tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post4016197975959368411..comments2023-10-28T08:02:44.565-05:00Comments on illusory tenant: CFAF "deemed" criminally inept: Part 8illusory tenanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-43395093805177858012008-03-31T16:09:00.000-05:002008-03-31T16:09:00.000-05:00Ahh, nice work. I'm now officially a groupie.Than...Ahh, nice work. I'm now officially a groupie.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.<BR/>MpMpetersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18399880071535547324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-44578568261643957722008-03-30T20:36:00.000-05:002008-03-30T20:36:00.000-05:00Because it is habeas in all but name it is technic...<I>Because it is habeas in all but name it is technically considered "civil" litigation, and thus doesn't get a "CR" suffix.</I><BR/><BR/>Aha. Thank you, sir.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, <I>Django</I> is one of my favorite John Lewis tunes, and as a matter of fact, I was playing it for one of my piano students just this afternoon.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-76670529342892838412008-03-30T20:30:00.000-05:002008-03-30T20:30:00.000-05:00State v. Love is a sec. 974.06 appeal -- our state...State v. Love is a sec. 974.06 appeal -- our state's equivalent of habeas attack. (It's an analog, if you want to get a bit geeky, of 28 USC sec. 2255 for federal convicts.) Because it is habeas in all but name it is <I>technically</I> considered "civil" litigation, and thus doesn't get a "CR" suffix. Of course, the case is still <I>criminal</I>. Omitting the suffix doesn't magically get the defendant-appellant sprung.<BR/><BR/>You're right: McBride leaves it out of her McBride-Esenberg Pro-Criminal Jurisprudential Quotient. (MEPCJQ? Somebody better work on that acronym. MJQ? Better, but easily confused with the Modern Jazz Quartet and might raise a copyright issue.) <BR/><BR/>There's absolutely no justification for its omission from McBride's "study." She simply didn't know about this little quirk in our classification system. Not that I'd expect a layperson to know. Then again, I wouldn't expect a layperson to think she can "study" a very complex problem like this at the drop of a hat. Not even the MJQ designer herself.<BR/><BR/>But here we are, and so her defenders are left to explain why her data set has been arbitrarily truncated. Ignorance ain't the best excuse, so "cleanest way to identify the data" becomes the rallying cry. Well, no: if you're measuring activity in <I>criminal</I> cases then you don't have the fricking right to say some are included, some aren't just because of the way they're numbered. Just one more MJQ methodological defect among many.William Tyrolerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03964907089960326249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-38412896361674483832008-03-30T10:06:00.000-05:002008-03-30T10:06:00.000-05:00"their initial Enthusiasm has been Curbed??"Heh. W..."their initial Enthusiasm has been Curbed??"<BR/><BR/>Heh. <BR/><BR/>Well, I don't know, but in today's <I>Journal-Sentinel</I>, Stacy Forster is still making reference to CFAF's ad, and at least giving the impression that CFAF's figure is something other than complete and utter horseshit.<BR/><BR/>And, by mentioning the other campaign's conclusion, suggesting that both figures are the subject of fair comparison.<BR/><BR/>Which just goes to show that misplaced slavery to ideals of objective journalism can produce the same untruthful results as blinkered devotion to cheapjack partisan lies masquerading as "journalism."illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-47464267030280522712008-03-30T09:53:00.000-05:002008-03-30T09:53:00.000-05:00How can it be that even after you have expended co...How can it be that even after you have expended countless hours of sweat and tears (albeit with occasional pauses to reflect on the sad hilarity of all this) that nobody from the Gabelman camp, nor the learned Prof.Esenberg, nor Jessica "Queen of literary prose" McBride nor CFAF reprersentatives have even posted a comment? <BR/>Could it be that they have finally realized that by your research, by actually READING the cases (!)that their slimy, reprehensible accusations and assertions cannot stand up to the evidence, and that their initial Enthusiasm has been Curbed??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com