tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7656840100957938850.post2580650726116920221..comments2023-11-22T02:22:42.456-08:00Comments on Independence of Representation in Court and Judicial Accountability in the United States: Criticism from the bushes continues - I guess, I said something rightTatiana Neronihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02164591853661429324noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7656840100957938850.post-28503449582697346152015-09-25T05:04:49.545-07:002015-09-25T05:04:49.545-07:00First, as I said, I do not delete posts on this bl...First, as I said, I do not delete posts on this blog and I did not delete your post. Your post could have disappeared because of how you tried to publish it (my guess, I do not know whether or how it happened). <br /><br />In my own experience, when I posted replies to your comments from a phone or an Windows-based computer, they appeared ok. When I posted comments from a Mac, they disappeared. Before posting, watch what is in the window "publish as". If it says "Google account", your comment will disappear, so I suggest you save what you wrote in a separate word document and post it from another device. If it says "Coyote Waits" (your actual Google account name), your comment will be published. It is my experience in posting, not my settings, but I hope it will help preserve comments on this blog, or on any other blogger.com-based blog.<br /><br />That said, I regret that I have never seen your substantive analysis and encourage you to repost it. Once again, I did not delete any of your comments.<br /><br />It is apparent that you posted further comments under a misconception that I deleted your substantive analysis, and I posted comments in the misconception that you promised substantive analysis, but instead proceeded with conclusory allegations.<br /><br />That is a misunderstanding that can be easily avoided, and in fact can never happen in a face to face debate.<br /><br />I will not post any substantive comments as to what said about my alleged "goading", since you obviously were thinking I deleted your comment, which is incorrect.<br /><br />And, I will wait for you to repost your substantive analysis. Technical glitches happen, but reposting is an easy way to correct them.<br /><br />I am looking forward to addressing your substantive analysis, as I was throughout our exchange of comments.Tatiana Neronihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02164591853661429324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7656840100957938850.post-11073660647892495262015-09-25T00:45:56.000-07:002015-09-25T00:45:56.000-07:00This will be my last post on your blog. I posted ...This will be my last post on your blog. I posted a substantive argument relating to your assertions about the Supreme Court and the domestic relations exception. Even though I admitted two errors on my part, I guess my specific explanation of your errors was not acceptable to you as my post has disappeared.<br /><br />Instead, I find these rambling attempts to goad me and not-so-subtle accusations of sexism which are laughable.<br /><br />I should have taken Mark Twain's advice about arguing with the likes of you. I will do so now.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03795926086085952256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7656840100957938850.post-78148827899091748642015-09-24T21:25:46.024-07:002015-09-24T21:25:46.024-07:00So, I guessed correctly on all points so far - tha...So, I guessed correctly on all points so far - that you are a male lawyer or a judge (because of the manner of presentation and patronizing attitude), and that you may have come from the Amazon. <br />You are also the first commentator, coyote or human, from the many commentators who left comments since the beginning of this blog, to have used four-letter language in the comments. I encourage you to abstain from that in the future. I do not want to delete comments with any criticism, however strong, against the substance of my blog, but I will be deleting comments containing foul language. Get a grip on yourself, it will help you in the courtroom. <br />I understand you may have been tired, I am tired now, too, yet, I do not use foul language. In my opinion, NOTHING justifies using the language you used in a public forum, in response to a criticism by a female attorney. And, once again, you are the most educated commentator on my blog so far, and the first who used the foul language and was disrespectful to me. Which is not a surprise to me – but does not add to public trust in the integrity of the legal profession. And I had some feedback from the public already about your disrespectful comments. <br />The problem with anonymity in your case is that, because of your anonymity you think you can behave in a public forum, on my blog, as an infantile child, throwing tantrums when you do not like some criticism. It is, well, infantile and does not add to credibility of your arguments. <br />And, lighten up, please. Nobody is going to chase you or sue you for your comments. I welcome comments, any comments, because, as I said before, they all contribute to public debate on issues of serious public concern. <br />And you DO raise interesting and serious issues of public concern. As a scholar who is researching the issue of legal education, and of legal education of the public, I was very interested in your description how you went through my litigation history that is available on the Internet and what you discerned from those cases. I will run separate blog posts on that, not in a personal way. Just to show what is omitted from judicial decisions, as a rule, and where to get both the full background of researched cases, and the cutting-edge legal arguments that develop the law instead of pulling it back into the stone age and Star Chamber.<br />Also, thank you for your assurance that you do not want to deter me from expressing my opinions freely on my blog. Even though you are not deterring me, I will accept that assurance as sincere. <br />I also had a full working day, I was not able to post a more complete answer to all issues you raised in your comments, but I will try and do it tomorrow.<br />I repeat my invitation for live video debates. Even though you are a lawyer, you are a coyote, not a chicken. Why the cold feet? :) Or, you do not believe in the integrity of the legal profession and are in fear of a disciplinary action for ideas you publicly express? What a sad thought…<br />Tatiana Neronihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02164591853661429324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7656840100957938850.post-81859814291856253152015-09-24T09:40:38.274-07:002015-09-24T09:40:38.274-07:00Oh, for fuck's sake . . . do you want me to pa...Oh, for fuck's sake . . . do you want me to pass you the nails up on that cross?<br /><br />It might surprise you that I do not really care about you or your pissing contests. If you insist purely on ad hominem attacks, I question whether I should bother even posting substance -- let alone shedding my anonymity as just a lawyer who happened to be intrigued by your blog. Why would I want to subject myself to personal abuse? Particularly as you have already made vague threats of defamation suits based purely on my disagreeing with you.<br /><br />Yes, I learned about you from your criticism of Justice Breyer's book. It was completely wrong, but it intrigued me and led me to read some of this blog. I have found it very interesting. If you do not want readers or do not want critical comments, fine. But not every criticism is a conspiracy to shut you up.<br /><br />I should clarify what I meant about your litigation history. I have no doubt you have been a very successful lawyer and recognize that published cases do not tell the tale of an attorney's professional career. I have only seen published (or "unpublished" but on the internet) court decisions involving you as a lawyer, plaintiff, or both. That history is full of dubious and quixotic causes of action. I know you see the decisions against you as wrong and even malicious. Most -- if not all -- at least read as correct applications of the law. You just lost. It happens and I'm not criticizing you just for losing.<br /><br />It is, by the way, perfectly understandable that the ordeals you and your husband have faced have been a frequent subject of your blog and that many seemingly unrelated posts are connected to issues you've been frustrated by or uncovered in running that gauntlet.<br /><br />I do not seek and do not want you to "shut up."<br /><br />Again, however, I will not debate you live and I will not shed my anonymity. As a lawyer, I would think you would recognize that an argument should stand on its own. If I wrongly cite the law or fail to support a point, that is a legitimate rebuttal. But merely saying "we don't know who you are" does not change the substance of anything I say. That you insist it does is rather sad.<br /><br />I have been up since yesterday morning so some of this may ramble and make little sense. I apologize if that is the case. I will now try to briefly go back and respond to the substance of our prior dispute -- in which I am going to admit some errors on my part while insisting you still made some errors.<br /><br />BTW, for the record, I am a "he." Not relevant and nothing to be proud of, but there it is. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03795926086085952256noreply@blogger.com