That, of course, requires a steep "learning curve", to learn a lot of new things and new technologies, which requires some time.
But, some of the technology is readily available by Google+ already - and there is a wonderful way of communicating with the public and holding public video interviews and public disputes, through Google+ Hangouts.
So, by this blog I am making a direct proposal to my critic by the name of "Coyote Waits" from a profile that had 0 views and 0 followers when I looked it up today, and which is by now locked to me, so I cannot see any followers or views.
But, I did see in the morning that it was an account with no views or followers as of today.
"Coyote Waits" placed the following comment to me blog post asking a question regarding selective enforcement by federal courts of the so-called domestic relations exception, created by federal courts to restrict their jurisdiction in some cases, but not in others.
Here is the comment:
- That what I am claiming in the blog post about selective enforcement of the domestic relations exception is rather silly;
- That I did not do proper research before I made my posts;
- The implication is - that I am incompetent as a civil rights lawyer;
- The Coyote Waits persona is trying to teach me about federal jurisdiction and how to do research;
- The Coyote Waits persona is trying to teach me how to allocate my time, specifically, to spend time on "spinning conspiracy theories" regarding judicial corruption and "spend more time reading the law [I am] supposedly writing about".
Ok, CW asserts that, before posting a blog about a dismissal of a federal civil rights case based on the so-called "domestic relations exception" and before making a point that federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, selectively enforce their own judge-created (and unconstitutional) restrictions on federal jurisdiction, CW claims that I had an obligation to read Ankenbrandt v Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992), because otherwise I assert silly and incompetent things.
Here is Ankenbrandt v Richards. It appears that CW, who made his post either in the middle of the night if he is in California (the time stamp on the comment is 2:27 AM Pacific time, since the Blogger server is in Los Angeles, CA), or at 5:27 AM, still very early, if CW was in New York or on the East Coast. Not many people will spend the wee hours of the morning by putting legal briefs in comments on blogs.
So, CW had a purpose, and the purpose was, obviously, to discredit me and to present me to my reading community as an incompetent attorney who spins conspiracy theory without checking the applicable law.
Well, Ankenbrand is not the applicable law to application of "domestic exception to jurisdiction" that I discussed as applied to civil rights cases - because Ankenbrand is not a civil rights ("federal question jurisdiction") case, it is a diversity case, where exception to jurisdiction is based on other grounds.
So, to begin with Ankenbrand, a diversity case, is inapplicable to civil rights cases that I discussed in my blog that CW criticized.
Moreover, when the "domestic exception" restriction to jurisdiction is applied to a civil rights claim brought under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983 that says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about any "domestic relations exceptions", or deferences, or immunities, or comities, or abstentions, when the court invents grounds like exceptions-deferences-immunities-comities-abstentions etc., the court does usurp the exclusive power of the U.S. Congress to legislate or amend enacted legislation, granted to it by Article I of the U.S. Constitution, but not granted to federal courts, courts of limited jurisdiction, under the Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
CW, being, as the way he/she writes an individual trained in law, could not miss such a difference, and could not miss that he is accusing me of not reading an inapplicable and irrelevant case. Thus, I can reasonably believe that CW's deliberately made a false claim that I should have read Ankenbrand before making my blog post about the selective enforcement of "domestic relations exception" in civil rights cases - documented by the court order that I posted in that blog post, as opposed to other civil rights cases where such domestic relations exception was not applied.
I am fortified in my belief by the fact that CW made his/her false claim of my alleged incompetence anonymously, obviously being in fear of a lawsuit for defamation.
Next, CW undertakes to teach me about federal courts' obligation to analyze whether they have jurisdiction over a case.