"It makes my brain bleed" APT

[rubato]

A chance to talk about things we have to do that cause severe mental anguish. That cause throbbing headaches. That make us want to go back to bed and pull up the covers until next week.

What I'm doing today, and why I'm at home, is reviewing patentability searches for upcoming patent filings to show that what we're going to claim is novel. We hire a group in India to do these things and then I read all of the patent and literature they come up with to see if there is any overlap. Sometimes it's very interesting, sometimes it's fun, but often it involves reading things like the following.

"...
Reaction products between at least one dimer, trimer or polymer of trimethylotpropane, trimethylolethane or pentaerythritol and at least one alkylene oxide, such as ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, butydiene oxide, butadiene monoxide, cyclohexene oxide or phenylethylene oxide or a corresponding glycol, have been produced and found to be excellent precursors or raw materials in production of compounds having vinylic unsaturation, such as acrylates, methacrylates and crotonates (β-methylacrylates), for use in radiation, such as UV and EB, curing compositions. Radiation curing compositions are well-known technologies and used in for instance printing inks, paints and lacquers for furniture and packaging materials as well as for adhesives, but can also comprise application areas such as dental materials. Radiation curing compositions typically comprise one or more oligomers or polymers having an acrylic, a methacrylic or crotonic unsaturation in an amount of 10-80% by weight, one or more mono, di, tri multifunctional acrylic, methacrylic or crotonic monomers or oligomers in amounts of 0.1-70% by weight and one or more initiators, such as benzoephenones, aromatic keto compounds, antraquinones, benzoines, acetophenones, acyloxime esters and benzil ketals, in an amount of 0.1-10% by weight. Some in radiation curing compositions commonly used oligomers and polymers include polyurethane acrylates and methacrylates, polyester acrylates and methacrylates, epoxy acrylates and methacrylates, silicone acrylates and methacrylates and unsaturated polyesters. Said reaction products between at least one said dimer, trimer or polymer and a said alkylene oxide are, furthermore, suitable in production of so called "dual cure compositions" being curable by free-radical polymerisation and thermally induced polyaddition or polycondensation with participation of hydroxyl groups as well as hybrid canonic and free radical radiation curable compositions comprising for instance a cydoaliphatic epoxy and/or oxetane compound, a free radical polymerisable partially acrylated, methacrylated or crotonated hydroxyfunctional compound, a free radical photoinitiator and a cationic photoinitiator. Polyalkoxylation of a said dimer, trimer or polymer can be performed by any in the art known alkoxylation process by subjecting a said dimer, trimer of polymer to reaction with a said alkylene oxide or a corresponding glycol at a molar ratio resulting in a predetermined alkoxylation degree, such as between 0.1-100 moles alkylene oxide or corresponding glycol on one mole of said dimer, trimer or polymer. Compounds having said vinylic unsaturation, such as an acrylate, a methacrylate or a crotonate of a said polyalkoxylated dimer, trimer or polymer has been and can be produced by any in the art known process, such as direct calorification of a said polyalkoxylated dimer, trimer or polymer and acrylic acid, methacrylic acid or 2-butenoic acid (crotonic acid or β-methyl acrylic acid) in its cis (isocrotonic acid) and trans form (crotonic acid) or transesterification using for instance ethylacrylate, butylacrylate and similar products or a corresponding methacrylate or crotonate ... "


GaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaH!

yrs,
rubato

[Crackpot]

What do you think I'm ranting about over in general. My head hasn't stopped hurting since I heard my MILs last little indescression.

[BoSoxGal]

FUCKING LYING SCUMBAG NO-GOOD PERJURY-SUBORNING BACKSTABBING GAMEPLAYING GREEDY MOTHERFUCKING DON'T EVEN CARE ABOUT THE CLIENTS' BEST INTERESTS ROBBING THEM OR THE TAXPAYER BLIND:

DEFENSE ATTORNEYS !!!!!

[Scooter]

Someone seems to have gained a different perspective after moving to the other side of the aisle

[rubato]

Wow, you're a little passionate about this I see.

Care to elaborate?

yrs,
rubato

[BoSoxGal]

I have had a bad few weeks, and I am venting.

I just drafted a more detailed response, but thought better of it, given that it is not all that difficult to figure out where I live and practice law.

Suffice to say that borderline incompetence, outright violations of ethics, dishonesty and lack of courtesy with opposing counsel, and unnecessary billing of the public defender system or the client for representation not actually in the clients' best interests are all in the realm of my experience.

What I've learned in the past 7 months as a prosecutor is exactly why I was hired in this office; I was an honest, ethical defense attorney who dealt cases pragmatically and in the best interests of my clients. I didn't file frivolous motions, I didn't take indefensible cases to trial, I didn't go back on my word or repeatedly 'suffer' from clients who did (lots of defense attorneys like to blame everything on their clients).

I worked very hard and was the least well-paid defense attorney in the local system - I was a (low) salaried public defender, whilst the others are all billing the system, or billing their clients by the hour. To give some perspective, one defense attorney I know who worked only part-time was billing at the rate of my salary + half again. I regularly put in 50+ hour weeks and never got ahead of my caseload.

I'm disillusioned.

And sometimes it just feels better to say FUCKERS!!!!!

[dgs49]

I still remember my course in Legal Ethics, when professor described how (and why) a conscientious defense attorney could and would mount a vigorous defense for a person who had, unfortunately, done pretty much what s/he was accused of.

Present favorable but truthful exculpatory evidence, cross examine witnesses vigorously, challenge evidence and how it was gathered. You just might win. Don't lie, just present the evidence in the way most favorable to your client.

And having had no first-hand experience whatsoever with the CrimJus system, I have to admit I was shocked and nauseated by the OJS trial, which I watched for a year, religiously. I thought, if this is the best defense that money can buy, and if they can succeed using those despicable tactics...

How can we, in good conscience, have a death penalty?

[Andrew D]

Someone seems to have gained a different perspective after moving to the other side of the aisle

She's a newbie, Scooter. They haven't brought her in yet.

I hope that she'll end up part of the admirable 5%. And from what I know of her, there's a good chance that she will.

Lamentably, those in that group tend not to last very long. Eventually, they find themselves unable to stand even acquiescing in what is going on around them.

[BoSoxGal]

Someone seems to have gained a different perspective after moving to the other side of the aisle

She's a newbie, Scooter. They haven't brought her in yet.

I hope that she'll end up part of the admirable 5%. And from what I know of her, there's a good chance that she will.

Lamentably, those in that group tend not to last very long. Eventually, they find themselves unable to stand even acquiescing in what is going on around them.

Just wanted to quote this for posterity before it gets deleted - hard to believe these words were written by the same person recently accusing me of 'throwing over all my ideals like so much rotten fruit' and of incompetence.

[Andrew D]

What is there about it that is hard to believe?

When I look at what I know of bigskygal -- and there is a lot of her that I do not know -- I see both.

I see someone who has strong convictions. I see someone who has thrown those convictions overboard. I see someone who still has them.

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying: I see both of those things at the same time.

Is that really unusual?

Maybe the whole thing is just me. Maybe I just project my own fragmentedness onto others around me.

But really, is this so unusual?

I don't mean bigskygal; I mean my own perceptions of people.

Does this not happen to you?

Do you not see in the world around you people who hold deep convictions and behave contrary to those convictions? And they do both at the same time? And both are genuine?

Yes, I see in bigskygal someone who has thrown her own convictions overboard and is still hanging on to them.

I see the same thing when I look in the mirror.

We need to disaddict ourselves from fossil fuels. I know that. I believe it. I believe it wholeheartedly.

And I fill my car's tank from the gas pump.

Am I alone?

Everywhere I look, I see people who are complex bundles of contradictions.

I look at Lord Jim, and I see someone who loves his children, who would do whatever it might take to prevent harm from coming to them. And I see someone who continues to support a church whose approach to pedophilia has been all about avoiding/minimizing scandal, the underlying facts be damned.

I see both of those things. And I see them in the same person.

I look in the mirror.

I see a guy who has busted his ass working against torture. I see a guy who has written extensively about the role of the government of China in atrocities that are enough to make any sane person vomit. I see a guy who, to this day, tears up about accounts he read twenty years ago. I see a guy who wants us to impose a trade embargo on China in the hope that it will induce China to mend its ways.

And I see a guy who is typing this right now on a computer that may well have been made in China.

I see a guy who desperately, passionately wants to change the world.

And I see a guy who accepts the benefits of the very things that are so wrong about the world he so desperately, passionately wants to change.

Is it just me?

[BoSoxGal]

You can't present any evidence to support your assertions that I have thrown my convictions overboard because, quite simply, no such evidence exists. I am a bigger friend to most of the defendants I've prosecuted than their own defense attorneys.

It really disgusts me that you would suggest I've tossed my ideals overboard, Andrew D. I believe emphatically in the value of both good defense attorneys AND good prosecutors in our criminal justice system. Anyone who would suggest that we shouldn't have prosecutors at all is being absurd; the rule of law means nothing without the means to enforce it. Given the awesome power of the prosecutor in the system, the ideal to carry out that role with all honesty & integrity - the ideal that I strive to meet each & every day - should be celebrated rather than scoffed at by a fellow officer of the Court.

It's clear that you are struggling with some inner demons and perhaps you have some regrets about how you've chosen to live your life - personally, professionally - with which you are now struggling as you close in on the final stretch. Don't resort to groundless character assassination of others (I say this not just for my own benefit, as you have now engaged in outrageous attack of others here as well) as a means to work out this angst; if you continue to do so you will only demean yourself entirely in the process.

[Andrew D]

So when you said all that stuff about defense attorneys' being scumbags and suborning perjury and all that, you didn't mean it?

I took it to be one of those things that makes us all complicated and confusing. An example of how we all -- from what I can tell, and I make no claim that my perceptions are perfectly accurate -- are muddled blends of conflicting ideas and attitudes.

Was I wrong about that? Was it really just BS?

[Andrew D]

Yes, we need good prosecutors and good defense attorneys. For that matter, we need good judges.

And we need fair trials.

But are you saying that either side in a criminal proceeding actually wants a fair trial?

I think that the absurdity of that proposition should be immediately obvious to everyone.

Of course the defense attorney doesn't want a fair trial. The defense attorney wants a trial stacked heavily in favor of the defense. And the prosecutor wants a trial stacked heavily in favor of the prosecution.

These aren't tennis matches. This isn't about good sportsmanship.

The defense wants a verdict for the defense. The prosecution wants a verdict for the prosecution. The judge wants to be out golfing. And the jurors just want to go home.

Nobody in the whole process wants a fair trial.

Well, nobody's prime objective is a fair trial. At some level, various participants want a fair trial in the sense of a trial whose result is not going to be reversed on appeal, because nobody wants to go through the shit all over again.

But the bottom line is the bottom line: The prosecution wants a conviction, the defense wants an acquittal, the judge wants a clear docket, and the jurors want the damn thing over with.

Yes, that's a cynical view. But is it unrealistic?

[dgs49]

By the time a case goes to trial, it has already overcome a rather substantial series of hurdles on the prosecution side. The police officer has become aware of an incident. S/he concludes that a crime has occurred. An individual is identified somehow as the likely perpetrator. The police officer must initially decide whether what s/he sees is worthy of pursuing. That won't be done unless there is pretty good reason to continue. The police officer does not want to waste time or look foolish.

There is an arraignment, soon after arrest, at which the basic evidence against the accused is presented. Unless the case is pretty strong, it will be thrown out.

There is a preliminary hearing at which time the evidence - now more developed - is again presented to a judge. Unless the judge thinks the accused is guilty, s/he will simply dismiss the case.

The DA (or the DA's representative) is viewing this throughout, and does not want to waste his or her time prosecuting a "loser" case. If the evidence doesn't look strong enough to convict, it will not be pursued.

Not surprisingly, the prosecuting attorney, by this time, is totally convinced of the guilt of the accused. This is not because she doesn't like the accused or any irrational prejudice, it is the knowledge of the process, in which nobody wants to waste their time on something that is either frivolous or a possible loser in court. If the fukker were innocent, the case would not have gotten this far. Note that depending on the jurisdiction, more than 95% of all criminal cases are adjudicated by guilty plea. That has to tell you something.

Schidt happens, of course. Eyewitness identification is sometimes faulty, some people are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, and some cops are, shall we say, ethically challenged. Sometimes an innocent person comes to trial. Not as often as the Defense Bar wants you (the "Jury Pool") to think, but it does happen.

But the role of the prosecutor, by law and by practice, is to get the evidence out. If exculpatory evidence arises, s/he is bound by law to give it to the Defense, and an ethical prosecutor takes this burden seriously. And in that sense, what the prosecution wants is a presentation of all the relevant evidence, so that the jury can decide whether the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" (and NOT "beyond the shadow of a doubt," which a total bullshit standard) - which we are describing in this thread as "a fair trial."

Now consider the role of the defense attorney. In 98% of the cases the client has done exactly what s/he has been accused of. In one percent, s/he has done many other things just like the actual crime that is charged, but not this particular crime. In these collective 99% of cases, the LAST thing the defense attorney wants is a fair trial. The goal is to find some flaw in the (truthful and correct) evidence, some uncertainty in the account given by the witnesses, some flaw by the police in gathering evidence, or some irrational prejudice in the minds of the jury, that can induce a juror or two to conclude that the prosecution's evidence is not sufficiently compelling. In most jurisdictions, an 11-1 deadlock is a "win" for the Defense - at least temporarily.

So to imply that the Defense and the Prosecution are flip sides of the same coin is a great injustice to the prosecutors - in most cases.

In philosophical discussions in law school, the "correct" way of thinking is that there is nothing unethical about defending a person who has committed the crime of which he is accused. "Everybody is entitled to a vigorous defense," they say.

But it's a nasty, nasty business, not intended for anyone who has more than an ounce's worth of scruples.