I want to reemphasize what I wrote in Sept 2020: “Amendment2: I want to preface this, in light of the murder of the federal judge's son and wounding of her husband and every aspect of that attack. There is no corner of any dimension of the multiverse where you can find any suggestion by me that this is not totally awful.  It should be obvious that I have a LOT of issues with many judges and I believe they should not be judges, BUT violence against them is not only awful; it won't solve any issues about courts, and it will make them worse. That's not just a trite-sounding line."

The long-term (~8-10 year) goal of this anti-corruption project is to disable (and ultimately eradicate) the lawyer monopoly, which is THE (UnConstitutional) royal class in the US—as confirmed by Tucker Carlson; and I'm not saying I agree or disagree with him on anything else because I don't watch him or anyone else on TV. 

The scourge of the lawyer-monopoly-mob has crippled our precious Bill of Rights and essentially destroyed due process and property rights.  The 1983 Feldman MISTAKEN-Rule has been the enabler.  This can be fixed by a REALLY pissed-off engineer (i.e. me) who will give them logical HELL in the form of a design review (Debugging the Constitution), which I can present to whatever PEACEFUL Constitutionally-oriented group wants to hear it.  Send some modest donations, please, and we can arrange it.  Remember: violence in the name of this project (or of anything) will screw the pooch.  You want a pissed-off engineer to rip the chumps VERBALLY to shreds.

Twitter Feed  2-finger up-gesture → scroll downward 

4/29/23: "Quick" explanation to today's liberal-Democrats (from a '72 McGovern Watergate 9th-grade envelope-stuffer when "liberal" meant opposed to Nixon's slow-ineffective-obviously-worthless peace w/honor when his pieces weren't blowing off in a shrapneled  jungle): From Day1, Trump attacked the ROOT CAUSE of all our major domestic problems (including George Floyd's death & five Dallas officers gone)—the judge-underbosses of the lawyer-monopoly-mob.  The ABA is the godfather entity.  No prez has ever attacked them as Trump did, not even close.  And he continues to—even while assaulted by obviously-political prosecutors and a lawsuit funded by Reid Hoffman who should NOT be on a defense advisory panel, Ted Cruz,  And I will explain more later to those who can't see the obvious (not that I'll change their minds).

The lawyer-judge protection racket (the royal-lawyer class; confirmed by Tucker Carlson) has made any notion of a "rule of law," a myth. (Here's a mockup of the ACTUAL rule of law for a RICO claim, one variant; this is Congress' job—to REGULATE the corrupt lower federal courts—fully-authorized under Article III.  This mockup esentially uses a jury instruction, which is what the actual law is—not inflated baloney-mumbo-jumbo.

The first Judge-in-Pocket I saw (Chrissie Hynde saw hers in an Ohio family law courtroom ) was Paul Grewal, who later went to work for Zuckerberg & now Coinbase. Grewal was obviously in the pocket of big SF law and was bailed out by a 9th Circuit panel of dicktators (who simply say what is expedient regardless of any "law") including Richard Clifton, who is now president of the Federal Judges Association.  This the group whose former president (now VP) Cynthia Rufe made the Mother of All Backpedals (i.e. lied), as quoted here:

"The FJA is non-partisan...(the reporter ELURA NANOS ridiculed the statement). Right, because being committed to non-partisanship clearly means that federal judges won’t (or shouldn’t) notice when a sitting president attempts to influence federal criminal sentencing. Let’s be serious: Judge Rufe’s statements as to the purpose of the 'emergency meeting' may not have been the most prudent to share with the media – but they certainly smack of honesty. The FJA’s official statement made no alternative explanation for the judge’s comments, nor did it say that USA Today had been incorrect in its reporting. For a group of federal judges, these people don’t seem to have a solid handle on what’s persuasive."

This Elura Nanos (who happens to be a lawyer who coaches those applying to law school) effectively called this judge Rufe a liar, which was obviously true.  Ms. Nanos, in principle, could lose her law license (assuming she has an active one) because she plenty of judges could find that she violated ABA Rule 8.2—the mob's code of silence: lawyers can't say anything bad about a judge, even if the judge (Rufe) herself made it clear she was lying.  I've written about this plenty, and I'll consolidate it here in the near future.  (More updating soon.)

FEC Complaint against Fox News & JD Vance:  I've finally had some time to read the FEC lawyers' (3 of them) "report" dismissing my complaint against Fox News & Vance.  Not surprisingly, these FEC lawyers (like so many lawyers) don't know the difference between a fact and a legal standard—which is just the LAW(facts) function  machine from 10th grade math.  (Lawyers skipped math for student council, I guess.).  You plug the facts into the LAW f unction and out pops the legal conclusion. For example, IF(Parallel_Park & 3-Point_Turn & Fasten_Seatbelt*) THEN Pass_Driver_Test.   The law is just a Boolean function, usually AND.  This is called a legal standard.  You meet the minimal necessary conditions for the driver-permit standard, and the LAW function gives you a permit.  A great many lawyers & judges don't understand this.   In Minnesota courts (and a huge number of other courts), they have the ridiculous, megalomaniacal notion that there's "discretion" in everything a judge does.  They think the "law" allows the driver examiner to say: "I believe you cannot pass this driver-permit test, so you fail.  No reason necessary for this king, despot, absolutist, tyrant...whatever.  They have put this BS over on the public—and have gotten away with it for so long—it's a mass brainwashing of everyone.  I've called it the royalty psychosis, pertaining to the lawyer and judges (and those who've been reading know this very well), but the media have amplified and perpetuated this brainwashing, too.

*BTW, as I've also written: just fasten your flippin-floppin seat belt.  This isn't the nanny state talkin'; I'm 80% ghost who's telling you that I'd be 100% gone if I hadn't had it fastened when I hit the ground at 150mph, which I don't remember (except for post-trauma, suppressed memories that are even weirder than my persona here).

It is essential that the US hold together for at least 5 (and probably 10) years to counter the principal Russia-China threat—and others. The FED may well be losing control of prices, now. Next up: Capital controls→odd/even-plate gas days, grocery,etc.

Monopolies—Concentrations of Power—Are THE Problem: THE ROOT CAUSE (two monopolies in one) of vanishing economic & political freedom (also 2 in 1). Nothing will be truly fixed without removing the root problem.  I will debate the judges outside their corrupt, autocratic, courtrooms in the pocket of their lawyer-criminal pals. Silence from the lawyer mob, of course, because they know they don't stand a chance. This debate will happen, however. Every monopoly has its associated myth, intoned mantra-like to lull & gull Mr/Ms. Peebles (formerly known as We the People) into ignoring the corruption.

Money-Printing Monopoly                           Lawyer Monopoly 

Myth: Free Markets                                                                 Myth: Rule of Law

This campaign is about saving/restoring our rights from the destroyers—the lawyer-monopoly, flying under the radar and infecting the courts & Congress & a huge fraction of the Executive; the media, & finance. This is also about saving us from the money-printing monopoly—the FED. (Why think small for a project?) The FED, however, has FOIA and whistle-blower laws; the courts have neither. Whatever corruption the FED itself might have pales by comparison with the courts. Still, the money-printing monopoly-system is inherently a hugely inequitable way of manipulating—yes manipulating—the money supply. The Greenspan Social Transform (with its  manipulations) magnifies those inequities immensely.  

The lawyer monopoly & the failure of the courts are much easier problems to fix than is the money-printing monopoly. But the latter problem is not hopeless, as I'll describe. 

You think we have a country remotely like that defined in the Constitution? Our due process & property rights are at the end of the extinction path, led by the dodo imbecile-judges. The FED's infinite money printing will come to an end when they lose control of prices, maybe soon. Then, capital controls: odd/even gas days, grocery days, toilet days. Bitcoin is NOT a solution with any stability. It is the opposite: a brilliant enabler of instability and a financial mousetrap. It is NOT 'digital gold,' Woz: a random search beginning in the Himalayas, then to the Marianas trench (& lugging your mining kit) is different from one random-seed nonce to the next. Try it, Woz. That's physics; and you of all people, a hardware engineer, should know this.

The 9th Amendment is the unsung hero: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or DISPARAGE others retained by the people." This is one of the greatest sentences in the English language. It has the only occurrence of the word, "disparage," in the Constitution.  "Disparage" is a very good word because it is "orthographically" similar to garbage.  "Orthographic" is having to do with spelling.  Disparage means to treat someone or something like garbage.   Paraphrased, Am9 is: "Nothing written in the Constitution shall destroy or make garbage of any natural (God-given) right you have." If a judge treats you or your rights like garbage, it's the eeejection seat, as we grade-schoolers used to say in the 60's. It is a violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution. The mathematical proof is short. I'll show you.

July 2020: "China and Russia (further) aligning is VERY bad. Do not unnecessarily p.off the Russians. Respect the Russian people, their enormous talents and rich culture; those have been around far longer than any government and are distinct from it.  This is not Russian "sympathizing" or "apologizing."  This is smart generally and especially with the Russians.  You don't invite people with nukes, world-class scientific expertise (to say nothing of their music and literature) and more, of which they are deservedly proud, to want to take a shot at you." 

There was a professor, down by the banks of the dirty-water Charles, who wrote: "Outside of logic and mathematics, our basis for separating fact from fancy has to be probability, whose elementary laws are beyond dispute." This is also one of the greatest sentences in the English language, though it's not clear to me that probability is outside of logic or math, but Irving Segal was a lot smarter than I; and I've quoted that to the 9th Circuit Court and, I believe, to the Sup Ct, because it states how we came out of the caves. If you have a real job—like cutting metal on a milling machine (I've got two) or diagnosing an engine problem (I've got all my FAA powerplant signoffs) or HVAC or plumbing or anything electro-mechanical or troubleshooting on the electronics testbench  (and yes, software too:)—then you know how to separate fact from fancy, because you've learned the hard way that the physical world will kick your butt if you don't throw out all assumptions and strive for objectivity in analyzing a problem. Judges, who are polysci's and similar, can't identify a spark plug under the hood. This matters a LOT. They ignore reality or try to write around reality.  You cannot, not on your job. They get away with anything and everything. They are troglodytes, benighted in their caves, and they are the root cause of every major domestic problem we have. 

You DON'T need any more lawyers in Congress. You Need An Engineer (with engineered Titanium in him:)

Because It Really Is "Different This Time" 

Middle American Morning: Time to End the Lawyer Monopoly, the Royal Class, the Math Incompetents; Get-Rid-Of-The-Fokken (It's Dutch!) Lawyers — GROTFL

Donate, Please (Text  John to ‪651- 321-8381‬), to show your support for John's taking the debate AND SOLUTIONS to the know-nothing Congress-lawyers and the senators too entrenched to know better: Senate Recall Rule, Mid-America Congress Center, more. You don't like Citizens United? Defuse it with Synch-Text-Opposing-Positions linked to opponents' websites. Simple/Do it Now, TV broadcasters! Support John's campaign for New Hampshire & for keeping the US intact, because the world depends on an integral US leading the Technology Way for viable SOLUTIONS! John will debate any/all lawyers, Congressors (passive or aggressive:) to stop the Baloney-talk and get to SOLUTIONS! Cut through the baloney,  DONATE!

Minnesota Courts, Law Schools, ABA, & More:Murderers!

Rule of Law: Functional Requirements Definition (Are you watching, Minnesota Law Morons & others?)

Click On Links Below the Scrolling -- Must switch to desktop view for proper scrolling on cellphone (sorry!)

(Text  John to ‪651- 321-8381‬)

All The Sediment's Men & Women

The DJT Accelerator Lab; Letter to Congresswoman Omar Re: My Candidacy

Letter to Chrissie Hynde Re: Judge in Pocket

Yes, (ex parte) Virginia, there is a Santa Claus;it's called the 14th Amendment

Our Muncie M22 Government and the Greenspan Transform

"I'm assuming here that you don't want to be treated like an idiot and that you believe you deserve the opposite of such treatment." 

• The courts have failed and gone awry, giving license to bad cops to put a knee on a neck and more. The "rule of law" is a myth. Good police suffer tragic retribution. The world suffers. (If you don't think so, vote for someone else). Congress can fix this relatively easily. My frozen, near-death, shattered body was saved by a hundred police, firefighters, EMTs, and other heroes. I am highly motivated. WashDC power must be decentralized.  It will begin to defang the media, who are for the centralized DCNY power interests.  To a large extent this includes "Midwest" media, too.  They are interested in good "stories" and maintaining cash flow.  First, a Senate chamber and offices built in the US geographic center — fully networked to the DC Capitol and in full authoritative combination with DC.  Draw a big circle around Kansas City, and think about this, Mitch; and Cincinnati, Madison, Dakotas, Utah, Texas, etc. The cost, relative peanuts. Travel efficiencies↑democracy↑↑↑ How naïve of me.

Triskelion Provider PAC Funds 15,000 Quatloos for Berman, US Senate Candidate for Ohio

When Good Men Just ...

I Like Vince Gill

The Figliuzzi Code

And What A Time It Was

 Judge Puty; Computational Justice.

The federal courts have failed. They could not scale-up from 1789.  They are obsolete and not up to the job.  It was a good try by the 1789 designers, but engineering any system bumps up against realities of scale. State court systems are out of control and were set on this path in 1983 by a Supreme Court decision.  George Floyd died because of this, and I have particular grief for his little daughter.  I decided to file my candidacies because of that grief.  I have a Midwest strategy.  I explain this in my blog.

Judge Puty (JP) runs on your cellphone. JP would not be the last word.  That would be silly.  JP would be the first word and express the "Intent of Congress" (or your State Legislature if it follows suit) on your problem that you might want to take to court (or to a government agency, but that would be much more complicated and probably not feasible any time soon).  Judge Puty inherited Lucy's Doctor-is-In stand, so she costs only a nickel.:)

If a human judge thinks Judge Puty is wrong, then the judge must say why.  That is not optional, and Congress can enforce that.  It's high time judges say why.  Anthony Kennedy insisted on this, and he was right on the mark. It's in my blog.  JP's technology is simple and quite feasible by today's standards.  JP has some questions to ask you and some answers to give you, expressing "the intent of Congress."  Congress should leverage technology to communicate in the most effective way with those who pull the lever in the voting booth.  The voters have the true leverage.  Use it and vote for the 5¢ Judge Puty solution.  FEMA denied what Governor Walz said was 500MIL in damage.  $500MIL : 5¢ = 10 BIL to 1 leverage -- ok, with a few assumptions; but it's still a lot of leverage when you figure in death and destroyed lives and heartbreak.  

A small cost to yield working courts that deliver truly-objective due process.  Judge Puty's computational (and therefore objective) court articulates the intent of Congress (which is the law and what courts are supposed to try to "ascertain") and does NOT permit unlimited "judicial discretion" or unlimited police "discretion" -- as in a knee on a neck.  Save lives, heartbreak, and 500MIL -- for a nickel or maybe a little more.  That's leverage any way you cut it.  Simplistic, you say?  It's a simple and inexpensive step in the right direction, and time will tell whether it's effective or simplistic.  That's called engineering and a good bet. 

Amendment 1:  Don't shout "Jamoca!" at a swimming pool in summer.  Aside from that Am1 is inviolate.

Amendment2:  I want to preface this, in light of the murder of the federal judge's son and wounding of her husband and every aspect of that attack.  There is no corner of any dimension of the multiverse where you can find any suggestion by me that this is not totally awful.  It should be obvious that I have a LOT of issues with many judges and I believe they should not be judges, BUT violence against them is not only awful; it won't solve any issues about courts, and it will make them worse.  That's not just a trite-sounding line.  I believe, obviously, that the Judge Puty (Totoware) technical solution WILL fix the courts and the great many things courts affect -- easily and quickly.  I grieve for her son, as I do for Otto and Mr. Floyd's daughter and Mr. Shaver's daughters (and the rest of the families).  The particular thought of a 20-year and growing light in the human sky getting snuffed-out just by opening the door makes my heart shudder in its own way.  This is what I wrote prior to my reading about the New Jersey judge: the 2nd Amendment is critical and every bit as important as any other Amendment or Article or Section or Clause and right alongside the 1st Amendment and for good reason; but Am2 was and is the Constitution's insurance policy.  It is NOT the primary means of "petitioning," and no one should ever say or even think that I've suggested otherwise or ever will.  These days a person can attract scrutiny and obloquy simply by speaking and by speaking a reasonable interpretation.  My view is that my interpretation is much more than merely "reasonable:"  "hunting" and "sport" are mere fringe benefits of Am2, not its reason.  And one doesn't have to go to extrinsic Federalist/Schmederalist sources.  The reason is protection of what are most dear; and that includes protecting Am1.  So long as Am1 (and separately, family and property) is truly protected and truly available -- and that includes the right to petition courts (about which the Sup. Ct. said "The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition")  and election votes are truly counted and not "stuffed" --  then Am2 is merely insurance.  The US consists of at least two sub-countries, and Am2 does not scale well as population density increases.  I'd no sooner take my '87 F-350 crew cab to NYC than I would a firearm (and that was true even before I became an "incomplete quadriplegic").  Sure, there was Umpqua College in Roseburg, OR and Red Lake, MN and others (I'm looking at the Wiki on school massacres); but population density is the strongest factor.   The choice is the degree of school security/fortification.  Put Biden's 2-TRIL climate "fix" towards school security, and children would benefit more from that than supposed "climate security."  (No, the science is not "settled," and climate "engineering" is a wild guess, at best.)  The greater the population density, the greater the chance there will be friction that leads to something bad; and more targets.  Give people greater access to speak their minds by petitioning in court, and they won't "speak their mind with a gun in their hand(s)."  (C. Cross' best line.)

Poor Richard had the engineering insight to see that there was really Article  0, which the other founders were calling, "We the People."  But the others weren't recognizing that this "We the People" thing was really the first and most important Article -- the real McCoy -- so Poor Richard put it first, as Article 0.  Poor Richard knew that Mr. (and Ms.) Peebles worked better, in the broader grammatical context, than "We the People" did (see my blog).  Mr. Peebles also has Congress, Article I, the big Magilla. Poor Richard knew that Magilla was not supposed to be for sale, but there was always that risk. I am not for sale, and I have real solutions.

You can copy and paste it into a text file and run it in a Mac terminal window by typing: Python (the filename).  I think a Windows terminal requires some Python add-on.  It’s Totoware, alpha release (see my blog, What would Auntie Em have said? Gale v. Gulch, In Re Toto II).  Minnesota courts have jurisdiction over Oz and for good reason.

There is no Constitutional right to a drivers license, but "In such cases the licenses are not to be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment.” (Bell v. Burson (1971).)  And “when a State opts to act in a field where its action has significant discretionary elements, it must nonetheless act … in accord with the Due Process Clause.” (Evitts v. Lucey (1985.)  “But this Court now has rejected the concept that constitutional rights turn upon whether a governmental benefit is characterized as a "right" or as a "privilege.”  (Graham v. Richardson (1971).) 

There is no Constitutional right to a $1200 check, either (this is an example; my case is not about a $1200 check).  But Due Process applies everywhere a government acts in the U.S.  Except in Minneapolis courts and reviewing courts, apparently.

Though I cited Evitts (Lucey and Ethyl and Ricky too) to the Minneapolis federal court (and the Minnesota State courts) those judges ignored it or didn’t understand that this country requires Due Process in a government’s granting or revocation of privileges, not just rights.  I’ll have to explain that to them again today in a motion.  You know what the answer will be, of course.  As I wrote (in Document 14, p. 20 in the federal court), a Minnesota judge will do whatever’s necessary “to get his pals off the hook.”  I think the people of Minnesota should know this.  I think they are good people and would see that it’s contrary to law and also wrong otherwise.

This extreme cronyism was the arbitrary writing on the wall of the Hennepin military regime (certified by the appellate court) that I referenced on April 15, six weeks before Mr. Floyd was deprived of his right to oxygen.  The cronyism apparently extends to Minneapolis federal judges, not surprisingly.  That was easy to predict. 

Congress decides what’s impeachable.  “Abuse of power” is impeachable.  The recent impeachment and trial showed that.  President Trump was tough enough to stick through it.  Many people don’t like him, obviously.  He should be credited with, among other things, getting Congress to demonstrate that “abuse of power” is impeachable.  (He didn’t abuse his power, and anyone who has tried to get a controlled experiment to work in a lab should realize that; I’ll explain another time.)  Democracy was not supposed to be pretty.  A knee on a neck is ugly.

“Abuse of discretion” is abuse of power.  When the abuse is extreme, Congress can decide it is impeachable.  Same with legislatures.  The courts are the problem.

Open-source software -- reviewed and certified by Congress -- transmits “the intent of Congress.”  That intent can include holding judges to account for decisions that ignore their own case law -- and statute, of course.  The software is Congress “holding to account … the independence of the judiciary.”  Anthony Kennedy said so, and I agree.  The software can save $500MIL in Minneapolis disaster zones, plus lives, plus little daughters’ and sons’ heartbreak.  It’s simple to write and it’s cheap.

A state can't act arbitrarily, which means "just because I say so," the way the Hennepin County judge acted; and which Minnesota reviewing courts said was just fine; and which prompted me to write that Hennepin is a "military regime' and an accident waiting to happen; and prompted me to put this all in federal court where it can be seen more easily and over which federal courts have jurisdiction.  If the state does act arbitrarily, it's unfair and by definition a due process violation.  If people are grouped as a class for unfair treatment, it opens up "equal protection."  Any hard-sci engineer can easily understand these concepts and diagram them out.  Software engineers conceptualize and code-up stuff -- in their sleep -- far more complicated than these rules that judges get wrong all the time, often because they are bailing out their buds.  This is word problem stuff, like 8th grade algebra.

Open source software would be submitted to Congress for review, testing (only needed if Congress were not in the loop during testing, but I don't see why it couldn't be), and approval.  And if I were there, you can bet I would push harder than anyone to get this process in place and fast.  Congress can do this because -- like everyone else -- Congress has the right to speak about the job the courts are doing.  Congress is making known its intent.  My preference is engineering, far more so than -- hold my nose -- "politics," but I have personal reasons for doing this (read my blog), and you won't find anyone more committed to it and harder-working for it.

My example, above, (my case) addresses a large class of cases in which federal courts get around doing their job.  A beta release of Totoware covering due process, alone, would cover a lot of useful ground.  Cases of real due-process violations are thrown out all the time by federal courts.  This would get the courts in line and make "police reform" and other legislation actually effective, because Congress has say over whether judges are doing their jobs and whether they need to go.  And voters have the final say over Congress.  That is something you can bet I'd never forget.

I'm talking here to the software Aces of the world (of which I am not one; I'm a hardware engineer who does software as needed for hardware bring-up and debug).  I'm not talking to the lawyers, though of course they are welcome to state their point of view because a real engineering environment has genuine free speech -- save for disasters like Challenger.  But the lawyers should remember: this is an engineering approach, where reality counts 100% of the time.   Not legalgoop disassociated from reality.   

"Technology, Baby"

August 6, 2020:  It’s technology, Baby, said Tele Savalas, the telecom hardware engineer.  Optical systems guy.  He also played a Fender Tele in his off hours.  Tele had a micro array of phase conjugate mirrors etched into the substrate covering his skull.  Way a-head of his time.  His hobby was catching bad guys.  

About John: Engineer - electronic hardware design and test; MSEE Stanford/Ginzton Lab-applied physics; B.A. Oberlin College, physics, math. email: john4midwest@gmail.com .

August 24, 2020:  Should a legislator be a "helicopter parent?"

I think so (and dealing with a Russian mom and grandma of my daughter, I have considerable expertise on helicopter parenting).  I've got a lot on my plate at the moment, so I'm telling you a quick, general thought about how I see legislation.  You can probably figure out what I'm going to say, based on what I've written, but here it is more explicitly: I don't think Congress' (or a state legislature's) job is done when it passes a bill into law.  I'm not talking about funding it and deciding what agencies do what.  I'm talking about something like...Yes, you guessed correctly!  An amendment to a civil rights act!  And Carol Merrill, show us what's behind Door Number One!  Jay Stewart intones: Yeeeeeeees, it's a brand new, sparkling clean 1996 Improvement to the original 1871 Civil Rights Act.  And it comes with a case of Borateem chlorine-free color safe power bleach!  (You can watch Monty Hall and Let's Make a Deal on Youknowwhere.  60s kids watched this stuff when they were home from school with the flu and such.)

Courts have essentially ignored the 1996 Improvement Act, at least the part that allows a person in state court to take an out-of-control state judge to federal court.  You need federal judges who, as a first step, know how to read.  But then, who also know how to be judges and not ignore Congress' words they don't like.  As I've said -- and the reason I decided to file for this candidacy -- I believe George Floyd's daughter would have her daddy today if Congress were a helicopter parent and saw that judges who don't know how to be judges got a spanking -- and the boot too.  Out of court.  I won't say boot "off the bench," because "the bench" is a sacred baseball term near and dear to my h.....butt.  The sacred word, "bench," should be outlawed with respect to judges, but that would run afoul of the 1st Amendment, which is even more sacred.

Congress' job includes that of a helicopter parent overseeing his or her (their collective) legislative child after passage into the wilds of the world, including the court system.  And to protect that child from judges who do not understand that they are supposed to "ascertain the intent of Congress," not ignore and/or rewrite what they don't like.  Now, I'm not saying that Anthony Kennedy is my idol or anything because he's not, but I give credit where it's due (or try to), and he deserves credit for putting one well over the center field fence, as I've noted.  Next time I'll discuss the KJ (Kennedy J.) function in the design flow of Totoware of the Judge Puty Project.  I know I've detoured from this core mission, and I apologize.  I have a lot going on, and I'm getting back to this core function as fast as I can. 

BTW, in the department of never underestimating the Russians (and I never have), at the high end of the weaponry scale, there's atomic, thermonuclear, and then thermobabushkular.  You don't want to get on the wrong side of a Russian grandma.  Trust me.

About John: Engineer - electronic hardware design and test; MSEE Stanford/Ginzton Lab-applied physics; B.A. Oberlin College, physics, math. email: john4midwest@gmail.com .

About John: Engineer - electronic hardware design and test; MSEE Stanford/Ginzton Lab-applied physics; B.A. Oberlin College, physics, math. email: john4midwest@gmail.com .

About John: Engineer - electronic hardware design and test; MSEE Stanford/Ginzton Lab-applied physics; B.A. Oberlin College, physics, math. email: john4midwest@gmail.com .

August 29, 2020:  When you "drill down" (the new 'with it' 'phrasal verb' -- I had to look up what a verb with an attached adverb might be called, and 'phrasal" appears to be it) into Tina's menu of actions items or just items, you get the Spam or Cheese-Whiz homogenized, standard stuff probably written by her staff but maybe by her.   Spam and Cheese-Whiz were both staples of mine at one time; and I'm quite a believer in well-preserved food for myself, which I'll explain more about later; it involves living in my car.  BTW, I'm thinking of moving to Austin, MN near the Spam Museum.  It's also near Rochester and the Mayo Clinic, and I want to consult with Mayo docs on whether we can fashion a Spam substitute for my removed discs and perhaps other laminectomy-removed vertebrae components -- like the back of them.  I still have more than enough backbone, though, to represent you highly effectively -- more so than Tina and Amy are demonstrating.  

The professional cropping of this photo has in no way hidden any bulges that are frequently associated with other male bodies.  The "V" crop is entirely consistent with the underlying reality of a well-controlled diet of Pepperidge Farm Double Nantuckets...hmmmm, cookie and burger. 

About John: Engineer - electronic hardware design and test; MSEE Stanford/Ginzton Lab-applied physics; B.A. Oberlin College, physics, math. email: john4midwest@gmail.com .

Fundamental #3.

Three weeks after that, I was arrested by the Garbage Cop -- someone who thinks she's a superman-woman who is the "Great Protector."  As I said, people in power, especially judges and cops, who do not know how to throw out all assumptions -- the way the lab and the shop and the garage teach people with their hands on the electrical and mechanical stuff -- are very dangerous.

I can't find a saxophone rendition of, I guess I'll go eat worms.  Maybe you know of one?  But soon I'll show you the bodycam video and audio side-by-side with the "police narrative."  You can decide for yourselves if the arrest was  (cross out those which do not apply):   

A) Consistent with the Fourth Amendment's "right of Mr. Peebles to be secure in his person against unreasonable seizures, which right shall not be violated but upon probable cause."  

B) Consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of "the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children."  

C) &#!@%  

As I've mentioned, a (guy) nurse in the ICU (I had been sent back to the ICU, a couple of weeks after I woke up, for heart racing -- yes, I made the jokes), who was a Vet and had counseled Vets on PTSD, told me that's what it was.  We were talking about how, at 9000 ft up, I suddenly knew I was a dead man.  The hallucinations, too, while I was in the coma for 2 weeks.  He said that you never forget the images and feelings, but you learn how to deal with them.  I told him I suppose so, but Vets -- who've been in foxholes or were just standing there when an acoustic shock wave shifted their grey matter -- had real PTSD.  I'd deal with it, but I very much appreciated his concern and counseling.  He also told me to "journal it," write it down.  It will help you, he said.  That's what some of this is.   

To the Vets in the news today (who have PTSD, and I don't doubt it) who are getting hot under the collar about the "anonymously-sourced" article in the Atlantic about DJT's supposedly dissing the military -- I say, Don't Be A Sucker.  You were on the battlefield and are paying the price in PTSD.  I was at 9000 feet and knew I was a dead man -- twice, the second time in a near vertical dive with the AI hard down at night, with ice, with mountains only 1500 feet below.  I'm not scared of any anonymous sources.  They should show their "courageous" faces.  You, Vets, should not be scared of them either.  Biden and his running mate are lawyers.  Those endorsing them and dissing DJT are lawyers and D.C. insiders.  Don't be a sucker.  

You want un-afraid representation in Congress?  I'm your guy.  Don't Be A Sucker.

About John: Engineer - electronic hardware design and test; MSEE Stanford/Ginzton Lab-applied physics; B.A. Oberlin College, physics, math. email: john4midwest@gmail.com .

Fundamental #4.

The Collinwood

Fundamental #4 comes from a show called Dark Shadows.  I first heard about this show when kids -- especially older kids -- were talking about it at the neighborhood swimming pool.  I'm pretty sure this was when I was in 6th grade.  Because older kids were talking about it, it sounded very sophisticated.  I watched it almost every day after school for a time in 7th grade.  There was a big, spooky house that needed a lot of work, especially in its abandoned wings -- East, West wing whatever they were.  And there were kids who foolishly went up the flight of stairs and then crossed to the left on a landing, and, then opened the door to the abandoned wings, which had cobwebs and a lot of clutter and sometimes a jilted old lady in a wedding dress with a face that could stop 13 clocks.  

This lady would put head trips on the younger generation.  So who needed all that?  Especially with all that home maintenance, something that has never been my long suit.  I could never keep up with it.  

This is why I simply do not care one whit how many rooms or wine caves or hotels or islands with hotels someone has.  

These things all require maintenance that either I would have to do, or I would have to hire someone to do.  Neither of those things appealed to me, especially since 1) mowing lawns in awful heat and humidity was the way for a kid to make money back then where I lived;  and 2) I don't like managing people.  As I told you (up the page), I was a reluctant safety patrol in 6th grade.

And if all that wasn't enough with this Collinwood mansion, the house had vampires too.  I sure didn't need those.  There was one vamp, though, Angelique.  A real babe.  Even as a corpse, she was drop dead gorgeous.  I think there was a spike 10 years later in dental school applications from boys who had wanted her impressions. Bicep, deltoid, pec...not so keen on hickeys and extra careful otherwise.............

As far as I was concerned, all I needed was my little bedroom with my model rockets and car models and stuff.  And if I felt nostalgic, I could get out my stuffed animal toys and Bop the Beetle.  Besides, if a vampire appeared, I knew how to put the English on the orange Bopper stick and get a solid line drive with the blue or orange beetle.  And my friends and I had discovered there was real silver in Testors silver model paint. So if I'd wanted to, I could paint a beetle silver and Bop a line drive into a vamp to stun him, and then finish him off with a wooden stake.  I had it figured out.  

Angelique’s in the Rock and Roll History Hall of Frame, too.  Along with Three Dog Night and Lord Acton (click on Scarecrow).  She sang backup with the Pointer Sisters on Fangomatic.  

Having lived several hundred years (and aged extremely well, considering), she has a sense of the sweep of history.  She branched off into her own genre, starting The Biting Blondes -- Punk or New Wave, one of those.

About John: Engineer - electronic hardware design and test; MSEE Stanford/Ginzton Lab-applied physics; B.A. Oberlin College, physics, math. email: john4midwest@gmail.com .

There are examples of sociopathic, unconscionable, or other aberrant  behaviors we know about.  Needless to say, Carlos Devadip Santayana is also in the Rock & Roll History Hall of Fame.  Here, the Children's Highlights hidden picture is that Defarge lady, with the magic sticks.  You know, "knit one purl two, gotta get my Ginsu too."  That was the Ginsu I.  The Ginsu II didn't come along until a couple of hundred years later, the 1970s.  In my book, I calculate the cost, in today's dollars, of a guillotine.  It was pricey (or "spendy" as they say around Portland, which is having a really bad time now, so I'll be putting off, as long as I can, my criticisms of the Oregon court system and government generally).  Also, just so there's no misunderstanding about the Defarge lady and her Ginsu/guillotine, I do not support violence as a solution to these problems.  You can search for "Amendment 2" on this page and read up above what I wrote.  (BTW, one reason I'm writing everything on one page here is to make it easy to search for terms I reference.)  The guillotine and other tools of Mme. Defarge's day were old technology.  Our modern technology - such as what I'm doing now - is the correct and up-to-date way of attacking problems.  There's also the Bobby Fischer factor, which I'll be cryptic about and explain another time.

Okay, so as I was saying, illustrated above are examples of sociopathic, unconscionable, or other aberrant  behaviors we know about.   Burke copies long passages verbatim from his cronies and ignores everything else.  This illustrates his complete absence of knowledge about very basic legal principles and incompetence as a judge.  A real judge (and there are some) is supposed to weigh things in a balance and recite what he's weighing.  (And a computer can do this for a wide variety of cases, which is my Judge Puty solution.)  Burke is not a real judge and is so far being from a real judge; and makes this more obvious than any "judge" I've ever seen.  Burke was the first shocking and strong indicator to me, last Feb. 10, that there's something terribly wrong in Hennepin.  Secondarily - apart from his abysmal legal ignorance and incompetence - Burke is an unconscionable dictator, a moral monster.  And I'm not at all a so-called "bleeding heart liberal;" or a liberal at all, certainly by today's definition.  But Burke is simply appalling, both morally and functionally as a judge.  Here's what Burke told Dorothy in the case In Re Toto II :

"Ms. Gale is self-represented and arguably disadvantaged in litigation against an experienced trial lawyer when the germane issue is civil procedure. Having said that, Ms. Gale is a very thorough writer – indeed, more thorough than some lawyers who have appeared before this Court. However, it is clear Ms. Gale has not had the advantage of legal training and has not been advised on the rules of civil procedure. As byzantine as civil procedure can be, Ms. Gale’s claim against the Defendant has been litigated sufficiently in other courts. This case is dismissed."

Dorothy gave this idiot Burke a piece of her mind, just as Aunty 'Em gave Gulch the what-for (Gulch v. Gale, In Re: Toto I) when Aunty 'Em came back into the living room, after she had reconciled her Christianity with what needed to be said.

(You can read more at https://bulloney.com/f/compare-and-contrast-assignment-for-minnesota-legislature )

-------  

Sure, there are outlier judges in plenty of counties and review courts (appeals and high courts), but Burke is unique.  In other courts, judges talk among themselves, of course, and typically have ways of putting a leash on an outlier judge.  (I could give an example in the 9th Circuit appeals court (no, not Koz), but I need to think about how to say it.)  Not only does Burke write like a high-school student trying to sound like a judge, but he's a phony on everything else, including the law.  He's not a fraud because, even though the intelligence threshold for fraud is very low (a fraudster needs to be able make some basic calculation in order to have fraudulent intent), Burke doesn't meet even that threshold.  He's just a fool.  This is not simply empty name-calling, the kind that Burke engages in.  I will show in detail, in entries here soon, why my statements consist of fact and my well-considered opinion.

Burke is just as much of a miscreant as are his cronies, and he's totally upfront about it because he's just clueless.  To what extent he's manipulated by his cronies, I don't know.  He doesn't do this for money, I'm quite sure.  He's a social climber.  A name dropper.  His raison d'etre is saying on his Twit-thing:  So and so is a friend of mine...which he did with Senator Amy (no surprise) and then deleted it.  Social-climbing and name-dropping are no sins, of course.  The problem is a judge displaying this publicly.  You need to ask yourself whether this guy is an outlier or is mainstream in the Hennepin court.  Is Burke and out-of-control one-off in Hennepin?  Based on his reception in the MN appeals court and supreme court, he appears to be mainstream.  This is why I wrote in my petition to the MN sup. ct., last April 15, that Hennepin is a "military regime," an accident waiting to happen.   I'll be more specific soon, but I'm trying to cover a lot of ground here as quickly as I can. 

About John: Engineer - electronic hardware design and test; MSEE Stanford/Ginzton Lab-applied physics; B.A. Oberlin College, physics, math. email: john4midwest@gmail.com .

About John: Engineer - electronic hardware design and test; MSEE Stanford/Ginzton Lab-applied physics; B.A. Oberlin College, physics, math. email: john4midwest@gmail.com .

Read At Your Level.

September 20, 2020: And as Bonnie Raitt quoted Mose Allison, "They don't know the meaning of the word."  Words (plural) in this case: "frivolous," "discretion," 'preclusion."  I'm going to be emailing this entry to some law school deans and law-student groups and to Gov. Walz and to some members of the MN legislature.  I've emailed some of the legislature before.  I have my doubts (in the extreme) that anyone will respond this time, either.  As with the rest of the Dues Process, they know on which side their bread is buttered.  That's okay.  I've been building this slowly.  They will respond eventually.  Their monopoly will depend on it.  Without their monopoly, they're nothing.

The fish catch place was a success at learning fishing skills (especially patience), and my daughter's a natural - I say completely objectively; but it's really true...awe c'mon, you know that dads are among the most objective people, concerning their kids.  She's a more capable caster (and successful too with a half-dozen perfect casts all by herself, and the others were great too) than I was at that same stage - on my kindergarten Zebco Christmas morning (search up the page).  Kids are so overwhelmingly sweet, cute, wide-eyed, and enthusiastic (though I handled worm-hook duty, as it was too much for her).  She asked me again about fly fishing and if it was hard, and I told her again that, although I've never done it, I believe that it takes special skills and is very hard; but we would learn about it together.  (Of course, as a  para++ it would be a challenge - perhaps my final challenge - to try to stand in a river and keep my balance for any length of time.)  She loves drawing and painting and making beautiful things (as most kids do), and we agreed we would learn about making "beautiful fly fishing lures."  Kids are too-much-to-be-believed of everything wonderful.  

We'll see whether the ABA says anything about misogynist Alsup.  Your "women's rights" heroins Tina and Amy haven't said a word since I told them back in April.  They don't know the meaning of the word, "chatte" (English translalso ffation thereof) when it's used by a federal judge as a term of disparagement.  Anyone else - like DJT for instance - they swarm.  But a federal judge is part of the the Untouchables - the Dues Process.

Yes, I know.  I'm a nobody - a crazy cripple pissing on himself in a corner of the internet, of course. (But as I've noted, my bladder function is plenty normal, despite my pulverized L1.)  But I'm not quitting.  This is a very long-term project.  I ain't goin' away.  As noted, I managed to find a cellphone with service (of four phone possibilities, only three of which had service) in the cold and dark - or possibly with only panel-light illumination after my crash.  And with my broken body and double-crushed spine and lacerated nerve roots.  I don't quit.  

Some bozo San Francisco lawyers wrote - in federal court after they "removed" my California State case to federal court - that I don't give up.  That's right.  When I'm right, I don't quit, and I was right.  They lost, and the case was sent back to California state court.  (This is all part of the Hennepin case, though not central to it.)  Occasionally a judge gets it right.  I was also right on the other questions, and I'll explain all of them in due time.  It's simple.  There isn't high-school math student who paid attention, or a freshman physics major, for whom this civil litigation stuff isn't trivial; and I'm sure there are others - like EE majors, but I didn't know any as an undergrad.  I take that back.  I knew a few from other schools.  Yes, trivial for them, too.

The sine qua non by the dirty water says this: "Law School chief admissions officer Jessica L. Soban said ... The school began actively recruiting STEM applicants during the 2012-2013 admissions cycle ... Admissions officers ... adjusted how they consider GPAs of STEM applicants ... - that we understand that a GPA in a STEM major often looks different than [sic] one for a humanities major. There tend to be different curves for those classes, and therefore an overall GPA may look different,” Soban said. 'We’re leveling the playing field.'"  (https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/5/6/HLS-admissions-STEM-recruiting/)

In other words, there are tons of lawyers who would flunk high school and junior high math quizzes (which test reasoning ability) and even flunk high-school English quizzes.  They simply don't know how to reason and couldn't solve a simple real world troubleshooting problem.  They just write their way around what contradictions they believe they see; and the other contradictions they just ignore; and there are plenty they just don't see.  This is not true for all lawyers, but it is for a large majority.  I've seen enough at this point to be confident in that.  

Yet they are all considered Pumblechooks ("widely respected jurists") (search up the page for Pumblechook and listen to the recording).  The admissions deans wonder why law schools can't get physics majors, even though we blow away their metrics.  A physics major would go bananas with the bunch of you, who can't reason out trivial problems and pompously look down your noses at everyone.   And that would be if you even had incentive to get the right answer and not the Dues Process answer to bail out your cronies and validate your JD's.  This garbage is antithetical to physics and any hard science.  Reality and reasoning count in the non-monopolized world.

And apparently, I see that the Wiki includes psychology (God help us) as a STEM science.  (I shudder to think what else is included; I won't look.)  Look, psychology may be the single most important endeavor there is (attempting to understand perversions such as those done by lawyers), but it simply is not a hard science, where truly-controlled experiments are every-day work.  And please don't tell me that doing a least-squares fit makes you a math/statistics jock.  A real "science jock" in law school is a psyche or bio major, it seems.  This is your problem.  Lawyers aren't drawn from actual problem-solving disciplines - which require actual discipline, i.e. logic, Mr. Sulu.  

The lawyers and their monopoly are about "reasonable attorney's fees".  The fees are the be all and end all of it.  They cannot possibly command such money otherwise (i.e. writing their own ticket where the sky's the limit), and the law and reasoning - to the extent they can reason - take a back seat, if they are in the car at all.  And I attacked the Dues Process attorney fees directly, so I am made to pay like no one else.  This is going to get into the weeds a bit, but if you don't have a bit of patience, go vote for useless Tinaspam ("resolutions" of "reimagining policing"), because this is what killed George Floyd.  One of Hennepin Burke's paragraph's in his Feb. 10 ruling was:

"After Mr. Berman’s mother died, [Defendant] asserted a subrogation claim against the Trust for the attorney fees it incurred in defending [its Insured Person] in the lawsuits brought by Mr. Berman. [Defendant] incurred over $122,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses as a result of Mr. Berman’s numerous lawsuits against [its Insured Person]. Frankly, this Court is surprised that with number of cases and appeals filed by Mr. Berman that the amount is only $122,000.00." 

This was the first of a substantial number of solid reasons for disqualifying imbecile Burke; and I certainly filed for disqualification, which Burke - incredibly, for a normal court system - ignored.  To begin with, I filed only two suits against [its Insured Person] - not the five suits that the [Insured person]'s insurance company) listed.  The other three actions were against the insurance company.  The insurance company's defense of those suits could not by any stretch of imagination come out of my mother's trust; they were not against the trustee, [the Insured Person].  I made this perfectly clear in my papers.  Burke not only ignored nearly everything I wrote, but he lumped everything together (something the insurance company had in the cards, it later became clear).  However, even more incredibly, Burke commented on the reasonableness of the amount (only $122k).  Burke's statement, in a single sentence, prejudged several aspects of not only this case but a case in Maryland.  No "judge" who even remotely claims to be a real judge, would make a comment like that.  This was the first indication of something truly bizarre in Hennepin. 

So why should you care about my personal problems with this judge and my case?  Because you would be hard-pressed find another judge in the whole country, who would make such a gratuitous, off-hand, utterly-stupid and disqualifying comment as that.  This judge is the senior judge in Hennepin and was a twice a chief judge and also the president of a judge's association?  Truly incredible - until you see what a social climber he is.  He has it on display daily in his Twit-thing.  His gaps in elementary legal knowledge are jaw-dropping, even apart from his corrupted statements.  Given this judge and his outlandish comment (not only stating a prejudgment but - later in his ruling - an admitted lack of understanding of the case), you have to ask yourself what the heck goes on in Hennepin?  

And that was just the beginning of the ruling.  It got a lot worse.  And then the MN Court of Appeals, last April 7, said, in essence, that there was nothing wrong with Burke's ruling - without even taking briefings.  They just accepted whatever Burke said.  That was when I wrote, last April 15, that Hennepin was a "military regime."  With this oddity, Burke, somehow in control.

Again, if this is getting too much into the weeds for you, then vote for Tina, and you'll deserve the blended SPAM flavors you get.  And there will be more of the same "policing" in Hennepin.  Sorry to be dismissive of those who just want the Dem-Rep easy way out; but it's going to take some work from you in order to understand what is really wrong with the courts and how they have polluted our country and turned our laws into the worst kind of SPAM.  (As I previously noted, years ago I had great appreciation for - and considerable consumption of - SPAM, but toothless, "independent," corrupt courts (which politicians stay "hands off") overseeing police are the hard SPAM that came down on George Floyd's neck.  And the courts also pollute your personal space, even if you're stone-cold heartless about George Floyd.  And I believe Burke is just that.)

Tina's "fierce advocacy" of "Justice for George Floyd" is: "Tina supports a resolution introduced by her Senate colleague Kamala Harris condemning police brutality, a bill led by Senator Tammy Duckworth focused on using independent prosecutors, and Tina worked with Senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker on legislation to transform policing. The bill would create a federal use of force standard and a national registry of police misconduct, and it lays out steps our nation needs to take in order to reimagine policing so that we prevent police violence and injustice."  You really think so? 

There you have it.  Tina's and Kamela's and Cory's (10W40 Cory, the smarmiest, oiliest guy in the Senate) "imagination" - reimagining with lawyers.  You can write all the laws you want, and the judge's will disembowel them as the laws come down the line to you and me.  You see the relevance now of Burke's outlandish ruling?  Burke doesn't suddenly become person capable of thought and reason when he takes a criminal case.  If such a ruling comes from Hennepin's senior judge in a slam-dunk civil case (something that is ordinarily not plausible in a lawsuit, but here the Defendant - Burke's pals - conceded the simple issue), anything will come out of Hennepin, regardless of how great your "reimagined policing" law is.  I'll be showing you more.  

Yeah, I'm over the top, I know.  Someone who "naively" believes that the law applies down the line to you and me.  In reality, the rule of law (something the "pundits" like mechanically repeating) is a fiction.  That's why you should read Burke's imbecilic and corrupt ruling.  No one could be so stupid - not even Burke - as to write the ruling Burke wrote.  And the Supreme Court doesn't care.  The Minneapolis federal court  doesn't care (about a federal due process question).  It remains to be seen how much the Eighth Circuit appeals court cares, but I'm not holding my breath.  If the Supreme Court cared, they'd change their system to make it actually effective.  They could, but they don't.  Congress is the only answer.  The Big Magilla can fix the courts, which will fix the police by getting rid of bad cops and allowing the good ones to perform actual service.  

I need to repeat here what I repeated many times in my previous blog ( https://bulloney.com/f/the-dues-process ): "I want to make sure something is absolutely clear, and I will repeat this many times so as to make sure this point does not get lost: there are many good and excellent police, who are not just by-the-book but well-beyond the book in the best ways. (And I am not a so-called "bootlicker," in case you haven't noticed.)"  

If you understand that lawyers feathering their nests with bulloney subverts the law from the US Supreme Court on your civil rights - and George Floyd's right to breathe - as that law is contorted by the lower courts - then you'll see that you need a truly "fierce advocate" to take out the wet garbage in the courts.  And I'm your garbageman.  Tina and Amy won't.  They are lawyers or pals with lawyers, and they won't do anything substantive to get to the root cause.

And it's always "discretion."  This is the judges' catch-all ticket to the free-for-all.  They don't know the meaning of the word.  They think "discretion" means royalty showing its munificence because you are "nice' and write "respectfully" to them.  Discretion is not that at all.  Discretion is a range of choices specified by the law.  A court must state a reason why it made a particular decision within that range.  That is not optional.  The public and a reviewing (higher) court must understand the basics of how the discretionary decision was make.  That's that law.  The courts, from the bottom to the top, nearly always ignore the law.  

If a judge has a problem with what you say to him (or her) - and he wants to punish you - it is called criminal contempt.  There is, then, a separate action, a separate judge, and a trial.  And the burden of proof is very high because it's a criminal matter.  (Civil contempt is worse in many ways because they can jail you on a hunch.)  The law says that they cannot punish you for making a forceful argument and calling their cronies for what they are.   

But of course they do punish you, by slamming you with "discretion" - which means they do WeverTF they want.  And you say...well, that's the reality and nothing can be done.  You're half right - that is the reality - but you're wrong that nothing can be done.  The reality is garbage that must be disposed-of, so write-in "Berman, your garbage man for the Senate".  The answer is Judge Puty and Totoware (and I'm way behind in moving forward with the project, I know); and a Congress with the stones (are you listening Mitch?) who will be helicopter moms and dads for their laws; and not let the judges pervert them.  Congress is the Big Magilla and can get rid of enough judges, so that the others will get with the program or retire.  And then you replace them with judges who can read.

Pompous, know-nothing lawyers, protecting their fellow incompetents, are the problem.  All of them, to one degree or another.  They are the problem, in Minnesota and elsewhere; they killed George Floyd, with their Hennepin judges telegraphing to bad cops that "anything goes" for "discretion," including a knee on the neck. 

I will keep pushing for an answer from the law students.  The deans and faculties aren't going to say anything to jeopardize the Dues Process.  They know the score.  But the students might answer: how can a case decided and closed in 2014 "preclude" a 2019 case based on 2018-9 facts?  It cannot.  We don't have time machines.  I explain more, below, but this is a very simple question with a very simple answer.  And it shows not only Burke's incompetence and corruption, but the wholesale corruption in MN courts, up through the Court of Appeals and to the MN Supreme Court.   

But this baloney is what Burke ginned up, in likely collaboration with his lawyer pals.  And Burke is so stupid that he thinks he'll get away with it.  Not in the longer term, he won't.  Not while there's a 1st Amendment.

I need a break to go back to 2nd grade for a bit........

On Friday, I got to listen to and watch most of my daughter's 2nd grade online class.  I snoozed during part of it, consistent with my general, time-average percentage of classroom "presence."  I suspect there are nothing but stellar 1st and 2nd grade teachers in this country, and my daughter's Teach was right there (and I went to back-to-school night for her 1st grade, so I have data there, too) .  Yes, I have issues with the NEA, but they can't really go wrong in 1st and 2nd grades; and they all attain star quality, as far as I'm concerned.  My daughter tells me how much she loves school and her teacher, and that's the last word on that.

Her teacher introduced the reading section by noting that they were going to begin reading "chapter books" this year.  And she emphasized how important it is to read books that are right for them.  She may have said, "at your level," but I don't quite remember.  Whatever her exact words, though, she got the point across that the kids shouldn't overreach to books that are too big and too much.  Sure, there's what's-a-heaven-for and all that, but in 2nd grade, a great Teach and the magic of words on page coming to life make heaven-a-plenty.  My daughter and I have already read together some forgotten classics that I read with my dad...like Thornton Burgess' Bowser the Hound and Paddy the Beaver: 

But at least they find they are wrong.   This is called "proof by contradiction," also the contrapositive.  And then they can correct their mistakes.  I'll be talking about that shortly in the context of judges who don't understand what Paddy learned from his mom and dad.  Paddy could pass a high school math quiz.  Plenty of lawyers and judges - high-up ones - can't.

When it comes to a lot of judges - and Hennepin Burke, in particular - their reach and grasp are substandard and stunted to the point of what should be an embarrassment to any credible court system and lawyer's "bar."  I'm trying, this evening, to finish an overdue "judicial disability" complaint against Burke.  I mentioned, in a March 30 objection to one of Burke's outlandish rulings,  that I was going to file this complaint.  His rulings are landmarks (in the land of Beyond the Pale) and reflect an unquestionably unique mental "disability."  I wrote:

There was never a decision like Burke's Feb. 10th decision, I am sure.  And his follow-on orders on "frivolousness" were equally bizarre.  Resorting to "the bizarre" - in the abstract and in reality, both - is the only alternative for those who had been called on their red-handed actions and won't outright admit their wrongdoing.   

Various things intervened before I sat down to write my complaint against Burke  - such as George Floyd's death and my consequent decision to file my candidacy, given my quasi-prediction of a tragedy coming out of the  Hennepin "military regime."  But I recently read in Burke's Twit-thing that he's going to retire shortly, so I need to get the "disability complaint" against Burke filed now.  Just for the record.  Nothing will be done, of course, whether I had filed it months ago or whenever.  

(1) Burke's individual menace to society and (2) the Hennepin "military regime" menace that was countenanced by the MN Court of Appeals - and then (3) the MN Supreme Court's assertion that this is just business as usual (and (4) the astounding event of Burke, as judge, taking his own 1996 case to the MN Supreme Court - with MN "civil procedure" displacing Constitutional rights) - all told, MN courts are a particular site to see, in terms of ingrown corruption.  

For Burke, reading "at level" goes to new lows with his tortured twisting of the law (or gross misunderstanding of it); and I'll be specific and thorough with my justification.  I'll show you - unlike Burke who is merely a playground name-caller and someone incapable of providing justification beyond, "because I said so."  Burke is indeed an embarrassment (or should be to any credible legal system), and I'll quote plenty to you so as to show the outsized Burke embarrassment.  In fact I already have quoted to you, up the page, one of the more obvious Burke loads of bulloney; and I'll repeat it here:

This was Burke to Dorothy, as you can see.  No credible judge would write anything like that.  This is the distillation of the Dues Process: how one must pay the lawyers, who are an oligarchy protected by the judges.  As I explained previously, "civil procedure" hardly ever has anything to do with a dismissal of a case on the merits.  You can read about it at the link shown.  A case decided on the merits is decided on substance nor procedure.   Burke just likes the ring of, "civil procedure."  Sounds very leeegle-style-like.  Like a high-schooler trying to improvise some "judge lines" for the school play.

The words, "civil procedure," seems to have a special panache in MN courts, since they were the excuse the MN Supreme Court came up with in 1996 for displacing Constitutional rights (see https://bulloney.com/f/mr-floydmeet-judge-kevin-s-burke-hennepin-co-minneapolis).  While procedure (pulling the car into the garage for repair) can on occasion derail substance (diagnosis and repair of the problem), once the car is in the garage and positioned over the lift, procedure is almost always irrelevant (see link, above).  

That Burke would elevate "civil procedure" to such heights (twice, by also mentioning "byzantine civil procedure") shows that Burke is a phony.  Just as he drops peoples' name to establish his "connections," he drops the "name" "civil procedure" to try to buffalo his way out of an untenable situation.  Even more astoundingly, he thinks he can get away with it.  But even more astoundingly than that, he can get away with it - because MN reviewing courts are in on the game.  Minnesota has a huge problem with its courts.   

Burke tried the same bulloney on me, and I was more polite about it, initially, than Dorothy. was  I made my points very clearly in several objections, a disqualification motion and a couple of petitions to MN higher courts.  Burke ignored the disqualification motion, which asserts that the judge should remove himself from any further action in a case because his bias pervades the case in the extreme.  A judge ignoring a disqualification motion has no excuse in a court system that emphasizes supposedly "getting to the merits."  Every time Burke writes something or ignores something, he creates a more and more solid case that he is a know-nothing and a menace.  It was in those petitions where I described Hennepin, last April 15, as a "military regime" and an accident waiting to happen.  Then there was the knee on George Floyd six weeks later.  

I am not nice now, because Burke is the Clockwork Orange judge - a moron with, in addition, moral vacuity directly opposite of his very public persona.

Burke, who fancies himself (as most legal-patter types do) some master of highbrow lingo, is simply a jargoneer but without any actual understanding of the jargon: "frivolous" and "discretion" are a couple of the terms he eviscerates  (and MN's reviewing courts show the same ignorance).  There are actual definitions of these terms, just as there is an actual definition of legal "preclusion" (I won't use the Latin because Latin is the legal oligarchy's secret weapon to make eyes glaze over). 

In a nutshell, Burke came up with "preclusion" (a legal principle) out of the blue and out of whole bulloney - the latter, similar in this case to whole cloth.  Out of whole cloth means fabricated factuallys: concocting "facts" out of nowhere; making up things that never happened.  

Burke, however, did something never before attempted.  He took facts that occurred in 2018 and 2019 and said that those facts had been considered by a lawsuit that was filed in 2013 and ended in 2014.  You don't need to be Albert Einstein to see that there's a problem with "time" there and that this Burke was full of bulloney.  A 2014 lawsuit cannot "consider" facts that occurred in 2018, right?  But Burke said exactly that.  He didn't give any reasons, of course.  He just said his bullshit - oh, sorry, bulloney - and that made it so.  That was the first clue that Burke, who has hung around Hennepin courts for 35 years, is a menace to society.  Burke's "frankly" gratuitous comment (this Court is surprised that ... the amount is only $122,000.00.") indicated supremely bad judgment; but his time-displacement of facts was an abject menace to society.  With a so-called "judge" who moves facts five years in time, a court system is nothing but a sham.  

This told me that something was terribly wrong with Hennepin county.  This, and a few things Burke subsequently wrote, led me to write, on April 15, to the MN Supreme Court that Hennepin was like a "military regime."  And six weeks later George Floyd was dead.  So maybe it's worth your while to listen to me for a bit.  (And if you've read this far, you certainly have...so thanks.)

Also, each side of lawsuit is entitled to know the legal theory the other side is asserting.  A defendant is entitled to know what law the plaintiff is pointing-to, which says the defendant did something wrong.  A plaintiff is entitled to know what law (or legal principle) the defendant is pointing-to, which says the plaintiff has no case - so the case should be dismissed.  The defendant didn't say anything about "preclusion" because events that occurred in 2018 could not have been precluded by a lawsuit that ended in 2014.  That would have been nonsense because the idea is a physical impossibility.   

Definitions, facts, and law don't matter to Burke; yet he's patted on the back by other judges who, if they actually read Burke's ruling (and probably other rulings), should gag - assuming those judge's could pass high school quizzes in math and English.

(That should have been Fudamental #2, The Pumblechook.)  I believe Burke is as corrupt as they come and knew very well that he had to do something to bail out his pals.  That his outlandish ruling wasn't just the musings of a complete know-nothing.  Burke is, without a doubt, stupid and ignorant of fundamental legal principles, but his moving facts five years in time was beyond anything ever seen in a "legal" decision.  The age-old question comes up, once again: is Burke an idiot or a liar?  Here, an idiot and a corrupt liar who had to concoct whatever he could when the necks of his Minneapolis lawyer buds were in the noose.  As I wrote in my first blog series: Quiz #1.3:       

Burke is, as they say, "a case in point:" meaning you don't get a more moronic decision than Burke dished out last Feb. 10.  In addition, as I've said, there's good reason to suspect that Burke collaborated with his lawyer pals on this, given a number of factors.

Normally, in a game, like chess or poker, a player keeps at least one card (or its chess equivalent), and often more than one card, close to his chest.  Here, it is to my advantage to get as much public debate going, as I can, because the lawyers wouldn't dare debate me.  Theirs is the classic strategy of ignore the guy pissing on himself in the corner of the internet ("classic" for a little more than a decade).  We'll see how long they can keep that "ignore him" game going.  

I do know that people from Minnesota State government and Hennepin government visit my site (a server catches accesses to my domain - then relays them to my google sites page - while the server logs IP addresses; this is the closest you're gonna get to a real revenge of da noid - not the movie baloney).  I don't know who in Minnesota government is reading this, but some are.  My contact with MN government (apart from Burke) has been nothing but extraordinarily great.  The same is true of everyone - literally - I've spoken to in Minnesota.  Minnesota is indeed nice. and a group of people whom I would be honored to represent with hard work you would not believe.   

I do wonder a bit whether Minnesota might be a Clockwork Orange State - the way Burke is the Clockwork Orange judge.  I choose to believe that Minnesotans are, in fact, good people - though its courts (and not just Burke) are two-faced.  In any event, I'm going to expose the full embarrassment of Burke and his idiocy and, I believe, his corruption.  We'll see how long it takes for the lawyers and judges to respond.    

I mentioned, up the page, the Bobby Fischer factor.  Bobby Fischer was a really big shoe (as Ed Sullivan would have said) in 1972.  A lot is available about him online, so I don't need to describe him.  When asked what he loved most about chess?  Fischer said (in one or more variations on the quote) that he liked to make his opponents squirm. 

About John: Engineer - electronic hardware design and test; MSEE Stanford/Ginzton Lab-applied physics; B.A. Oberlin College, physics, math. email: john4midwest@gmail.com .

Kevin the Menace - Short Subject #1

September 21, 2020 (entry #1):  In the '60s (and before, but I wasn't much of a movie-goer then) and into the '70s, the "short subjects" were the little movies before the featured movie.  I think I could remember some if I tried hard because they almost always ranged from interesting to great.  I'll consult the Wiki later to see what I can remember.  I'm going to concentrate a lot of the next week on Kevin the Menace Burke ( https://bulloney.com/f/mr-floydmeet-judge-kevin-s-burke-hennepin-co-minneapolis ).  This entry is Kevin the Menace - Short Subject #1.  

I looked at Burke's Twit-thing now and then over the last year or so, and I searched it a few times when I was looking for something specific.  I'm looking at it daily at the moment.  I'm going to do quite an expose of this phony (and something of a fraud).  He's not smart enough to really calculate the way that's necessary to perpetrate a fraud (still a low bar for calculating ability), so most of the time he's just a phony.  He is some sort of kingpin (I'm still not sure how, but he is) at ground zero for Hennepin corruption and George Floyd's death.

Burke is especially going bonkers over Ginsburg J.'s death.  Ginsberg J. made a definite point - including towards her end - that she was very much a "political" judge, with her hoping to outlive the Trump administration.  Prior to the Trump administration, she made her disdain clear, too.  So, as it is with nearly everything in the court system (as it is in other political bodies) there's the gloss and the separate reality.  Roberts CJ (and even Ben Sasse) used the baloney line about, "no Dem. or Rep. judges," etc.  (Ben Sasse, by the way, got a place in my political pantheon with his, "bullshit" line he delivered in Congress.)  So it's no surprise that politico Burke is going Twit-bonkers over Ginsberg J.

I saw this from Burke:  "Kevin S. Burke@JudgeKSB Sep 18 Perhaps Senator McSally has never lost a loved one. A lot of people have and what they might expect is 'I am very sorry for your loss. I did not agree with her on things but she was a strong advocate for women and that is where our focus should be tonight.' "

Yet another demonstration of what a fool Burke is - full of presumptions that he could easily check out, but he opens his mouth anyway.  McSally is in her 50's.  I don't need to consult the Wiki to see that.  You think she has never lost a loved one?  Also, she was a fighter pilot.  I don't know whether she ever saw combat (and I'd be surprised if she hadn't), but do you think a fighter pilot has never lost a loved one who was part of that exclusive family?  Burke is the fool-gift who keeps on giving.  

The Wiki says she lost her dad (a lawyer) when she was 12.  Is that good enough for you, Burke, you simpleton who doesn't even check the Wiki before commenting?  Yes, she saw combat.  You're 70, Burke.  The Wiki makes no mention of your military service, which would have been in Vietnam.  I'm not making any presumptions.  The advisory at the top of your Wiki entry says, "This biographical article is written like a résumé. Please help improve it by revising it to be neutral and encyclopedic. (October 2015)"  It's not an indiscretion (let alone a crime) to write your own Wiki entry/resume, or have your friends do it for you.  Since it does not appear on your resume, Burke, my guess is that you didn't serve in the military. 

Not only is Burke a fool for suggesting that a 50-something fighter pilot never lost a loved one, but Burke seems particularly remote from the singular experience of his age group.  A group who experienced enormous trauma from Vietnam - a place Burke seemingly managed to avoid; yet he comments/speculates willy nilly on everything, including a fighter pilot's personal losses. 

The draft registration ended a couple of months before I turned 18.  My lottery number - in 1969 when I was 12 years old - was in the last handful, which didn't matter of course.  My brother, who was 20 (Burke's age) had a number in the first few deciles.  He had leg problems (among other problems) and was rejected on his medical.  My brother, who has always had learning difficulties, is a very long and complicated story (as is our relationship), which is the root cause of how I wound up in Hennepin court.  My brother has said and done many things that have been huge problems for me, but I have never heard him express anything but an understanding voice (with some awe) for anyone who has served in the military. 

It is no coincidence that Burke - who disgraces those who have fought for the myth of "equal justice" (made more mythical every day that Burke has been a judge) - suggests and presumes that McSally, a fighter pilot, may never have lost a loved one.

About John: Engineer - electronic hardware design and test; MSEE Stanford/Ginzton Lab-applied physics; B.A. Oberlin College, physics, math. email: john4midwest@gmail.com .

Kevin the Menace - Short Subject #2

September 21, 2020 (entry #2): The Minnesota Court Rules, Code of Judicial Conduct, which regulates how judges are supposed to behave) says this in Canon 4, Rule 4.1(A):  "a judge or a judicial candidate shall not: (3) publicly oppose another candidate for public office."  Practically every day, Burke has had something political coming out of his Twit-mouth.  But that is the least of it.  

Burke - who's not a real judge but just "plays one on the Twit-thing TV" and in the courtroom - is the central figure in Hennepin courts, which are ground zero for George Floyd's destruction.  You will not truly "fix" anything until you fix the courts and eliminate the Dues Process.  I am finishing my official complaint against Burke, and I plan to  post it here.  This guy is a central part of the problem that killed George Floyd.  The legal oligarchy, generally, is the root cause.  The bad cops take their cue from the legal oligarchy, who are in it for themselves - NOT for the so-called "interests of justice."  They killed George Floyd.  You are mistaken if you think you are not affected by this.  Even if your universe only about money, you are and will be affected by it.  It's much cheaper to take out the wet garbage that is the legal oligarchy.  I'm your garbage man.  Write-in "Berman, your garbage man for the Senate" on Tuesday Nov. 3.

About John: Engineer - electronic hardware design and test; MSEE Stanford/Ginzton Lab-applied physics; B.A. Oberlin College, physics, math. email: john4midwest@gmail.com .

Complaint Against Burke

September 24, 2020:  It has been a busy few days.  Part of the problem today, late in the day, was trying to find a replacement petcock (or a workaround would have been fine) for the connection to the fuel tank on my somewhat-portable gas generator.  The petcock is clogged, I guess, though it was passing fuel fine just a couple of weeks ago.  Amazon has one for 7.99 and maybe the same thing for 8.99, but I'd have to wait till Monday, which is really no good.  The threads on the nipple out of the tank are not pipe threads, for God only knows what reason.  They kind of look like garden-hose thread, but it's not a standard garden-hose diameter.  The connection size is kind of like faucet valve stuff (those might be compression fittings, I don't remember), but the bottom line is the threads don't match any of the test threads at HD or any others attempts I made there.  This should be a simple find at HD and a 10 minute fix.  But noooooooo........

They might well be "16mm x 1.5mm, 22mm hex nut" for "Chinese generator" or "Honda dirt bike."  But is 1.5mm a thread pitch or what?  Why should I have to research all this just for a simple connection to a fuel tank of which there must be millions in the US, alone?  And why isn't it in HD??   Whose Creepin' idea of a joke was this?  (I had to substitute something.)  From what I can tell online, it seems to be the same thing on all these gas generators: Chinese fascist threads that must be overthrown!  (I raise my semi-paralyzed hand in a fist.)  I guess I shouldn't complain because this thread-monopoly may help - at some level - the poor slave-laborers in Chinese labor prisons.   

I'd be fine with just finding the correctly-threaded coupling and then jerry rigging a conversion to a hose barb to connect to the carb intake.  I don't need a shutoff valve right now.  I just need a working generator.  I'll try to find a replacement tomorrow at a small-engine shop, but I couldn't find any threaded connector at HD or Tractor Supply or Ace.  For Gosh sakes, what's going on here?  

Alright, so here's my complaint against Burke.  I've redacted everything that I think is necessary - at least at this point.  I'm leaving in one thing that really shouldn't be an issue, but when there are corrupt judges who will do anything to help their pals, all bets are off, really.  The law is meaningless, and they'll do whatever they want to and have to for their buds.  This whole hullaballoo about Ginsberg J.'s replacement doesn't mean a thing,  The judges down the line will screw-up the law to protect their buds and screw us.  I'll give you some examples, starting with Burke.  This is very long.

About John: Engineer - electronic hardware design and test; MSEE Stanford/Ginzton Lab-applied physics; B.A. Oberlin College, physics, math. email: john4midwest@gmail.com .

I added the following to my complaint:  I forgot to add Canon 4: (Rule 4.1)  Comment:  "3] Public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary is eroded if judges or judicial candidates are perceived to be subject to political influence."  

Of the relative handful of judges active on social media, Burke is a stand out in activity.  He also makes his politics obvious by always criticizing Republicans.  He uses juvenile "disclaimers" such as:  "I don't mean to be disrespectful nor (sic) partisan but what about the Judge Garland nomination was not a one person filibuster?"

This is the equivalent of, "no offense intended," before someone with little restraint goes and says something he knows is critical to the point of probably being offensive.  (This is not to say that one should not criticize, but Burke's phrasing is high school/middle-school.)  The hallmark of objectivity - both in appearance and reality - is deliberation and choosing words carefully so as to both maintain a balanced outlook and convey a balanced picture.   Making frequent appearances on social media and making his political affiliations obvious shows lack of control and strong partisanship.  People don't believe that a judge can display such partisanship and then turn around and be objective.  It's not plausible.  People are right to associate this lack of control with lack of objectivity.  This is not surprising, given Burke's display noted in my complaint.

What action will they take?  Probably nothing.  What excuse will they give, assuming they even give an excuse?  

1) "He has retired, so it doesn't matter."   Answer:  Sure it matters; the issue is public perception of the reality of the corrupt judges, including those in the MN Court of Appeals who said Burke "did not abuse his discretion" to be a dictator who rules merely on his "belief" and not on an actual reason why there is supposedly an, "indisputably meritless legal theory," when the extortion was conceded and abuse of process necessarily follows.  

2)  "Berman is asking us to be an appellate court."   Answer:  No, the "Judicial Canons" (the Rules that the Board is supposed to enforce) say, as quoted above:  “Comment:  Confidence in the judiciary is eroded if judicial decision making is perceived to be subject to inappropriate outside influences.”   You need to evaluate a decision in order to decide if it will erode confidence.

Why should any of this matter to you?  Because this stuff will affect you whether or not you ever set foot in courtroom.  Because this affects the economy, and that affects you.  Because this was what prompted me to write to the MN Supreme Court: that Hennepin County was like a "military regime."  And then there was the boot of the Hennepin military regime on George Floyd's neck.  It's worth your while to listen to what I have to say.  

Dictators say, "I believe," and that becomes an order.  Like the one that took Otto into custody, and then the one that said to torture and mutilate our American boy.  Burke and the others like him believe they can dictate whatever they want with impunity, and people with just slink away, saying, "thank you, your Honor."  Not any longer.  It's time to get rid of this oligarchy of the Dues Process and "your Honor" because its time is long gone.  Because they have given ample demonstration of their corruption and dishonor of those who died for the myth of "equal justice" and their blah-de-blah.  

About John: Engineer - electronic hardware design and test; MSEE Stanford/Ginzton Lab-applied physics; B.A. Oberlin College, physics, math. email: john4midwest@gmail.com .

Sympathy From The Devils

September 25, 2020:  It was September 17 when I sent my email to the ABA top brass on federal judge/misogynist,  Alsup.   Not surprisingly, there has been no response after one week.  Just keep building a record.  Eventually it will matter, I believe.  Next step is probably the National Organization for Women, and this an an especially appropriate time, given Ginsburg J.'s passing and women's issues front and center.   Again, since a great many judges do whatever they want, what comes down to you and me isn't what the Sup. Ct. says is the law.   So her replacement there won't much matter, as things really come out in the wash under the current, antediluvian system.  Not a bad image: antediluvian referencing (before) the big flood, where Noah was fixing the pump in the rain; and then coming out in the wash.  To the great unwashed, that is - you and me.  I'll tell you some stories, sometime.

To recap a bit, in light of Nov. 3, as I wrote (see up the page) to Tina and Amy: "The question is: what are you going to do about this inexcusable junior high boy, Alsup?  How does this compare with Franken?  For one thing, Franken didn't have lifetime tenure with “absolute independence” and the power to ruin individuals at whim, dontcha know.  So whatcha gonna do?"  

Just silence.  Same from the ABA "women in law" committee and now the ABA top brass.  

What is one of the principal ways "the wash" comes out for you and me?

What I had in mind when I discussed this cartoon with Richard, back last New Years or so, was a former (federal magistrate) judge, Grewal.  He went to work for Zuckerberg several years ago (and apparently he recently left the "Z" for another company), and about the only thing I can think of that was positive about Obama is that he rejected Grewal for Article III.  I should say that Grewal was from Cincy and apparently was/is a Browns fan, so those were two reasons why I would have, generally speaking, been inclined positively towards the guy.

Grewal was, essentially, every bit a "system guy" judge.  "System" meaning in the pocket of the law firms; he'll side with the law firm against the pro per (self-represented person) regardless.  I wrote, "essentially every bit," because he started out very leniently with me (too lenient, he later regretted), but he then made up for his offense to the law-firm gods by giving them the store.  

The devils' game (certainly in federal court) is to use a discovery sanction (penalty) to cripple a plaintiff's case, by eliminating crucial evidence.  In my case it was the docs who saw me after the accident (the first one told me to go right to the ER), and then those who really examined me with a CT scan and such.  This is a fairly typical scenario of a self-represented plaintiff (motorcycle accident - me) against a represented entity (frequently represented by an established firm).

The rules (the law) are very clear:  that one side can't just manufacture a reason (or magnify a trivial one for which there was no harm) to come into court and request a penalty against the other side.  But that's what they obviously did, and Grewal crippled my case.  No lawyer would touch it after my main witnesses had been eliminated.  I had to do the whole thing myself.  I think I might have won, too, if i had just saved a few minutes of my closing argument time to rebut the other side.  But I wasn't thinking strategically at all.  Maybe I'll tell you about it another time, but the point - once again - is that the legal monopoly circles the wagons and sticks together.  The Dues Process is all about keeping the money flow going and validating the J.D.  The question is not whether they are, jointly, the devil.  The question is whether they are worse.

Grewal was obvious-enough about it, but nothing like Burke.  I should actually be grateful that Burke was blatantly corrupt (of course the case against the defendant was as obvious as it gets - they conceded it - so they really had no choice but to pull out all the corruption stops).  Nonetheless, Burke went overboard in making it easy to see.  

I have to stop this one here for now (and I have to circle back to the Federalist Society and the Kennedy J. function and other things), but right now, I really need to get my gas generator going.

About John: Engineer - electronic hardware design and test; MSEE Stanford/Ginzton Lab-applied physics; B.A. Oberlin College, physics, math. email: john4midwest@gmail.com .

About John: Engineer - electronic hardware design and test; MSEE Stanford/Ginzton Lab-applied physics; B.A. Oberlin College, physics, math. email: john4midwest@gmail.com .

Little Fish Bites When You Got Good Bait

October 17, 2020 (entry #2):  I  want to talk very briefly about the minnowlectuals.  There are a great many of them among lawyers.  They fancy themselves as all sorts of highfalutin, high flatulent gurus - Hennepin Burke is certainly one.  I've baited a few and caught them.  One, I baited recently, wrote me: "You apparently have a high opinion of your own intellect and legal acumen, but you don't understand some very basic legal concepts. You will understand them better after you have read my client's reply. You will come to understand why her motion is perfectly appropriate and, indeed, meritorious."  (This is not about child custody, by the way.)

Now, this guy (a lawyer) is a classic Twerp-a-Squire - early 40's and full of himself to the max.  He's a crook (but there are many who are much worse).  He should be disbarred for clear violations of their so-called "professional responsibility" or "ethics" rules or whatever other bulloney phrase they give.  But that won't happen.  Lawyers get in trouble only for 1) messing with a client trust account or 2) not communicating with and/or abandoning a client.  All the other stuff is fluff and, at most, left up to judges.  The good judges don't have time to deal with it, and the bad judges won't bust anyone in the oligarchy.  I doubt state court judges anywhere ever do anything at all (they don't have any time for it); and if a federal judge does something, it will be a fine of a few hundred.  I once saw a fine of 1k, but the lawyer was in so much trouble anyway, and it was obvious he was on his way out - that I'm sure he didn't pay a dime.  And yes, he was kicked out.  A few hundred bucks for a fine to someone who can bill whatever he wants is nothing.

This particular Twerp-a-Squire, quoted above, was a philosophy undergrad.  I looked him up.  I think he also got a master's in religion, as I recall.  He thinks that I think that I'm so smart.  I don't want to say too much more about him and this case, yet.  As I said, I have a pretty good record of who visits this sight, and although I don't think any West Coast judges visit (or that many people on the West Coast visit at all, though there are some people from Washington State; and I'm pretty sure some Minnesota judges do), I'm still going to be circumspect in what I say about this specific case.  

Philosophy majors are supposed to take a course or two in logic, I'm pretty sure.  But this guy can't reason with a hole in the ground.  I won't make any predictions here, but I will say that I already disqualified this lawyer's (obvious) judge-pal; and disqualifying any judge is really hard to do.  And of course that likely put me at a greater disadvantage with the replacement judge (in addition to my built-in disadvantage of no membership in the oligarchy).  And with the Dues Process, generally, you can't make any predictions, except that pro pers with probably lose, because it's a wired game.  The mob will do whatever they have to in order to validate the JD and hand a case to their pals.  Scalia J. even said so.  I show you the video in my book.

So this Twerp-a-Squire is fuming at me and saying I think I'm so smart and that he's going to stick it to me, which he is certainly trying to do.  This is why lawyers - as part of their "continuing education requirement" that they need to renew their bar tabs...I mean licenses - need a requirement that they annually (if not more often) sit in on a PhD thesis defense in a hard science.  It's free, and there's free food, which is on every grad student's radar, so I went to a lot of them.  

Everyone's invited - the public too - and questions from everyone are part of the show, including basic questions from the public if they are there and want to ask them.  In fact, science types are expected to answer - in clear, friendly terms - basic questions from the public.  This is part of getting the public to support grant money.  I wrote about this in my previous blog (click on Scarecrow at the top of the page).  And by the way, in this grad school context, I'm okay.  I had a few top achievements, formal and informal, that would blow these Twerp-a-Squires out of the water.  Other things could have gone better.  I was okay, and I am okay, and I'm happy being okay.  (One of my liabilities is that I get caught up in joking around - sometimes practical joking; this doesn't always go over so well.)  But if I or anyone else in a hard-sci grad school, went around looking down on others they way lawyers (and especially Twerp-a-Squires) do, that behavior would get you your head handed to you real quick.  Everyone, including the very best, makes mistakes, and the atmosphere is correct them, say "good catch," and move on.  Lawyers wouldn't and couldn't last a minute, either minnowlectually or temperamentally.  

And I want to add something about supersmart, incredibly-knowledgable people I know and have known, who are, for example, A&P/IA's (that's Airframe and Powerplant/Inspection Authorized) mechanics/technicians whom I've had as teachers and friends (and unfortunately former friends).  You lawyers, as a group, are a piss-poor bunch of know-nothings.  The people who make society function are those in transportation, communication, health care - and utilities.  Just ponder those things for a while.  You can grow and hunt food on your own.  Precious few of us can do any of the above on our own.  The only reason anyone needs a lawyer is due to the abominable Dues Process.  I intend to change that.

What lawyers will see in a hardsci thesis defense are explanations of very complex topics, with exchanges among super sharp minds, with no Dear Alphonse, Cephalo-in-Gluteo and no bulloney.   Where stating assumptions, applying logic, giving reasons, and answering questions (not just with "Petition DENIED") are requirements.  What this and other Twerp-a-Squires will learn is that this is how science and technology have advanced over the years and decades and centuries, such that one bad mutation doesn't ruin your whole millennium - at least not yet, and it doesn't seem to be on the radar, though predictions are especially dicey.  And these hardsci and tech people (and of course there's a broad scope that includes virology and genome types and many more who must reason and give reasons) don't benefit from a state-sanctioned monopoly allowing them to write their own ticket for "reasonable engineering fees" where the sky's the limit.  Your oligarchy's years are numbered, Twerps Esq. et al.  I won't say "days" because the Dues Process legal oligarchy has been in the works for centuries, and it's not going to be ended in days.  It will take a while longer.

BTW, as an aside (nothing to do with twerps), I'll comment more fully later on Ben Sasse's latest dustup with DJT.  Ben earned a place in my political pantheon with his "bullshit" remark a few months ago.  Ben doesn't have a pedestal alongside Ron Paul and Paul Tsongas, but no one else does, either.  Several of Ben's remarks were the kind of sound-byte stuff about which he let fly his "bullshit."  Dealing with a pandemic and an economy that is built on the confidence game of inflation is a huge PR crisis.  If you go the straight public-health route with everyone masked and at home, then the economy collapses after you run of out virtual printing presses.  The PR is to manipulate behavior down some unknown "optimal" path somewhere in the middle where there is a manageable price tag on life.  PR is the alternative to the military "PR" in the streets (China) "persuading" public behavior.

About John: Engineer - electronic hardware design and test; MSEE Stanford/Ginzton Lab-applied physics; B.A. Oberlin College, physics, math. email: john4midwest@gmail.com .

About John: Engineer - electronic hardware design and test; MSEE Stanford/Ginzton Lab-applied physics; B.A. Oberlin College, physics, math. email: john4midwest@gmail.com .

About John: Engineer - electronic hardware design and test; MSEE Stanford/Ginzton Lab-applied physics; B.A. Oberlin College, physics, math. email: john4midwest@gmail.com .

Response from the Minn. Judge Complaint Board Re: Hennepin Kevin The Menace Burke. No Surprise.

October 23, 2020:  Here is my emailed response to the decision.  Their letter is down below.  They said option #2 that I predicted.  I'm not asking them to be an appeals court and reverse Burke's idiotic, con job of a "ruling."  If a judge's ruling is so obviously corrupted - and the circumstances make that clear to the average "person on the street" who can smell a big rat - then judicial decision making is perceived to be subject to inappropriate outside influences.  And it's a matter of degree, as court opinions like to say.  A really big rat smells really bad:

Please forward this (with thanks) to the staff attorney who wrote the letter; and to the Board.  (Incidentally, I just saw that XXXXXX XXXXXXXX — the only person I've spoken with actually employed by Defendant XXX, and back when they began their extortion campaign — is on the Board.)  The staff attorney's letter is not at all surprising, given the "small circle of friends" situation, as I described it in my federal filing (Dist.Ct. No. 20cv1199-DFW-DTS).  In the meantime, I will search for email addresses so as to send this directly; and cc this to the Legislature's judiciary committees.  And I will post it (with a few redactions) on my campaign site (john4midwest.com).  Nothing will happen in the short term, of course, but I look further out.

The staff attorney's letter was perfect - nearly exactly as I anticipated and posted on my website on Sept. 24:    

What action will they take [against Burke]?  Probably nothing.  What excuse will they give, assuming they even give an excuse?  

1) "He has retired, so it doesn't matter."   Answer:  Sure it matters; the issue is public perception of the reality of the corrupt judges, including those in the MN Court of Appeals who said Burke "did not abuse his discretion" to be a dictator who rules merely on his "belief" and not on an actual reason why there is supposedly an, "indisputably meritless legal theory," when the extortion was conceded and abuse of process necessarily follows.  [Ok, so it's in the weeds for many, but I'm working, over time, to bring it very clearly out of the weeds.]

2)  "Berman is asking us to be an appellate court."   Answer:  No, the "Judicial Canons" (the Rules that the Board is supposed to enforce) say, as quoted above:  “Comment:  Confidence in the judiciary is eroded if judicial decision making is perceived to be subject to inappropriate outside influences.”   You need to evaluate a decision in order to decide if it will erode confidence.

So the Board is indeed not supposed to act as an appeals court.   The Board has much broader power under enforcement of the canons: to determine if judicial decision making is perceived to be subject to inappropriate outside influences. And one cannot do that, obviously, without making some analysis of the "judicial decision" at issue.  So that staff attorney's pat answer, which was easily predictable, is — translated — that the Board is shirking its mandate; or more colloquially, lots o' luck. 

An appeals court addresses only the correctness of a judicial decision (or is supposed to), not how the decision is "perceived" by the public, unless there is a specific allegation of bias before the appeals court.  [And those hardly ever go anywhere, I add here.]  Since the public is able to perceive obvious, gross abominations (and much more nuanced absurdities, too) that don't require any subtle understanding in any specialty (save for, possibly, overinflated language that can be translated), the Board is mandated to address whether a decision is so absurd as to cause the public to perceive, under the circumstances, that outside influences — like those from XXXXXX XXXXXXXX's company — were at work.  In other words, the stench of abject corruption.  I'm betting the public will get it, as a general principle, without my mentioning XXX specifically.  The docket is there for the public to read for itself. 

The answer is obvious from the absurdity — from the inability of XXX to make any argument rebutting the elements of extortion (only their obvious statement that extortion is not a civil claim, which is irrelevant in light of the Restatement — to say nothing of common sense).  And there are even more ridiculous statements from XXX (especially from the "certified appellate specialist" who chimed in) which I will peel apart quickly and trivially and show the hogwash.  In fairness, it's really hard to paint obvious extortion as anything other than what it is.

And that's what I've been doing on my website: making things like that clear.  And I got 16,200 votes, which is well out of the noise.  Considering I'm a weird nobody from out of state, who spent diddly and ran for US Senate in two states where I don't reside (perhaps another weird first) who quickly threw together a hodge-podge website, less than two months before the election, on which I wrote a ton — and not on any social sites — that ain't bad.  And I ain't done. 

And if you read my site and also my little Op-ed in the Duluth News Tribune, you'll know that my cousin Steve killed himself after he was indicted for a felony for the Ham Lake fire, the facts of which I know nothing other than what I read online.  I do know, as I've said now several times, that Steve was no more likely to intentionally damage nature than would Smokey the Bear, to whom Steve bore a resemblance in his bear-like build.  We (my "vast" and growing "constituency") are going to essentially eliminate court ("judicial") discretion.  It is simply abused-power everywhere you look.

So it was out-of-control, purely arbitrary (or politically-motivated) decisions— manifestly abusive of prosecutorial "discretion," that killed cousin Steve; and, as I have asserted, judges' discretion with cops also killed George Floyd and others; and has done a great deal more damage than meets the eyes of most people.  It's all on my hodge-podge website and previous blog that is linked.  And more to come.

My intention is that the reality— of the damage of the Dues Process legal monopoly — meets the eyes of many more people.  The tiny, silly letter — dismissing mounds of obvious corruption — is an obvious absurdity and will aid the public's perception of "outside influence" to say the very least.  In the case of XXXXXXXX's presence on the Board, it is obvious "outside influence" on the inside.  Really now...a manager from an XXXXXXX-protector of lawyers on the State Board mandated to protect the public from lawyers influencing a judge who's the pal of every Minneapolis lawyer?  (Including defendant, XXX.) And he makes that clear every day on social media especially while he's an active judge?  C'mon. (smiling emoji w/halo)

About John: Engineer - electronic hardware design and test; MSEE Stanford/Ginzton Lab-applied physics; B.A. Oberlin College, physics, math. email: john4midwest@gmail.com .

About John: Engineer - electronic hardware design and test; MSEE Stanford/Ginzton Lab-applied physics; B.A. Oberlin College, physics, math. email: john4midwest@gmail.com .

Inflationary Depression?  Go Ask A̶l̶i̶c̶e̶ Alan

February 5, 2021:  I'm still very busy writing papers (legal papers, of course, and I'll tell you about them as soon as I can), but I want to note that I think we are into the next phase of what will be (and probably already has been) an inflationary depression.  That is, an unusually large oversupply of money pushing prices higher while employment and wages are falling.  That's not hard to understand, and it's bad news, of course.  This is the path, generally speaking, leading to a "reset" of a monetary system.  That's where they've had to issue a new currency denominated in some multiple of the old currency because carrying around the old one was too cumbersome.  Maybe with payments by cellphone that won't be necessary -- not exactly, anyway.   Forced austerity can handle it too, maybe.  Go ask A̶l̶i̶c̶e̶ -- I mean Alan, about addiction...to money printing.

I'm not making definite predictions here about timing and rates of increase/decrease and such.  That's a fool's errand (and Lord knows I'm foolish enough as it is).  What I am saying is that we are now in an era of direct payment transfers from the government to individual accounts; something entirely new.  It used to be that the federal reserve (intentionally lower case) lent money to select banks; and then the banks lent money to We the Freemarket Capital People (yeah, right).  Sure, we are "freer" than some, but the US is so far from a truly free market economy, that very few people here would have a clue how to survive in an actual free market.  And soon there will be student loan forgiveness, and then everything will be free, right?  Yep.  Uh huh.  

Anyway, I don't want to "gripe" about this any more than I may appear to.  There's a limit to how many infinitely-powerful adversaries I can take on.  I've got my hands full with judges right now, and that's plenty.

I will say that gasoline prices in this region (and I look on gasbuddy at other places too) have reached and maybe breached their highs of the last year.  They seem to have risen very quickly recently, too.  The job market segment that I keep an eye on is not good, relatively speaking.  

I need to say one thing about yet another piece of garbage from the NY Times.  On second thought, I've emailed the author a question...just to be fair, so I don't appear to be jumping to a conclusion.

About John: Engineer - electronic hardware design and test; MSEE Stanford/Ginzton Lab-applied physics; B.A. Oberlin College, physics, math. email: john4midwest@gmail.com .

A Spoonful of Sugar 

February 13, 2021:  Most people don't know that Mary Poppins had a little brother, Karl.  He got tired of the whole Supercalifragi thing over and over, so he changed his last name to Popper to disassociate himself from his sister.

About John: Engineer - electronic hardware design and test; MSEE Stanford/Ginzton Lab-applied physics; B.A. Oberlin College, physics, math. email: john4midwest@gmail.com .