• Or maybe he is being blackmailed himself by the security services. I would not doubt it at all if almost everyone in Washington is being blackmailed.

    Between being blackmailed and bought, are there any who can actually do something their conscience wants them to do?

  • davidgmills commented on the diary post Zero Dark Thirty: Hijacking History by Barry Lando.

    2013-02-18 20:01:39View | Delete

    Here’s the Jones/Harrit article. When you can do research like this you let me know.


  • davidgmills commented on the diary post Zero Dark Thirty: Hijacking History by Barry Lando.

    2013-02-18 19:43:01View | Delete

    Yes you can let me know what you think but I won’t even consider changing my opinion unless you have first read the articles by Drs. Stephen Jones and Neils Harrit concerning their findings of nanothermites in the dust. Apparently your fire engineering buddies were incompetent if they didn’t test for accelerants and explosives. That [...]

  • davidgmills commented on the diary post Zero Dark Thirty: Hijacking History by Barry Lando.

    2013-02-17 21:50:07View | Delete

    I am not going to comment on who did 9/11 because I don’t know. But what I do know is that the World Trade Centers were not taken down by airplanes. It is basic physics and this progressive was saying it right after it happened and was banned from several “progressive” websites for saying so. [...]

  • davidgmills commented on the diary post Photos of Burned Out Dorner Cabin Provoke More Questions Than Answers by hotflashcarol.

    2013-02-14 11:16:57View | Delete

    It now appears that the photo I clicked on (see comment 6) which showed what appeared to be log cabins is no longer available at the link. So somebody needs to find out whether these were in fact log cabins or just pseudo log cabins. Because not only are large logs hard to ignite, most [...]

  • davidgmills commented on the diary post Photos of Burned Out Dorner Cabin Provoke More Questions Than Answers by hotflashcarol.

    2013-02-14 11:02:28View | Delete

    The thing about log cabins is that these huge logs (if that is in fact what they are and it sure seems that way from the photos) don’t burn that easy. In fact that is one of the selling points about log homes. It takes a lot to get large logs to stay lit. Moreover, [...]

  • davidgmills commented on the blog post Euthanasia of the Rentier

    2013-02-10 16:23:12View | Delete

    Calling economics the dismal science gives economics a pass. It really should be called the fraudulent arithmetic.

  • davidgmills commented on the diary post El Niño and La Niña Redefined by WeatherDem.

    2013-02-09 14:47:42View | Delete

    Really WeatherDem. Apparently you know something that the rest of the world doesn’t — and that is the temperature of the earth is going to increase no matter what. That is some serious hubris, given the fact we still don’t understand what causes ice ages, and we are in the midst of an interglacial.

  • I have just asked for a writ of permission to appeal to the TN. Supreme Court in my case, Mills v. First Horizon.

    See the TN Court of Appeals decision here:

    http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In TNCO 20101116517.xml&docbase=CS

    I am not in default. My argument is that the MERS loan on my property is invalid. I allege that the separation of the note and deed of trust are deliberate and intentional, and through the use of MERS as a strawman lienholder, the recordation process is transformed from a public, transparent and open system to a private one, thus making the lien void as against public policy. I allege it is also void because MERS is not a true beneficiary, and for a deed of trust to be valid it must have a true beneficiary. I allege my note is lost and the lien fails for lack of an enforceable note. I allege that the noteholder is unknown, and my servicer as the agent of the noteholder, has no authority to demand payments of me without disclosing the identity of the noteholder and proof of authority to act on behalf of the noteholder, and have asked for a cease and desist order against the servicer. And many more things — including the return of my payments on my second lien note when I paid it off and was never sent the original note back.

    The court of appeals held my case is not ripe because I am not in default and because no one is trying to collect against me on my paid off second mortgage lien note.

    My application to the Supreme Court of TN was filed on Friday September, 11, 2011. I hope the Supreme Court will take the case because the Court of Appeals reversed/ignored existing law and because the opinion is just simply awful.

  • Makes absolutely no sense that those claims would be barred and a FISA claim succeed.

    Then the fault lies with the judiciary. But again nothing surprises me with the federal judiciary any more. The more opinions like this though, the more then general public will question what it going on.

    I had a similar problem with a state case I filed in 2006 regarding computerized voting. I argued that no paper trail violated the state’s constitution. Lost because I as a single voter could not prove harm due to the fact that my vote was secret and had no way of knowing whether it was counted or not.

    A real catch 22.

    A showing of harm should not be required as proof when the case involves secrecy. Period. Just bad law. No other way to explain it.

  • I am not denying that the Plaintiff’s and their attorneys won’t take it. But why is the case limited to statutory FISA damages? Why limit it in such a way? Push the envelope. Be creative and bring in other actions.

    But the statutory action points to the real problem. Statutory damages are almost always very limited and only the attorneys really win. Being a litigant is also hard work. Why should litigants work for free anymore than a lawyer should?

    The way things are structured in these cases the litigants win nominal damages. It really is time for the courts to carve out special damages that make the litigants win real money and when that happens, there will be a real penalty for violation. Punitive damages almost never get awarded or stand up on appeal. So the re needs to be some genuine recognized special damages for these cases. If nothing else, award the litigants for their time.

    In PI, we only get a portion of what our clients get. If we don’t make a real recovery for them, we don’t recover for ourselves.

    I just think the present system for addressing these violations, whether constitutional or statutory, creates a moral hazard. Lawyers get well paid, while their clients don’t. It really makes the public skeptical of the system.

    I am glad the lawyers won and hopefully their win will stop some of the 4th amendment abuses. But I really doubt it. Maybe the district court will be upheld by the circuit court, but if it goes to the Supremes, it will likely be overturned or whittled to the point where it loses any value as a deterrent.

  • Call me underwhelmed. But then again I have been underwhelmed by the federal judiciary for more than thirty years and get more so with nearly every opinion.

    Would NMvor have the same opinion if the court had awarded $4 million in actual damages and $2 million in attorneys fees? I doubt it. When a court tells the litigants that the violations of their Constitutional rights were of essentially nuisance value, or of no value at all, then it should not be surprising that a layman would think that con law cases really are just a legal racket.

    Maybe what NMvor does not realize is that no Plaintiff’s lawyer worth his salt wants ever wants to be put in a situation where the lawyer financially gains and his client loses. But that is where the courts and legislatures have been putting Plaintiff’s lawyers for years.

    I have been telling juries for years that if you can’t put a price on human pain and suffering then essentially you must believe that a man or woman’s life is worthless. These are constitutional violations for Christ’s sake. They are not worthless claims. (If the lawyers didn’t ask for more, shame on them for not figuring out a way [pain and suffering] to ask for something in line with the attorneys fees they were requesting). The court just told these litigants whose rights were violated that their loss of dignity and rights were worthless. What kind of message does that send to other judges and juries? If a case was worth awarding $2 million in attorneys fees, then it was worth awarding at least $4 million in actual damages.

    Then to decide that an entity is not entitled to punitive damages simply because it has been declared to be a terrorist organization by the government? Sounds like a license to declare every entity the government does not like to be a terrorist organization just to prevent punitive damage awards.

    The judiciary needs to step up and needs to recognize the messages it sends the public with their decisions. The message here was that the lawyers win and the litigants loose.