For today I thought I’d just review the past year of blog entries. Somehow I’ve managed to produce 266 of them over the year.
Yesterday I gave an example of how judges cheat by simply ignoring what the law says, and not following the rules of judicial construction. Today I’m going to give examples from my own cases that show a way of cheating that never shows up in the published opinions. Unless you are able to read the briefs of the case, there is no way to know what the court’s opinion left out (though sometimes you can find that if a dissent is written).
I lost my appeal in my lawsuit against the Fairfield County District Library, with the opinion being issued on December 14, 2011.
Judges are human, too. However, they’ve had all sorts of legal training, and that presumably includes logic. So it is rather distressing to see them cheat to come up with rulings that they want, instead of what the law, and the rules of judicial construction, say they should.
Now, by “cheat” here, I don’t mean the stronger definition: “to practice fraud or deceit”. It’s more along the lines of “to violate rules or regulations“. I’m not even sure it is deliberate.
But the effect is the same.
I’ll be taking a few days off from blogging. See you again on Monday or Tuesday. I hope you have a good time visiting with family and watching the sun return from the south. In the meantime, I leave you with a picture of my mother’s dog, Ginger.
I mentioned the other day that the story of my Statehouse battle had been picked up by a few papers. It’s interesting just where those stories were, and just what sort of comments they generated from readers.
From the list that Google generates, about 60% were from within Ohio, while the rest were a smattering from around the country, including some smaller towns around Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, two towns in Connecticut, and even Beaumont, Texas.
But the comments are always the most interesting for being an interesting combination of people who get it, and other people who like to wallow in ignorance.