It's just a joke

 

Sad that I have to bring this up - again.  Seems the last time I talked about the 1st Amendment, someone got offended.  

...and left a mean comment.

Eh, I'm not going to get bogged down with other people's baggage.  What is funny, though, is the notion that people think they're tolerant of things but aren't.  Really, really aren't.

I mean, most people will say they are tolerant of things other people say and leave well enough alone.  But most people (I'm looking at the politically left-leaners) are most always looking for ways to be offended.

Take, for example the situation I was in the other day.  So, I met up with this guy waiting for his wife at a local department store and as I'm wont to do, I start telling him a joke.  It was funny but not overly so.  In fact, here it is:

A guy is out working on his car and is accosted one morning by his female neighbor.  

Neighbor says, "My husband has been unfaithful."  

"What happened?" says the guy.  

Neighbor says, "yesterday I was running late for work.  I was running all around trying to get ready.  My hair was a mess, couldn't get my make-up done, didn't eat breakfast and my husband was no help and kept getting in the way. 

I finally got in the car, started it up and took off down the street like a bat out of hell.  Just before I got to the first intersection, my car sputtered and died right in the middle of the street. 

IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET!

I got out and had to walk back to the house in my heels.  I hadn't been gone but 10 minutes.  When got walked in my house I  heard giggling sounds coming from our upstairs master bedroom. 

Bursting in the bedroom, I saw my husband naked and in the arms of the neighbor's teenage daughter!" 

Exasperated, Neighbor exclaims, "What am I going to do?!"

Guy thinks for a moment and says, "A sputtering engine that stops after a short drive often indicates a fuel or ignition problem.  A few things come to mind like a failing ignition coil - which  can prevent the spark plugs from firing correctly. You might also want a mechanic have a look at your fuel filter or even the fuel pump as those could lead to sputtering and stalling, especially at high speeds."

In the middle of the joke, a lady walks by, stops, listens intently and announces that I offended her and she stomped off.

Guy and I bust up laughing more at lady than the joke (which was funny) and we couldn't stop.  

Funnier still was the group that stepped up.  One lady in said group started lecturing us on how childish we were laughing at the uptight lady who couldn't laugh at a joke.  Second lady also left in a huff with husband in tow (who was smirking but knew better than to laugh out loud.  Sad, that).

Anyway, the joke was classic, I made a friend, we ticked off two Karens, and were labeled as childish.  

Sounds like the end of another perfect day. 

I calls it like I sees it

Once upon a time, I used to formally teach legal research and writing at a variety of institutions.  For the most part, students did what they were told given enough instruction and examples - with exception.  I remember two times students went off the beaten path and did things not quite how it was intended.

Instance 1:  Students were to write an objective memorandum (legal research 101 stuff).  While students were told they could collaborate with each other, they were explicitly told to submit they own unique papers.  Out of a class of 21, two students submitted a paper that were identical.  I mean, same periods, commas - word for word the same.  Because neither would say whose paper it was (i.e. who wrote it), they both got zeros for that assignment.

Instance 2:  For a homework assignment.  Students were to derive search queries and locate information using legal databases.  One enterprising student copied the entire question and pasted it into Google.  In academic circles, this is considered cheating (since student didn't derive a search query - he just used Google's algorithm to locate information - wrong information but somehow he got an answer). 

in both instances, the students in question insisted they had done nothing wrong.  In instance 1, they saw nothing wrong with turning in the same paper and that I was just supposed to figure out who did what.  In instance 2, student argued that he was being creative, and took the issue up with the ethics board (they actually held a court case).  People can get kicked out of law school for things like that.  He wasn't but it was a possibility.

Of course, this all was brought to my mind when I read an article about the use of Artificial Intelligence ("AI") in court documents.  What was at issue here were two lawyers using online programs like Chatgpt to locate caselaw to help draft legal documents.  The problem is that many times, information cranked out by AI resources may look right but it is not actually correct.  What this means is that, the cases looked official (correct citation notation) but they didn't even exist!

According to the article, seems a federal court in New York fined a law firm $5,000 for using case law in a motion that didn't exist.  What this means is that when the attorneys ran their search, the AI service returned several cases.  Problem was, while the cases were in in proper format and had a full decision, they didn't exist (i.e. the AI service (i.e. Chatgpt) made them up.  Happens all the time.  

The thing with AI that most people don't realize is that it isn't infallible.  It can give you information quickly (much like Google) but that doesn't mean it's accurate. 

In the case with this case, the lawyers who wrote their motion just presumed that the case law spat out by the AI was the real deal (i.e. they were real cases).  However, they clearly didn't do their due diligence and Shepardize said cases or, otherwise, check to see if they were real cases.  

Much like many students these days, these lawyers just went ahead and used those bogus cases with nary a care in the world figuring that if the AI said the cases were real, that was good enough for them.  Besides, computers never lie, right?

What was most disturbing was that the law firm, at which these lawyers were employed, didn't realize it screwed up (i.e. no one checked their work) AND insisted it had done nothing wrong.  In its response to the court, the law firm stated:

We respectfully disagree with the finding that anyone at our firm acted in bad faith. We have already apologized to the Court and our client. We continue to believe that in the face of what even the Court acknowledged was an unprecedented situation, we made a good faith mistake in failing to believe that a piece of technology could be making up cases out of whole cloth.

First, these lawyers did act in bad faith but not checking the validity of the cases used (i.e. whether the cases were real). 

Second, essentially what the law firm said was we're a bunch of bohemians who use AI with reckless abandon and think AI is infallible that would never purposely spit out results that were wrong or otherwise incorrect or misleading and that even if the cases we used don't actually exist, the court was wrong to insist that we, in fact, use cases that do exist (because AI is infallible and is never wrong.  Never ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, forever).

Uh huh.

The thing that is lost on this law firm is that AI lies all the time.  Results are based on how it is programmed and what queries are inputted over time.

But what amazes me is that the attorneys were not disbarred (or in the very least suspended) for recklessly misleading the court and the client.  Ignore the fact that  the law firms says it didn't act in bad faith - it did by not doing their due diligence in researching and correctly preparing court documents and by doing so, mislead the court (and their client) that the cases used in court documents were real.  

I mean, come on!  This is 1st year law student stuff.

But I guess lack of integrity is what passes as regular practice by lawyers in New York. 

Sad, that.

Word of the Month for June 2025: Domestic Terrorism

 

There are a whole lot of terms tossed around these days.  One word (or phase) that I've heard mentioned over the course of the last few months is Domestic Terrorism (which just happens to be the word of this month).  

Domestic Terrorism refers to criminal acts, like violence or threats, committed within the country to coerce a civilian population or influence the government.  It's often motivated by political or social agendas and can take various forms, from lone-wolf attacks to organized groups.

In fact, Title 18 of the United States Code sec. 2331 states:

(5) the term domestic terrorism” means activities that—

(A) 

involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) 

to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) 

to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) 

to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United State

 So, what are we talking about when it comes to Domestic Terrorism?  

• The 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing, where 168 people were killed
• The 2022 racially-motivated shooting in Buffalo, New York, resulting in 10 deaths 
• The 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia, a nail-laden pipe bomb exploded in Centennial Olympic Park on July 27. The bombing killed a mother and injured more than 100 attendees at the park. 
• At his company’s Christmas party at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernadino, California, Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, opened fire on his co-workers on Dec. 2, 2015. The shooting left 14 people dead and 22 others injured.
• In 2017, Stephen Paddock, 64, killed 59 people and wounded more than 500 others on October 1 when he opened fire from the Las Vegas Mandalay Hotel on a country music festival.
• In 2007, Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people and injured 23 others on the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University campus on April 16, 2007. 
• On January 8, 2011, Jared Lee Loughner shot U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and eighteen others during a supermarket parking lot meeting called “Congress on Your Corner” in Tucson, AZ.
• Frazier Glenn Miller, Jr. attacked a Jewish community center and retirement community on April 13, 2014, killing three people.    
  

As noted in the figure below it is important to note here is that Domestic Terrorism targets groups - not specifically individuals (though it is the individuals who are harmed).

 

Another thing to note is that while similar, domestic violence does not include Hate Crimes though both terms seem to have cross-overs.  Where domestic Terrorism focuses on groups, Hate Crimes targets individuals.

Semantics, I know, but it's important to keep these things in perspective.

Anyway, the reason I'm even bringing this up is because the other day,  I had a couple of teenagers challenge me to a fight.  

Yeah, I know - I couldn't believe it myself!

In my younger days I would have not hesitated to pummel these punks into putty.  My older self had to laugh.  

The problem is that these particular youths had a history of assailing young ladies in the area and getting off with a "good talking to."  Guess they thought that if they could get away with attacking young ladies with just a talking to, that an old guy shouldn't be much of an issue.

Yeah, not so much.  Old guys have resources (and years of pent-up anger) that  most young ladies do not.

This all reminds me of Maxwell's silver hammer or Johnny from Oingo Boingo's Only a Lad.  

While not immediately obvious, these above two songs are but examples of social injustice opening the way for another group of domestic terrorists. 

A stretch?  Maybe.  But they're just teenagers, right?  There's no cause of concern.  Well, maybe not.  I mean the Menendez brothers essentially killed their parents for the money and look where that got them.  

Remember Ted Kaczynski?   "Too smart" to get caught as a kid, Ted was a bright child as was often regarded "different" due to his intelligence.  A domestic terrorist, Kaczynski murdered three people and injured 23 others between 1978 and 1995.  

So much for that intelligence and while "only a lad," maybe he was just a little too unhinged for his own good.

Other domestic terrorists who were unhinged as kids include:

• Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold (Columbine shooters in 1999)
• Dylan Room (Charleston Church shooter in 2025)
• Nikolas Crus (Parkland shooter in 2018)

and I'm sure there are a whole lot of others out there who were either not reported, were a mere statistic, or just didn't make the evening news.

The point, though, is that just because s/he is a kid doesn't mean they can't flip out later.  Best to keep a weathered eye out.

Just in case.

TDS

CAVEAT:  If you lean left, might I suggest not reading this blog post as you're likely to lose your lunch.  

Typically, I would reserve a topic like this for the word of the month.  However, I've been hearing this term over and over and if I don't get it down on "paper," I'm going to lose it.

What am I talking about?  I'm talking about Trump Derangement Syndrome (or TDS - which is a real thing, actually).

There are two concepts, here.  First, is Derangement Syndrome which refers to a state of mental disturbance or irrational behavior.  Back in the 18th century, when medical professionals began using the term "derangement" to describe various mental illnesses, the term was used to address any type of abnormal behavior or thought patters that deviated from societal norms.

Fast forward to modern times, the idiom "derangement syndrome" has been used in various contexts to describe a state of irrational behavior or extreme obsession towards a particul.ar person, group, or idea.  This idiom is often used to criticize individuals who exhibit such behavior and suggest they are not thinking rationally  (Anderson, J.  (2024, May 21).  Understanding Derangement Syndrome" Idiom: Meaning, Origins & Usage - Crossidiomas.com. https://crossidiomas.com/derangement syndrome).

That's pretty deep stuff and not at all flattering - particularly for politicians looking to be re-elected.  I mean it seems to have worked in Senator Fetterman's favor what with his seeming erratic behavior as of late.  Of course, as will be discussed below), Sen. Fetterman's actions can be attributed to intentional actions to bring on TDS amongst his democratic colleagues (so, I guess, the jokes on the democrats as a whole).

Anyway, the second part goes to the heart of TDS.   Trump Derangement Syndrome is a term used to describe a form of toxic criticism and negative reaction to President Donald J. Trump’s statements and political actions. 

 

 

The origin of the term "Trump Derangement Syndrome" can be traced to the late political columnist and commentator Charles Krauthammer, a psychiatrist, who first coined the phrase “Bush derangement syndrome” in 2003.  Krauthammer defined Trump Derangement Syndrome as a Trump-induced “general hysteria” that produced an “inability to distinguish between legitimate policy differences and signs of psychic pathology” in the president’s behavior. Journalist Fareed Zakaria, moreover, defined TDS as “hatred of President Trump so intense that it impairs people’s judgment" (see derangement syndrome, above).

Signs of TDS can be observed along a continuum of reactions, ranging from verbal expressions of intense hostility toward President Trump to overt acts of aggression and even violence against anyone supporting or anything symbolizing him.  The recent assassination attempt(s) on Trump’s life provides compelling evidence of the volatility and potential dangers of TDS if left unchecked.  (Pattakos, A. (2024, Sept. 5).  The Paradox of Trump Derangement Syndrome: Finding Meaning in the Space Between Stimulus and Response.  Psychology Today.  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-meaningful-life/202409/the-paradox-of-trump-derangement-syndrome).

So, how does TDS work in everyday/real life?

TDS triggers emotional reactions: Anxiety, anger, and relentless rumination can flood anyone exposed to the label, while those branded “deranged” may feel stigmatized, withdraw, or fire back making them look like deranged psychopaths - which is, I suspect, the whole point.

TDS exposes a person's identity: In recent times, political affiliation (like religion in the past and present) has fused tightly with personal identity.  Criticism of a favored (or hated) leader can feel like an attack on the self (which is why you see more and more people becoming the subject of laughable memes).

TDS may serve as an abject dismissal:  Branding someone “deranged” shifts the conversation from policy to sanity, shutting down dialogue instead of engaging it.  Of course, it also helps to lighten the mood and might make people think twice about irrational/unlawful public outbursts. 

While I think all of these hijinks are funny and merely go to show the extent at which people will go to get their 15 minutes of fame, there are those in society who really can't pull away and let themselves get caught up in the insanity of TDS. 

For those who need to calm the freak down, Dr. Brad Brenner (a psychologist in DC) offers the following suggestions:

• Put your phone down (or stop watching the MSM): Limit how often—and from which outlets—you check the news. Choosing trusted sources and knowing when to log off reduces emotional overload.
• Practice Mindfulness:  A few minutes of meditation, deep breathing, or quiet reflection anchors you in the present and calms political fight-or-flight spikes.
• Set Boundaries: Decide in advance when—and with whom—you’ll discuss politics. Steering clear of heated debates at home, work, or online protects your peace of mind.
• Establish "Safe" Social Connections: Share space with supportive people—friends, clubs, or a therapy group—who understand your values. Community cushions stress and offers fresh perspective.

Yep, Trump Derangement Syndrome is sure a thing (and will be an actual mental illness if politicians in Minnesota have a say in it).  

Sad that there are people in the world that can't take a joke.  Sadder, still, are those that say they are all about tolerance and 1st Amendment and then flip out when anyone says anything that offends their sacred sense of self.

It's a guy thing

 

CAVEAT:  If you're woke or tend to lean left, you're probably going to be offended by a couple things in this post.  Actually, if you're woke, you're probably going to be offended by most of my 400+ posts in this blog.  If you're still reading them, you've been anesthetized sufficiently such that you're numb to my humor and we can proceed with reckless abandon.

Moving on, then...

I've taught the "HOW" of online and in-print legal research for the better part of 3 decades (for the unwashed, that's 30 years).  

The first third I really didn't know what all I was doing.  I had a pretty good idea of things and got many things right (by accident, no doubt).  Of course, I also said a whole lot of things that were almost correct but had enough stuff wrong that it makes me cringe.  

During the last third of my career (i.e. present tense), I was/am on fire.  Of course, I had to go through some serious refining to get to where I am and while there were the occasional hiccup, most of what I say these days is absolute scripture.  Dang but John the Revelator would be impressed.

The 2nd half of my career, I got smarter about stuff but still got some things wrong.  Take, for example, concept of statutes versus codes.  

Do you know what the difference between statutes and codes are?  Is there a difference?!

As it turns out, there is - but I didn't know that until later in my career as a law librarian.  Thing is, most people don't know the difference.  Judges, attorneys, pro se litigants - all use the terms interchangeably and they all sound like tourists.

Years ago, I went a road trip I with a group of scouts (back when the BSA was a thing and not the mess that it is now).  In my car was situated myself, a Friend of mine, and his kid.  We were having a discussion and, wouldn't you know it, the topic of statutes v. codes came up.  

In my ignorance, I said that there was no such thing as statutes - that it was all codes.  I was able to give a decent defense but Friend laughs at me anyway.  Then Friend calls his attorney buddy and they both laugh at me.  

Great Friend.

I'm wondering if Friend were a woman, would they at least have tried to set me straight and not just laugh on impulse?  I guess it's a guy thing - Guys laugh, Women empathize.

Anyway, I wasn't feeling the love and vowed retribution.  

Years later when I was developing a 15-week series for a Legal Research and Writing class for a law school, I finally learned the difference between codes and statutes.

It was like a lightening bolt and was probably how Einstein felt when he finally figure out his theory of relativity.  Yeah, it was that powerful!  

Thing is, I'm betting Friend didn't know the difference between Codes and Statutes (or even that there was a difference) but laughed because...well,...he's a guy and that's what guys do when they don't know or know how to react.  

Guys laugh.

Anyway, and stated simply, CODES are the body of law in a particular jurisdiction.  STATUTES are the individual laws within the code.  It may seem a simple/inconsequential thing but when you're conducting legal research, it helps to know what you're looking for/at.

For example California, there are (currently) 30 bodies of law within the California Code.  Of that, the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), is the code for civil procedural law in California. 

 

Section 473(b) of the CCP is the specific statute that deals with setting aside a default judgement.

Why is this even important?  Well, let's say you've been sued in civil court but you were never served process.  In the case you were sued and didn't answer the suit/complaint, in California the plaintiff can file a default against you (i.e. and wins the case) if you haven't filed a response after 30 business days (i.e. when the court is open for business).  

Of course, if you haven't been served process, then how will you know that you were sued?  It wouldn't be right to just let the plaintiff sue you and then get away with murder - free to rape and pillage - unless you were able to defend yourself.  So, what can you do?  Well, CCP 473(b) shows you the criteria by which you can set aside that default allowing you to have your day in court.

It's a simple thing but critical and possibly life defining depending on which side of the fence you're on.

Anyway, do you see how this all works?  First, find the Code(s) then find the specific Statute(s) you need.

Let's try another one.  

Say I want to find the codes for the state of South Carolina.  I can search  Google.com and search for "South Carolina codes" and locate the South Carolina Legislature (and it's collection of all 63 Titles (i.e. Codes)).  Note: CODES=the body of law.

Now, say I want to know to which party are costs of a lawsuit enured (meaning, which party gets costs of suit if they win - plaintiff or defendant)?

For that, I would scroll down to (and click the link that is) Title 15: Civil Remedies and Procedure:

 Then scroll down to Chapter 37:  Costs

 

Here, you can click on either HTML or Word format.  Note, South Carolina is particularly nice to provide two formats.  Most states don't have that feature.  

Clicking on HTML format for Chapter 37 shows us the particular STATUTE (i.e. laws within the body of code) regarding who collects if they win (in this case, section 20):

Section 20 (or, more accurately, Section 15-37-20) states that costs are awarded to the party that succeeds (so, either the plaintiff or defendant).

And that's how it's done.

The upshot to all this and what you should be made aware of is:

1.  There is a difference between Codes and Statutes, and 

2.  Every state and federal jurisdiction have their own body of codes.  In fact, Justia.com is a great resource to locate all state code and/or Federal codes.  

One caveat though - free legal resources are great and all but they generally lag by at least 6 months (federal codes/regulations are worse.  They can lag by several years).  So, if an online resource has been officially updated in January, the free online resources won't be updated until around June - if ever.  Just be careful out there when using free online legal resources.

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.  

Of course, Friend doesn't remember that story or, at least, won't admit to remembering it - which is just as well since my retribution is cased in the fact that I've been able to set hundreds of newly minted lawyers (and not a few judges) on the path of enlightenment helping them to NOT sound like tourists.