "In Carey v. Population Services Int’l, 431 U. S. 678 (1977), the Court confronted a New York law forbidding sale or distribution of contraceptive devices to persons under 16 years of age. Although there was no single opinion for the Court, the law was invalidated. Both Eisenstadt and Carey, as well as the holding and rationale in Roe, con-firmed that the reasoning of Griswold could not be con-fined to the protection of rights of married adults"

6P The court in Bowers failed to realize it was about liberty in privacy not sodomy specifically

7P sodomy laws have not been directed specifically vs men in this country

8P 19th century sodomy law targeted rapists not consentors

9P there was general condemnation of non procreative sex,

10P prosecutions were infrequent a willing partner's accusation insufficient

11P american laws targetting same sex couples new, did not develop till last third of 20th century

12P same-sex prohibtions ignored or abolished in states lately

13 'These considerations (pat public opinion) do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the crimi-nal law. “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 850 (1992).'

14P Burger and white emphasized traditional historic rejection of sodomy

15 "In all events we think that our laws and traditions in the past half century are of most relevance here." (contradicts earlier disavowal of tradition)

16 "These references (?????) show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substan-tial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex."

17 "In 1955 the American Law Institute promulgated the Model Penal Code and made clear that it did not recommend or provide for “criminal penalties for consensual sexual relations conducted in private.” ALI, Model Penal Code §213.2, Comment 2, p. 372 (1980). It justified its decision on three grounds: (1) The prohibitions undermined respect for the law by penalizing conduct many people engaged in; (2) the stat-utes regulated private conduct not harmful to others; and (3) the laws were arbitrarily enforced and thus invited the danger of blackmail."

18 "The sweeping references by Chief Justice Burger to the history of Western civilization and to Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards did not take account of other authorities pointing in an opposite direction."

19 "The (euro) court held that the (irish) laws proscribing the conduct were invalid under the European Convention on Human Rights. Dudgeon v. United King-dom, 45 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1981) ¶52."

20P Now there is little anti sodomite enforcement, or law in states

21 "In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), the Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The Casey decision again con-firmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows: “These matters, involving the most intimate and per-sonal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amend-ment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the uni-verse, and of the mystery of human life."

22 "The second post-Bowers case of principal relevance is Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620 (1996). There the Court struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexu-als as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Romer invalidated an amendment to Colorado’s constitution which named as a solitary class persons who were homo-sexuals, lesbians, or bisexual either by “orientation, con-duct, practices or relationships,” id., at 624 (internal quotation marks omitted), and deprived them of protection under state antidiscrimination laws. We concluded that the provision was “born of animosity toward the class of persons affected” and further that it had no rational rela-tion to a legitimate governmental purpose. Id., at 634."

23P the sodomy convictions harm the convicted

24 "In the United States criticism of Bowers has been substantial and con-tinuing, disapproving of its reasoning in all respects, not just as to its historical assumptions."

25 "The courts of five different States have declined to follow it (bowers) in interpreting provisions in their own state constitutions parallel to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

26 "In his dissenting opinion in Bowers JUSTICE STEVENS came to these conclusions: “Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from con-stitutional attack"

27 "Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to pro-duce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

28 "The present case does not involve minors. --It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. --It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. --It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter"

29 "--The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosex-ual lifestyle. --The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. --The State cannot demean their exis-tence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. --Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. --The Texas statute furthers no le-gitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual"

30 “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” Casey, supra, at 847"

Kennedy Contradicts Himself

Kennedy contradicts himself regarding whether public opinion past and present regarding sodomy, should have any bearing on the case. He states,

1 "We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution"


13 'These considerations (past public opinion) do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the crimi-nal law. “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 850 (1992).'

Yet at the same time he states,

15 In all events we think that our...traditions in the past half century are of most relevance here. (contradicts earlier disavowal of tradition)

and engages in much dispute as to whether past justices were correct in their asessment that public opinion is now or has in the past been against sodomy, Kennedy taking the position that justices of the past have exaggerated the extent to which society has opposed Sodomy.

Kennedy's main argument defective

Kennedy states,

1 "We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution"

The fourteenth amendment of the constitution states,

Aricle XIV 1868
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The other references to life, liberty and property in the constitution and the amendments are:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


Article V 1795
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Aricle XIV 1868
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The problem with Kennedy's opinion, is, that Kennedy is saying that his opinion is a fourteenth amendment argument; he is basically saying, that the clause that nobody shall be deprived of Liberty without Due Process, means that nobody shall be deprived of liberty, and means that nobody shall be deprived of the liberty to commit sodomy.

Kennedy states that private, consensual, "harmless" activities such as sodomy are constitutionally protected liberties, that the government may not intrude on; yet at thge same time he would not deign to rubber stamp all private consensual activities as rubber-stamped by his Supreme Court, which he uses to rubber-stamp sodomy as a protected liberty.

So, the Supreme Court in this opinion is arrogating the right to decide what liberties are protected by law, and what liberties are not.

The Supreme Court in this decision declares tht the 14th amendment gives it the right, to decide what is liberty.

According to this line of reasoning, Kennedy and his court have the right to decide what property is, and what forms of property are or are not immune to seizure even with due process, because the constitution says no person shall be deprived of property, without due process; and, according to this line of reasoning, Kennedy and his court have the right to decide what life is, and what forms of life are or are not immune to destruction even with due process, because the constitution says no person shall be deprived of life, without due process of law.

According to this line of reasoning, a person cannot be executed, because nobody can be deprived of life without due process, and Kennedy's Supreme Court decides what are the protected forms of life.

According to this line of reasoning, a person cannot be fined, because property cannot be confiscated without due process, and Justice Kennedy decides what is protected property that cannot be seized even with due process, and what is not.

According to this line of reasoning, the prohibition of the deprivation of life liberty and property minus due process, means the Supreme Court decides what is protected liberty a person cannot be deprived of, and what is not protected liberty, and also means that sodomy is a protected liberty.

In other words, it is not possible in the eyes of this court, to deprive persons of certain protected liberties, even in the presence of due process. One could say, Therefore, in the eyes of this court, anything that deprives a person of the protected liberty, is a violation, and therefore, homosexuals cannot be incarcerated, because such incarceration deprives them of the liberty to sodomy that the court has enshrined.

Kennedy Court fails to demonstrate expertise re determining which liberties should be enshrined

The court here is like a twelve year old child, legislating from the bench, twisting the law absurdly, so as to get some loveable gay man she knows off the hook.

The court has in this ruling adjudicated to itself the right to decide what liberties are protected so as to be immune from infringment even in the presence of due process; yet at the same time the court indulges in a merely cursory and flimsy attempt to justify its consecration of sodomy as a protected liberty. The court by listing its reasons for consecrating sodomy, admits that such argument is necessary, but the arguments it proceeds to deliver are merely statements of opinion unsupported by evidence.

Kennedy merely expends a couple of brief paragraphs rattling off his justifications:

28 --"The present case does not involve minors.
--It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships
where consent might not easily be refused.
--It does not involve public conduct or prostitution.
--It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter"

29 "--The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosex-ual lifestyle.
--The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives.
--The State cannot demean their exis-tence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.
--Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.
--The Texas statute furthers no le-gitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual"

The court blythely declares that "The Texas statute furthers no le-gitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual"; but it gives no evidence to warrant this essential claim. In reality the only method by which claimants such as the sodomite Lawrence in this case can find relief on a constitutional basis, is through the processes required to enact an amendment to the constitution rendering sodomy a protected federal right.

@2005 David Virgil Hobbs
This represents my opinions at the present time, which may not exactly or even remotely coincide with reality

Friday, April 08, 2005

The Funeral of the Pope 2005

I watched the funeral and burial of Pope John Paul the II on television. The first scriptural readings, were Acts 10:34,

Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: Act 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

followed by Phillippians 3:20-4:1.

Phi 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ: Phi 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. Phi 4:1 Therefore, my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.

Followed by, John 21:15-19.

Joh 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jona, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. Joh 21:16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jona, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. Joh 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jona, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. Joh 21:18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. Joh 21:19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

Cardinal Ratzinger praised Christ and spoke of the post-resurrection words of Christ to Peter; the Cardinal spoke of how Pope John Paul II, heard in his youth the words of Christ, saying, "follow me"; the Cardinal spoke of how St. Peter perceived that God shows no partiality but accepts the godly of every nation; the Cardinal related how John Paul heard a voice say to him, "behold your mother" just as Christ had said this on the cross. The cardinal assured us that the Pope is in heaven, seeing us, blessing us. The Cardinal said, regarding the pope, that the mother of God dies with and and will always die with you (the Pope) for the glory of her son.

The pope was praised as unselfish, and the Nicene creed was said. Psalm 17 was said,

Psa 17:1 A Prayer of David. Hear the right, O LORD attend unto my cry, give ear unto my prayer, that goeth not out of feigned lips.
Psa 17:2 Let my sentence come forth from thy presence; let thine eyes behold the things that are equal.
Psa 17:3 Thou hast proved mine heart; thou hast visited me in the night; thou hast tried me, and shalt find nothing; I am purposed that my mouth shall not transgress.
Psa 17:4 Concerning the works of men, by the word of thy lips I have kept me from the paths of the destroyer.
Psa 17:5 Hold up my goings in thy paths, that my footsteps slip not.
Psa 17:6 I have called upon thee, for thou wilt hear me, O God: incline thine ear unto me, and hear my speech.
Psa 17:7 Show thy marvelous lovingkindness, O thou that savest by thy right hand them which put their trust in thee from those that rise up against them.
Psa 17:8 Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings,
Psa 17:9 From the wicked that oppress me, from my deadly enemies, who compass me about.
Psa 17:10 They are enclosed in their own fat: with their mouth they speak proudly.
Psa 17:11 They have now compassed us in our steps: they have set their eyes bowing down to the earth;
Psa 17:12 Like as a lion that is greedy of his prey, and as it were a young lion lurking in secret places.
Psa 17:13 Arise, O LORD, disappoint him, cast him down: deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy sword:
Psa 17:14 From men which are thy hand, O LORD, from men of the world, which have their portion in this life, and whose belly thou fillest with thy hid treasure: they are full of children, and leave the rest of their substance to their babes.
Psa 17:15 As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness.

Psalm 22,

Psa 22:1 To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
Psa 22:2 O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.
Psa 22:3 But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.
Psa 22:4 Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.
Psa 22:5 They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.
Psa 22:6 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
Psa 22:7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
Psa 22:8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.
Psa 22:9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
Psa 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.
Psa 22:11 Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.
Psa 22:12 Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.
Psa 22:13 They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion.
Psa 22:14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
Psa 22:15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
Psa 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
Psa 22:17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
Psa 22:18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
Psa 22:19 But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me.
Psa 22:20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.
Psa 22:21 Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
Psa 22:22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.
Psa 22:23 Ye that fear the LORD, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.
Psa 22:24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.
Psa 22:25 My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him.
Psa 22:26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live forever.
Psa 22:27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.
Psa 22:28 For the kingdom is the LORD's: and he is the governor among the nations.
Psa 22:29 All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul.
Psa 22:30 A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.
Psa 22:31 They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this.

had been said the beginning.

And I was thinking, that I enjoy self hate, having disrespect for myself in the sense of realizing that I, like probably most of the catholic faithful, at heart, resemble Nichomachus, who cursed Christ to escape torture on the rack, and then died in agony, because I realize that I am not the tough under torture type at heart, even though I have never actually committed the offense of cursing Christ.

I prefer the thrill of praying that I become something better than a Nichomachus, the thrill of hoping to excel a Nichomachus, the thrill of despising myself for being a Nichomachus, the thrill of reverencing those of the human race have transcended being a Nichomachus, the thrill of striving to make up for being a Nichomachus, I prefer these thrills, to expecting nothing of myself or the human race, not having high standards for myself, not reverencing the heroes, and not despising myself for being at heart something less than a martyr-saint.

Watching the ceremonies I thought of how long ago, one of the jewish lads in ancient Israel managed to become an incarnation of God, and his companions managed to become almost as great as him.

Watching the orthodox in procession, I thought of how ancient Israel, is geographically even closer to Greece than it is to Rome.

The catholics at the funeral prayed for the catholic dead and those gathered at the funeral.

And I was thinking, that we humans are bored people because we are justly punished with boredom as a punishment for our sins; and Christ came down to a level where he could become united with our bored selves, when he was, aside from however much pain he was in, bored on the cross while crucified.

And I was thinking, this funeral most wisely understood, is not about those who do not know what has happened to Pope John Paul's soul after his death being damned; this is about all those who have gone to heaven in general, the man buried at the funeral is a symbol of those who have entered heaven; otherwise we would be able to derive no spiritual benefit from dignified funerals of those regarding whom we do not know where they have gone after they have died, funerals of famous men who have lived lives that are less than saintly. I was thinking, we are called to faith in Christ and in God, not to faith in any man, and this funeral properly understood teaches us that.

I was remembering how one of the popes had said, that the final outcome regarding a man's soul remains in doubt into the final seconds of the man's life. As the service wore on, I was thinking, a funeral at its best, a funeral wisely understood, as this funeral can be understood, is not the worship of a man, as if the important thing, was believing or knowing that the man was now in a state of exaltation reserved for the greatest saints.

When I saw the elegantly dressed young catholic couples bow the knee to Cardinal Ratzinger, I did not blame them, to me, it was as if the Cardinal was a symbol of the holiest church leaders of all time; to me it was as if the funeral was a play, with various actors in the play representing the all time greats amongst people and teachers and disciples and heroes.

As the funeral wore on, I was thinking, policemen honor policemen, firemen honor firemen, lawyers honor lawyers, doctors honor doctors, and priests honor priests.

I was thinking, is this (the life of the True Church) about making up for being at heart a Nichomachus, the type who would recant under torture, by somehow pleasing God, or is it about landlords going to heaven and serfs going to hell simply because more prayers were said for the landlords because they let out property on the grounds the tenants pray for the souls of the landlords? I was thinking, this funeral, most properly understood, should inspire mankind to wisdom and virtue regarding such questions as arose in my mind during the funeral.

@2005 David Virgil Hobbs

JDJEDTJR's Dukeminierism source of failure of law in California?

JDJEDTSR is the incarnation of the combination of quantity and quality in law schools. JDJEDTSR's fourth most emphasized subject, after civil procedure, contract, and tort, is property. JDJEDTJR is the incarnation of law schools regardless of alleged quality. JDJEDTJR's favorite text for property law, is Property (Casebook) by Jesse Dukeminier of the UCLA law school ( ).

Dukeminier's approach to property law strays from the letter of the law in a given jurisdiction,and explicit agreement to the rule of extrajudicial stare decisis, common sense, and appeal to codes that various claimants in property cases agree to be or are forced by a dominant party such as one making a will to be bound to; rather Dukeminier emphasizes stare decisis or precedent stretching all the way back to Medieval Norman property law; and his analyses of Medieval Norman property law are to this day referred to by judges and attorneys in property disputes. This Dukeminier-ist approach is dominant in law schools, amongst attorneys arguing cases, and also with judges defending the decisions they have made.

Naturally, the property law system of a nation, can in some ways be expected to suffer, if property law disputes are decided by way of reference to precedent stretching all the way back to Medieval property law, as opposed to some other method being used. One would expect that a superior method would involve laws that are regularly re-written to eliminate ambiguities, combined with contractees in property agreeing beforehand to be bound by a given code in the resolution of ambiguities in the property contracts.

The Dukeminierist approach has led to the failure of the state of California to guarantee organizations, the right to retreat into a coccoon in wich its employees are shielded from distracting stimuli the owners of the organization wish to shield the employees of the organization from. This has at least in part to do with the Dukeminierist, appeal to ancient and faroff precedent, an approach dominant in the state of California, and amongst lawyers of the JDJEDTJR type arguing cases there.

Recently Intel was involved in a lawsuit against a Mr. Hamidi in the state of California ( ). Intel found itself in a position wherein it was unable to get Mr. Hamidi to stop emailing Intel employees, by simply officially requesting to Mr. Hamidi that he stop sending the email to the Intel employees. Although leaders of organizations have on an obvious interest in optimizing productivity and efficiency amongst their employees; and although leaders of organizations have an obvious right to choose if they so wish to optimize such productivity by so to speak withdrawing, with their employees, into a cocoon shielded from distracting outside stimuli, the Dukeminier-ist state of California, had no law in place that would have allowed Intel to withdraw into a cocoon, by simply requesting Mr. Hamidi to cease sending the emails; the state had no law in place that would have turned Mr. Hamidi into an offender simply because after he was officially requested, in a manner such that there was no doubt that he had been made aware of the request, he continued to send emails and disregarded the request.

Such failure on the part of the state of California to allow its businesses to retreat into a productivity cocoon, does not bode well for business in California's ability to compete with businesses in other nations where it is easy for businesses to retreat into productivity cocoons, and is a result in part of a Dukeminierist, precedentist, approach to law.

Likewise the failure of Intel lawyers to obtain from the court an injunction against the sending of emails by Hamidi, is in part an outgrowth of the Dukeminieriest attitudes of such lawyers. The Intel lawyers attempted to get the injunction on the grounds that Hamidi was guilty of the property tort "trespass against chattels", a tort rooted in a Dukeminierist precedentism-in-extremis approach to law. This approach fell flat on its face, and many of us are left wondering why the Intel lawyers plunged into the trespass to chattels approach as opposed to some other more reasonable approach such as a "nuisance" approach.

All in all, the net result of the initial failure of the state of California to allow businesses to retreat into a cocoon, combined with the failure of the Intel lawyers in court, is that businesses in the state of California are not able to retreat into a cocoon, if they so wish, by simply requesting that someone stop sending the employees of the business emails.

Whether or not it is a stupid idea for a business to retreat into a cocoon, businesses nevertheless have the right to decide whether they will retreat into a cocoon.

The Intel v Hamidi case basically, is about, should employer A, be able to prevent B, from emailing A's employees C, using A's email system? Phone calls, old fashioned "snail-mail", outsiders walking in to talk to employees, protesters standing on the street shouting into a bullhorn come to mind.

The employer A wishes to disrupt communication between B and C, the employees of A. There are various solutions for the employer. One type of solution is non-coercive, wherein the phone calls are filtered by a person or by a machine, so as to insure that B's phone calls are excluded. For example, the employer, or the leaders of the organization, could sound-proof the building they are in so that the man on the street with a bullhorn is not heard.

In the case of "snail-mail", an employee or a machine could be assigned the task of tossing out letters from B.

Still there are grounds to expect, that the employers or the leaders of the organization should not be expected to resort to such non-coercive methods, and should be able to get the source of the incoming stimuli to desist by notifying him in a manner such that there is no doubt that he has been notified, to stop emailing the employees.

Businesses and similar organizations can be hounded to death, by way of competing organizations bombarding them with letters, emails, phone calls, etc.

An email in the emailbox, is a source of work for the recipient, just as, a letter or a phone call; 1000 emails in every box, every day, would make the task of extracting important emails exhausting. 1000 snail-mail letters every day would make the task of extracting important snail-mail letters tedious; 1000 phone calls every day, would make extracting important phone calls fatiguing.

Therefore the burden of insulating the organization from distracting outside stimuli such as emails, cannot reasonably be placed on the organization, because such involves the organization having to expend time energy and money for the "insulation", when such insulation can be achieved, by laws requiring those requested to stop communicating with employees to stop communicating with employees.

Because otherwise, is to place an unreasonable burden upon an employer or similar entity, similar to requiring an employer to expend time, energy, and money on sound-proofing his business as a way of dealing with the man on the street shouting into a bullhorn.

The other issue is, that the employees who received the emails, had the option of opting out of getting further emails, which they could exercise by e-mailing the sender of the emails. Does the emphoyer have the right, to disrupt input from the outside, which the employee is given a chance and choice to abort on his own? This is akin to: letters, which an employee can stop by writing to the sender, or phone calls which an employee can stop by calling someone.

The employer, has the right, to make decisions for employees re what the employee will be exposed to on the employer's property, whileon the job. The employer has the right to decide what he wants time energy and money of employees spent on, in the course of the employees using the employer's email system; the employer for example, has the right to decide for the employee which outside talkers the employee will listen to. Employees and persons such as Mr. Hamidi are free to utilize their own email systems and websites to communicate with one another.

Nevertheless, due apparently to the Dukeminierism of JDJEDTJR-- the above arguments I make are made are made without reference to precedent-- what we witness in California is the state of California failing to guarantee to employers and similar such organizations the right to get outside elements to stop emailing their employees, simply by unmistakeably giving notice to such elements that they are requested to stop.

Such is a burden for employers, similar to an employer being required to expend time energy and money soundproofing his place of business to shut out the noise made by someone on the street with a bullhorn, as opposed to the employer being able to get the man with the bullhorn to stop simply by requesting him that he stop.

Furthermore the Dukeminierist Intel lawyers, in attempting to use medieval property law (trespass to chattels) have failed to find redress, on the grounds that no damage had been done by Hamidi to the chattel (Intel's computer system), and on the grounds that Intel's use of its chattel (its computer system) had not been disrupted by the outside emails.

@2005 David Virgil Hobbs
This represents my opinions at this time which may not coincide exactly or even remotely with fact.

Thursday, April 07, 2005

American Dukeminier Property Law Dreams

Dreams of April 6

1 Night after April 5, I had a dream, in which I saw a web page, that was about a foot high and several feet wide; you had to horizontally scroll the page to be able to take in its contents. About the top eight inches of the page were text, and below this text, there were links. These were links to personal data regarding my finances and legal situation. One of the links was to foreclosure data. These links belonged to me, but some of them were taken away by Dukeminier the law professor. In the dream, Dukeminier the law professor, was about five feet tall, thin, with goldish-reddish straight normal length hair, clean shaven, appearing to be in his 40s, wearing a long sleeved light brown shirt and I think light brown slacks; he was not wearing a tie or a suitjacket.

In real life Jesse Dukeminier is the recently deceased (God excepting those for whom we should not ask such things have mercy on the souls of the deceased in the name of the Son Christ Yayzoos known as Jesus) UCLA law professor who is the overwhelmingly important authority on property law at American law schools.

2 April 6, after a long day studying Dukeminier on property law on the internet, I took a nap. For some reason I feel uncreative tired and dispirited in that gray afternoon and evening light; I think because of the sins committed by the denizens of the city during the daytime working hours, and so it is a time when I nap.

In the dream, I saw these internet search results for a Google search on Dukeminier, that like a Google search results page. The results were just page title after page title, no excerpts from the pages returned in the search results. There was page after page of these titles. These search results were not too useful to me; they were tiring me out. Then I began getting search results for a search on Dukeminier that showed the page title, and then a paragraph of text, about seven inches high, under the title. This paragraph of text contained references to various precedent setting cases of the past. These search results were much more useful to me than the results I was getting at the beginning which were title only.

3 In another dream I had the same time I had (2), After the sun had set I dropped in at the Club Caribe (a Boston nightclub that is now closed); I felt tall, strong, healthy, well-fed; I had a vew of my favorite drinks there; for once in my life I was actually enjoying drinking, as opposed to alcohol simply giving me an appetite and then putting me to sleep. At the Caribe I hooked up with the dancer I had seen there and experienced the angelic lust for. Then I hooked up with rich Liz and her sister for some kind or romantic social occasion.

4 In yet another dream I had at the same time approx that I had (2), sometime between 7 PM and 11 PM April 6, I dream that I was sitting next to President Dubya Bush, on a low elevation. We were sitting on a bench or ridge of earth that was about a foot high and about twelve feet long and flat on top. It was dark, you could see but just barely, you could see colors but they did not look bright you could barely discern the color of the object. A few yards from us you could see the blue water with little waves all over it, of some lake or ocean. Bush had places some kind of buoy out on the water. The purpose of the buouy was to transmit or receive electronic signals of some kind. I do not now remember whether it transmitted or received signals it did one or the other. Problem was that this buoy was not succeeding in accomplishing anything by transmitting or receiving the signals.

Tuesday, April 05, 2005

The Global Mega-Conspiracy Theory Tort

Global Mega-Conspiracy Theory holds, that there has existed in the world for 200 years, a nefarious, criminal, anti-christian, economically mega-powerful, malicious, deceiftul, lying, selfish, arrogant, greedy conspiracy against mankind.

Conspiracy theories can hypothetically, or in reality, blame individually or in some combination, the following groups: Jews who are not rich (J), Jews who are rich (RJ), Gentiles (G), and rich gentiles (RG). The fifteen possible combinations of Global Mega-Conspiracy Theory are:

The guilty party(s) are:

A Single party liability theories:

1 Jews who are not rich J
2 Rich Jews RJ
3 Gentiles who are not rich G
4 Rich Gentiles RG

B Two party joint liability theories:

5 Jews who are not rich + Jews who are rich; J+RJ
6 Jews who are not rich + Gentiles who are not rich; J+G
7 Jews who are not rich + Rich gentiles; J+RG
8 Rich jews + Gentiles who are not rich; RJ+G
9 Rich jews + rich gentiles; RJ+RG
10 Gentiles who are not rich + rich gentiles; G+RG

C Three party joint liability theories:

11 Jews who are not rich + rich jews + rich gentiles; J+RJ+RG
12 Jews who are not rich + gentiles who are not rich + rich gentiles; J+G+RG
13 Jews who are not rich + rich jews + rich gentiles; J+RJ+RG
14 Rich Jews + Gentiles + rich gentiles; RJ+G+RG

D Four Party joint liability theory:

15 Jews who are not rich + Rich Jews + Gentiles who are not rich + Rich gentiles; J+RJ+G+RJ;

Thus there are 15 possible conspiracy theories. The most common theories are theories 2, 5, 9, 11, and 15.

Note that in theory 15, all groups are blamed, so that the theory is not class or race-conscious.

In every popular theory, at least one of the bad guys is the rich jew, who is said to be secretly behind most of the really bad things that have befallen mankind over the past 200 years or so. The variance amongst the popular theories, is basically to what extent innocence is awarded to the gentiles, the rich gentiles, and the jews who are not rich.

If J RJ G and RG were all able to see how the prosperity of J+RJ+G+RG could be enhanced if J RJ G and RG all swore off malicious criminal contempt for each other, whatever conspiracies they hatched, would not end up damaging J+RJ+G+RG.

@2005 David Virgil Hobbs
This represents my opinion at the current time, which may not exactly correspond with fact

Monday, April 04, 2005

JDJEDTJR fails to see the important obvious defects in the American Torts Law System He Studies

After Civil Procedure and Contracts, Torts and Property come in almost tied for third in terms of how popular and important a core subject they are in the eyes of JDJEDTSR, who is the incarnation of law schools in terms of quantity combined with alleged quality. Due to the existence of surprising, maverick schools of good reputation which require the study of property but not torts, JDJEDTSR might be said to require the study of property at slightly more schools compared to the number of schools at which he requires the study of torts, but most of the time he requires the study of both property and torts, with primacy placed upon torts in the sense that torts is studied before property.

JDJEDTJR is the incarnation of law schools regardless of alleged quality of law school. JDJEDTJR's favorite torts textbook is "Cases & Materials on Torts", by Richard A Epstein (1992) ( ). Epstein starts his book out with a description of "Vosburg v Putney", a 125 year old County Circuit Court (Waukesha, Wisconsin) case that is famous in law schools, that supposedly provides important precedent with regards to dealing with ambiguities in written law. Apparently the rest of his book goes on to plunge into case after case of the Vosburg v Putney type, analyzing how they provide precedent with regards to ambiguities in the law.

In the real world, the most important actual reference to Vosburg v Putney that I could find, was an Oklahoma court decision which alongside Vosburg v Putney referred to "American Jurisprudence 2nd", a legal encyclopaedia put out by a private publisher, "the West Group":

¶5 Defendant strenuously argues that the class had not been called to order by the teacher and that the defendants were merely playing until the teacher arrived, and therefore could not be said to have been engaged in any wrongful or unlawful acts. We do not agree. We do not believe and are not willing to hold that the willful and deliberate throwing of wooden blackboard erasers at other persons in a class room containing 35 to 40 students is an innocent and lawful pastime, even though done in sport and without intent to injure. Such conduct is wrongful, and we so hold. Under such circumstances the rule applicable to this case is well stated at 4 Am.Jur. 128, Assault and Battery, sec. 5, as follows:

"Where, however, the basis of an action is assault and battery, the intention with which the injury was done is immaterial so far as the maintenance of the action is concerned, provided the act causing the injury was wrongful, for if the act was wrongful, the intent must necessarily have been wrongful. The fact that an act was done with a good intention, or without any unlawful intention, cannot change that which, by reason of its unlawfulness, is essentially an assault and battery into a lawful act, thereby releasing the aggressor from liability."

See also Peterson v. Haffner, supra; Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261, 104 N.W. 12, 1 L.R.A., N.S., 439; Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403, 14 L.R.A. 226; Rolater v. Strain, 39 Okl. 572, 137 P. 96, 50 L.R.A., N.S., 880. We therefore conclude that there is no merit in the first proposition.


Regarding such reference to "American Jurisprudence 2nd", states:

(Ans. This (American Jurisprudence 2nd) is an encyclopedia of American law, a vast analytical outline of American case law rules on all legal topics. The writers are anonymous and do not purport to have special expertise. American lawyers and judges use it to find relevant precedents and for general orientation. Although some state court judges use it as "authority," this is inferior practice because its statements of law are based on the judgments of unknown persons about what cases have held and what legal principles are established by the cited cases. All American law students are taught to rely on their own reading of the cases, not that in American Jurisprudence or Corpus Juris.


The Oklahoma court's use of "American Jurisprudence 2nd" made more sense to me than the emphasis placed on individual precedent-setting cases by JDJEDTJR in his study of torts, but actually the reference to the legal encyclopaedia, reference to the alleged precedent of cases such as Vosberg v Putney, and the general failure of JDJEDTJR to see the defects in the case-precedent approach he plunges into, make little sense to me and do not instill me with confidence that the American legal structure is rational or built so as to promote the ability of the US to compete economically with other nations that have more rational legal structures. If I were to put my feelings into a speech to a court, the speech might go something as follows:

Statement to Court re JDJEDTJR's 'Vosberg v Putney' based approach to Tort Law and to A&B charges leveled against defendant

The counsel for the plaintiff, JDJEDTJR, is appealing to Vosburg v Putney, a 125 year old case from a county circuit court in Wisconsin. Plaintiff's counsel expects the jury to find the defendant guilty, on the basis of this 125 year old case from out of nowhere in rural Wisconsin. Such points to a kind of madness and contempt for reason on the part of the counsel for the plaintiff, JDJEDTJR, and on the part of those who have written out the laws of this state with regards to assault and battery, which indicates that as a consequence, the jury should acquit the defendant.

For 125 years now, courts all over the nation have been referring to the precedent set in a rural nineteenth century era county in Wisconsin, Vosburg v Putney; yet, in all that time, the state whose laws have jurisdiction in this case, has failed to re-write its laws on assault and battery, so as to rid such law of ambiguity, as a result of which, we are still referring to Vosburg v Putney. If the state had been competent during this time, it would have re-written the law so as to rid it of ambiguity so that there would be no need to refer to Vosburg v Putney. It should not be possible in a case such as this, to find the defendant guilty, on the grounds of laws that have been written out in incompetent fashion by the state.

Counsel for plaintiff, JDJEDTJR, has also referred to "Am Juris 2nd", and to "Corpus Juris Secundum", in his attempt to convince the court of the guilt of the defendant. Yet, the laws governing assault and battery in this state, do not contain any statement, conveying that the legislature of this state, agrees to be governed by "American Jurisprudence 2nd" or "Corpus Juris Secundum". Therefore there is no logical justification to refer to these legal encyclopaedias that are put out by some private publisher, when it comes to making arguments about this case.

True, the Vosburg v Putney case was a famous case, true, it has often been referred to by lawyers, judges, writers, and law schools, but how could anyone in their right mind, deify the decision of an obscure rural nineteenth century Wisconsin county court jury, simply because its decision has become famous and much cited? Counsel for plaintiff, JDJEDTJR, does not know exactly how many times Vosburg v Putney has been cited; counsel for plaintiff does not know how many times Vosburg v Putney has been cited compared to how many times other cases have been cited; counsel for plaintiff has not fixed any particular number of citations of case as the minimum cut-off point beyond which a case shall be deified; counsel for plaintiff can find no statement of the legislature of this state that declares that the decision of the jury in far-off rural Waukesha Wisconsin should be referred to with regards to cases of assault and battery in this state; yet counsel for plaintiff, demands that Vosburg v Putney be accorded the respect given to Holy Scripture, and to the words of the Gods! There is nothing scientific or rational about this kind of approach.

Counsel for plaintiff, JDJEDTJR, appeals to the authority of two legal encyclopaedias, "American Jurisprudence 2nd", and "Corpus Juris Secundum", both of which are published by a private collection of profit-minded individuals, known as the "West Group". Why in the world, should any special consideration or respect by paid to these two encyclopaedias produced by this private organization the West group? This state, which has jurisdiction with regards to the alleged assault and battery we are now discussing, has not in its law regarding assault and battery, given any indication, that the opinions expressed in these two legal encyclopaedias, should form the basis of the resolution of ambiguities found in the laws of this state. How then can counsel for plaintiff, behave as if special respect should be shown for the opinions found in these encyclopaedias?

The legislature of this state, in the performance of its duty to write the laws of this state, has produced ambiguous law. The ambiguities should be resolved in accordance with the written law of this state, and in accordance with common sense. There is no rational basis to resolve such ambiguity through appeal to decisions of courts that have no jurisdiction in this case, or through appeal to legal encyclopaedias produced by private organizations that are not even located in this state.

This court should not dignify the irrational conduct of this state, and of the lawyer for the plaintiff JDJEDTJR, by deciding in favor of plaintiff. Such dignification will only lead to madness and inefficiency in the courts, a general attitude that what is written into law by a state is irrelevant when it comes to offenses the state has jurisidiction over, and to this nation falling behind other nations economically, due to the legal framework upon which the economically productive activities of this nation rests, being a framework that is based on haphazard, irrational, references to precedents set in far-away, minor, nineteenth century courts that have no jurisdiction with regards to a particular case being discussed.

The nation's legal contracts situation, is a problem, and is similar to the nation's torts situation, in that in both cases there are problems with a failure on the part of contracting parties, or on the part of government, to explicitly agree to be governed by a given code or by stare decisis, as a result of which unnecessary disputes arise regarding ambiguities in contract and tort. In the one case the problem is the failure of the contracting parties to agree beforehand to be governed by a given code in the resolution of ambiguities; in the other case the problem is the failure of government to specify whether stare decisis or a given code should regulate the resolution of ambiguities in law. To simply assume assent is given to the governance of a code or approach in the resolution of ambiguities, when such assent has not in fact been given, is to also blythely assume that when such assent indeed has in actuality been given, it has not been given. The law of contract is of obvious importance to a society's economic health. Therefore I have emphasized the problem of the assumption that tort law has given its assent to domination by a given code or approach when in fact such assent has not been given, and therefore I have emphasized the economic consequences of such.

@2005 David Virgil Hobbs
This essay expresses my opinions as of now, which may not completely correlate with fact.