Inevitable and Despicable

Saturday, December 29, AD 2012

 

 

 

On this blog I sometimes have written harsh words about my profession.  Sometimes I suspect I have been too harsh.  Then a story like this appears and I realize yet again that I have not been harsh enough:

 

A $100 million claim on behalf of a 6-year-old survivor is the first legal action to come out of the Connecticut school shooting that left 26 children and adults dead two weeks ago.

              The unidentified client, referred to as Jill Doe, heard “cursing, screaming, and shooting” over the school intercom when the gunman, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, opened fire, according to the claim filed by New Haven-based attorney Irv Pinsky.

              “As a consequence, the … child has sustained emotional and psychological trauma and injury, the nature and extent of which are yet to be determined,” the claim said.

              Pinsky said he filed a claim on Thursday with state Claims Commissioner J. Paul Vance Jr., whose office must give permission before a lawsuit can be filed against the state.

              “We all know its going to happen again,” Pinsky said on Friday. “Society has to take action.”

              Twenty children and six adults were shot dead on December 14 at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The children were all 6 and 7 years old.

              Pinsky’s claim said that the state Board of Education, Department of Education and Education Commissioner had failed to take appropriate steps to protect children from “foreseeable harm.”

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Inevitable and Despicable

  • Here is one for Pinsky to ponder; “Thy habitation is in the midst of deceit: through deceit they have refused to know me, saith the Lord.” Jer.4:6

    Love of money has blinded the fool. The “Jill Doe” family and hired hand pinsky should spend one weekend in each of the twenty households where the little souls lived. By the end of the twentieth weekend they might reconsider. Might!

  • Quite apart from the issue of liability, one would expect a plea-in-law that “The sum concluded for being nimious and excessive, decree should not be pronounced as concluded for.”

    Excessive claims have been greatly curtailed in Scotland, by the practice of ordering a separate proof on the issue of quantum, with pursuers being penalised in expenses, where the original claim was inordinate, either being refused their own expenses, or being ordained to pay the defender’s.

  • Pinsky’s claim said that the state Board of Education, Department of Education and Education Commissioner had failed to take appropriate steps to protect children from “foreseeable harm.”

    Well, that is true; if you warehouse high-value targets in an area where they have no defense, you are failing to take appropriate steps to prevent forseeable harm.

    Somehow, though, I don’t think removing the no-guns-in-schools laws would make the parent(s) of the little girl drop the lawsuit.

  • Foxfier

    I doubt if liability would extend that far.

    If I leave my watch with a jeweller for cleaning, he is liable for theft, for theft can be prevented by vigilance. But he is not liable for robbery, for no one can be expected to resist force (vis major).

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour-
    Even if he puts out a large sign saying “I have the following inventory of valuable objects and will be here, alone, from 10am to 4AM; I also have a moral opposition to violence, even in the face of loss or death”?

    In robbery, the person generally didn’t remove protections with force of law. If you remove protections from those who enter a building, you’re taking on the responsibility of those protections yourself.

  • As much as I utterly loath the “no CC on base” policies, at least military bases have armed guards at the gates, and decent defenses, with law enforcement at the most minutes away from areas that have good targets; ditto for court houses that disarm you down to the baby silverware. (no, not joking, had it happen)

    I don’t want schools to turn into fortresses, but if you’re going to disarm everyone who goes in, you’ve got to assume the responsibility.

  • Foxfier,

    The restrictions on liability should be simple and certain. In practise, their primary function is to determine the liability of insurers: in the case put, the owner’s or the jeweller’s. Underwriters can calculate their premiums accordingly.

    As for a sign, well, pawnbrokers are required to display a sign that that are not liable for fire, robbery, the Queen’s enemies, mobbing and rioting or act of God, but that cover is available, if requested, at 2.5% of the advance.

  • The restrictions on liability should be simple and certain.

    Yes, they should. And if you take responsibility for something then take steps that put it at risk, without doing something to counter that risk, you are in quite a different situation than someone who took no steps either way.

  • I think (I could be wrong) the trial liars were denied their opportunities for the 9/11 tragedy when the US government paid off potential plaintiffs. The plaintiffs signed releases to recieve their million-dollar checks.

    As to “forseeable harm”, how foresseable was the confluence of events wherein a madman murdered his mother and killed the school children? What were the odds, i.e., “forseeability”?

    For a long time, I thought such a school massacre would be committed by jihadis. They murdered a bunch in Chechnya a few years back.

    We need to control muslims not guns.

  • I guess the lawyers’ many lawsuits happen because people hire the lawyers to do so. There is just generally so much of the idea that some body owes me something for a whole array of victimizing events, lesser than this one. People want revenge and they want heads to roll- someone to be fired, some one to be electrocuted, somebody to pay big money.. none of which will make the wounds heal.

  • This is simply par for the course. I saw the headline this morning, and I wondered what took them so long. But then, I deal with attorneys every day who make outrageous claims and demand large sums. It would be silly to expect lawyers to stop lawyering. What truly concerns me, though, are the judges that are drawn from the ranks of such attorneys. One can mount a vigorous defense against an opposing attorney. It is impossible to defend against a judge who is determined to mangle the law and the facts in order to rule against you. Such an event is not infrequent.

  • Opportunist possibly?

  • As to “forseeable harm”, how foresseable was the confluence of events wherein a madman murdered his mother and killed the school children? What were the odds, i.e., “forseeability”?

    The specific events, not foreseeable; that when you collect a lot of people into one area, disarm everyone and POST SIGNS that they’re all defenseless?

    Good heavens, Washington state holds you liable if your car is stolen if you didn’t do a laundry list of things, including set the parking brake and (if it is on an incline) turning the wheels to the curb.

  • Atticus Finch is a fiction. In a society where every harm is reducible to a dollar amount, what do we expect? There’s Judge Posner, whom Libertarians worship, arguing to reduce babies to a commodity for sale to the highest bidder. There are icons of the Left with not a whit of common sense or an ounce or moral rectitude, who conjure penumbras (must be all the booze they consumed in law school making them see things which aren’t there).

    Combine a glut of people attending law school not because they seek to practice over a lifetime, but to cash out or further an agenda to “remake” society in their own image and likeness, and you’ve got real problems. I used to think it was funny when people described physicians thinking they were gods. I knew better: they’re not called the “Supremes” because they sang on the Motown label!

  • Donald, I second the stand by the First Respondent, Philip. This is what we should be discussing, not other irrelevant side shows.

    What are the parents of the dead children feeling when they read about this greedy Family and their crazy lawyers suing for a living child when theirs are gone for good. We have lost the sense of the Value of Life for the love of money. Shame on that Family and all those who think like them.

  • The claim (execrable in itself) amount isn’t really that high.

    Consider that the trial, appeals, and judgment could come down in, say, 2017. If the FRB doesn’t stop printing dollars, by then, the regime will be issuing (PhD recommended) $1,000,000,000,000.00 platinum/palladium, one-ounce coins.

    Then, a loaf of bread will cost $100,000 in Federal Reserve confetti.

  • Mary-
    Keep it simple….

    Thanks. Maybe I’ve oversimplified, however greed is contagious. Where is the beef?

The Fear of God and the Law

Saturday, December 15, AD 2012

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is prudence.

Proverbs 9:10

 

Traditionally in English criminal indictments this formula was used “not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the devil”.  This of course contained a great truth that used to be embodied in Western jurisprudence, that human laws could do only so much to prevent evil and that the eternal battle waged in every human heart and mind between good and evil was the true determinant of whether men would commit terrible acts against, not merely the momentary statutes of Man, but the eternal Law of God, as partially represented in the Ten Commandments given to humanity by God on Mount Sinai.

In the wake of the appalling evil of the murder of the innocents at the elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut yesterday, there are cries for legislation, usually from advocates of gun control, to purportedly aid in preventing this type of tragedy from happening again.  There is also, inevitably, endless commentary.  One piece of commentary I found striking was that by John Podhoretz at Commentary:

 

The connection between the protection of children and the practice of monotheism dates back to the beginning. After Abraham becomes the first Jew, the first monotheist, he is tasked by God to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac, the miracle child of his and his wife Sarah’s old age, and he takes up the task without complaint until God stays his hand. The story of Isaac’s binding, the akedah, is one of the most challenging of the Bible and is often taken to mean God was testing Abraham’s faith with the ultimate demand. But one might also say that at the very dawn of the worship of the One God, the Bible was placing the sacrifice of children outside the realm of the thinkable for the first time.

The idea that civilization is dedicated to the protection and preservation of the weak and the innocent, and not about fulfilling evil impulses to defile and destroy innocence, is the root and core of the West. One cannot conceive of anything more monstrous than a person or persons who could look small children in the eye and systematically shoot them dead. Which is why this crime, among the worst crimes in American history, is not just an assault on the children, or their families, or the town of Newtown—though it is all those things.

What the killer(s) did today was nothing less than a contemporary sacrifice to Moloch, in whatever form Moloch manifests himself today—the appeasement of a voice in the head, most likely. Evil, even if it is loosed due to mental illness, is an effort to destroy the common good by making good appear powerless, ineffectual, weak. Today saw a horrifically effective effort to give evil a victory. It has opened a portal and brought Hell to earth.

Gehenna is real again.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to The Fear of God and the Law

  • A society that truly wishes to protect the weak and the innocent would not tolerate abortion on demand….

    You have it! The banners flew high in our very liberal downtown this past August…Stop Child Abuse. Try to explain the worse cases of child abuse, abortion, and I’m laughed at.

    Donald. What’s left for us to do to counter this attack on “goodness?” Pray?! With God All things are possible.

  • Abraham acknowledged that Isaac belonged to God,

  • “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

    Money quote!

    I think we may blame 50 years of execrable elites (citing diversity and tolerance, seizing unlimited power) pitting Americans against God and against each other.

    For years they have constantly pushed on us: vice is virtue and blessings are curses.

    The OT says “Woe unto him who calls evil good and good evil.”

    We are reaping the whirlwind.

    “As ye sew, so shall ye reap.”

  • Phillip: If may answer your query to Donald Mc Clarey: “What’s left for us to do to counter this attack on “goodness?” Remember, reiterate and remind people of the self-evident truth and founding principle that all men are created equal by “their Creator” and that all men belong to God, first, and to the community/family second, that the church, community and family belong to God, first. Caesar belongs to God and ought to be rendered unto God, that any person who repudiates God, “their Creator”, and our founding principles, repudiates his sovereign personhood, his unalienable rights endowed by God and his citizenship granted by the state, by the state who belongs to God, that the newly begotten sovereign persons belong to God, their bodies and their souls, belong to God, first, to their church and community, second, and to themselves, lastly, that any person who may believe that the soul and body of the newly begotten belongs to another person has forfeit his soul and unalienable rights to the devil. The devil has no soul and covets each and every soul of man, but when the devil got the soul of the Son Man, Jesus Christ, the coward ran to the pit of hell to hide, where, if I may say, the personification of evil belongs.

  • Attempts to parallel Rome and America are often misguided. However, I see a parallelbetween Western Culture and Roman Culture.

    This has happened before: ancient religions that kept passions in check undermined and replaced by half-baked, hedonistic and falsely rationalist ideas that amount to little more than replacing concepts of the divine with an inflated sense of Man’s importance.

    Satan knows that Man is doomed when unchecked by a moral code. He uses the human intellect to undermine our acceptance that we are curiously God’s beloved creation. We convince ourselves that that which doesn’t make perfect sense to us, even though our knowledge is far from perfect, must not be true. Thus we become rebels against the natural order and, thus, God.

    Remember though that we are responsible for only that which is under our control. A heavy price is to be paid for not fulfilling our duties, to be sure, but we are not accountable for what was not ours. If we concentrate on using His gifts well and fulfilling our duties, if we work hard and honestly, raise our families well and are faithful to our spouses and parents, seek to heal the injuries of this world, we will have done what was right and, so, will have done the Good.

    Keep the faith, my friends… It is all that you can do and all you are responsible for.

  • Mary De Voe.

    Thank you. Remind them with actions and as a last resort with words.
    It is our responsibility to lead and teach by our lives. I must remind myself that we can’t be concerned with immediate results, rather leaving the results and timing in Gods hands.
    Thanks Mary.

  • Pingback: SATURDAY GOD & CAESAR EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • “They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind” (Jeremiah 19:5)

    The holy Fathers teach, “Which I commanded not”- this refers to the sacrifice of the son of Mesha, the king of Moab (2 Kings 3:27); “nor spake it”; this refers to the daughter of Jephthah (Judges 11:31); “neither came it into My mind”; this refers to the sacrifice of Isaac, the son of Abraham.

  • There is this second part, Phillip, to my response:
    The challenge of atheism must be met head on sometimes, because of the contempt the militant atheist has for God-fearing people. Remember, if the atheist believes himself to be God-like, and Catholics are God-fearing people, the atheist is emboldened and too easily assumes that Catholics are to be victimized, thereby disrupting the peace and security of the community. The atheist will respect my doctrine and dogma and my religion or I will not respect his atheism, his free will to repudiate our founding principles and our Creator and I will find that he has repudiated his sovereign personhood endowed by the Person of our Creator and all unalienable civil rights and I will find that he ought to be exiled and deported as he has disenfranchised himself, with no one to blame but himself, his arrogance, his lack of humility and his contempt for his neighbor…while at the same time I may be praying and staying close to God…
    Thank you for your kind words.

  • Mary-
    Your welcome.
    In [ Heretics ] by G.K.Chesterton; “We have to love our neighbor because he is there. He is the sample of humanity that is actually given us. Precisely because he may be anybody, he is everybody.”

    Some may say that no one can love his neighbor on an empty stomach, yet many Saints have found it very possible, as long as the heart is full. Example St. Maximilian Kolbe.

    Your second part, the contempt that some atheist may have agonist God-fearing people is correct. Standing in peaceful protest in Madison Wisconsin in 2002 was my first experience with your theory. Interestingly once in awhile, a conversion take place.
    So our public witness for Truth is vital.

    May Gods grace be forever with us in this ongoing 2,000 plus years of Good News broadcasting knowing full well that defending the faith is not for the faint of heart.
    Peace to you and your family Mary.