REMINDS ME OF THE L.A. LAW PILOT: Tax Official Dies in Office, Co-Workers Don’t Notice for Two Days.

THOUGHTS ON GERM LINE GENETIC ENGINEERING: “Why improve our genomes? Because some stuff in them is just broken. We all have harmful mutations. They are called genetic load. The problem is that evolution can not select harmful mutations out of existence at a fast enough rate to prevent them from surviving, in some cases for many generations. So every one of us might have hundreds or even thousands of mildly harmful mutations. Even worse for future generations, our rate of accumulation of harmful mutations has accelerated as a result of industrialization and modern medicine. People who are less healthy due to lousy genes are more likely to survive and reproduce. We should not let our genomes decay across generations.”

So if nature’s not weeding ’em out, I guess it’s up to us.

CLAIM: You’re Not Going to Miss All Those MacBook Ports.

AT AMAZON, deals on contract cell phones and service plans.

ADVANCES IN CAR SAFETY: In the comments to yesterday’s 120mph Ford Focus post, a reader posted this link to a crash test between a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and a 2009 Chevy Malibu. Things have come a long way in 50 years.

INDIANA COURT: Yes, the “Castle Doctrine” applies to defending yourself against police who enter your home illegally, too. That seems right. Here’s the full opinion.

NEXT MONTH IN NASHVILLE, I’ll be speaking at the National Firearms Law Seminar. My topic: The Second Amendment As Ordinary Constitutional Law. Also there: Massad Ayoob, Stephen Halbrook, and Joyce Malcolm.

ANTI-ANXIETY DRUGS BEFORE SURGERY: More For The Doctor’s Benefit Than For The Patient’s?

THOMAS LIFSON: The University of Oklahoma’s morning after. “The answer to hurt feelings and the legacy of slavery is not the suspension of the Constitution. In the cold light of day, the irresistible urges in response to an outrageous video were as foolish as those animating a couple of horny teenagers. We need grownups in charge of higher education, but alas, that is not the norm in Norman, OK, and many other campuses.”

BAD NEWS FOR DAVID BOREN: Oklahoma Fraternity’s Alumni Hire High-Profile Attorney, May Sue School. “Alumni told the Daily Oklahoman they believe university President David Boren may have overstepped his bounds by closing the SAE house on campus and expelling two members.” Ya think?

THE LATEST PRESS RELEASE FROM LAWPROF JOHN BANZHAF, ON SUING UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS PERSONALLY FOR MISCONDUCT IN SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS:

College Brass to be Sued Personally Over Date Rapes
$100 Million Estimated Legal Cost So Far Could Skyrocket, Predicts Expert

WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 13, 2015): The costs to schools of dealing with allegations of date rapes and other campus sexual assaults, which may have already topped 100 million dollars, could skyrocket under plans announced this morning to sue nor only colleges, but also key academic administrators, for violating the constitutional rights of accused students.

The plans – and an explanation about how and why conducting expulsion hearings which do not permit accused students to cross examine accusers and others violates their right to Due Process under the U.S. Constitution – were revealed by public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

The controversial professor, “The Man Behind the Ban on Cigarette Commercials,” and “a Driving Force Behind the Lawsuits That Have Cost Tobacco Companies Billions of Dollars,” has also been called an “Entrepreneur of Litigation, [and] a Trial Lawyer’s Trial Lawyer.”

That’s because he helped develop and popularize many novel legal theories in addition of those related to tobacco. These include victories against food companies over the issue of fat (“The Man Big Tobacco and Now Fast Food Love to Hate,” and the lawyer “Who’s Leading the Battle Against Big Fat”), a leading Supreme Court decision protecting the environment, several novel law suits attacking governmental corruption, and over 100 successful legal actions protecting women from sex discrimination.

On this basis he announced at a press conference this morning at the National Press Club that “nobody can accuse me of being anti-woman, a men’s-rightist, or even a diehard conservative or libertarian.”

According to Prof Banzhaf, state schools considering dismissal of students charged with date rape or other sexual assaults must provide them with Due Process by assuring them of various procedural protections, including the right to cross examine adverse witnesses.

These fundamental rights cannot be taken away or abridged by the university, by any federal agency, or even by Congress, because they grow out of a constitutional principle and formula established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Moreover, entities and individuals – such as college presidents – who violate these rights can be sued in federal court, not only for monetary damages, but also for attorney fees.

The Supreme Court rule and formula provides that when people face serious losses based upon the finding of specific individual facts – whether that’s a loss of benefits, or of a job, or the loss of student status – the entity making the decision must adopt any procedural protection likely to help prevent an unfair loss of the benefit, unless it’s too expensive or otherwise too burdensome to do so.

Thus, in date rape situations, where there’s often no other evidence but his word against her’s, the accused must be able to use what Wigmore famously called “the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth,” cross examination.

In other words, the right to be able to cross examine is most vital when the only two witnesses to an event tell diametrically opposed versions of the same event – which is typical in date rape cases.

For example, in a case known as Donahue v, Baker, 976 F.Supp. 136 (N.D. NY. 1997), a rape charge against a male student hinged solely on whether a female had consented to the act of sexual intercourse which both agreed had taken place.

The federal court held that the accused had a constitutional right to cross-examine the complainant because the only evidence that the act had not been consented to was her testimony, and the determination of guilt or innocence therefore rested solely on her credibility.

This fundamental principle has also been recognized by several federal courts of appeals.

For example, in Winnick v. Manning, 460 F.2d 545 (2d Cir. Conn. 1972), the court said: “if this case had resolved itself into a problem of credibility, cross examination of witnesses might have been essential to a fair hearing.”

This principles was echoed only a few years ago in Flaim v. Med. College of Ohio, 418 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. Ohio 2005) where the appellate judges quoted from exactly the same statement of the law.

Several lower federal courts have also reached the same conclusion.

It’s unfortunate but true that universities often react more quickly and effectively to legal and other pressures than to fairness, reason, or logic, says Banzhaf. For too long they failed to act decisively to complaints of rape because of pressure from coaches and big donors, and concerns about their reputations.

Then they overreacted to legal threats from the federal government to begin expelling students accused of rape, even if they has to scrap most procedures providing fairness, Banzhaf argues.

So, to help counter, or counterbalance, this pressure from the federal government, Banzhaf said he planned to work with others to put college president and other administrators on notice that they must begin providing students facing dismissal for date rape the fundamental procedural protections required by the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution, or face potential legal liability.

If they refuse, he plans to help attorneys representing the student to “SUE THE BASTARDS” – with law suits being brought not only against the school, but also its responsible administrators.

They must understand that being sued in one’s individual capacity is very unpleasant and taxing, even if the university promises to reimburse the administrator for any adverse judgments.

Being named as a defendant in a law suit can affect a person’s credit rating where the notation can remain for many years, regardless of the outcome of the litigation.

Many such individuals may also find it necessary to hire their own attorneys, not completely trusting that university lawyers will give their interests the same priority as their employer’s.
.
Finally, they may have to submit to pre-trial discovery.

So, to protect both their own interests, as well as the interests of their college or university, Banzhaf and his colleagues hope they will reexamine their institution’s procedures for deciding cases of date rape claims to be sure that they provide the accused with all the Due Process to which he is entitled.

Otherwise, like the tobacco companies and food companies and many others who believed they could never be held liable, they may be surprised when plaintiffs’ lawyers “Sue The Bastards.”

As I keep saying, this is a growth opportunity for plaintiff’s lawyers.

AUSTIN BAY: Remembering Remagen Bridge: A Lesson in American Initiative.

CONSERVATIVES BAND TOGETHER on criminal justice reform.

It’s been a good week for conservative criminal justice reform, which increasingly appears to be a unifying issue for the base and the party’s national leadership. On the one hand, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry—who some speculate will run again for president this election cycle—has joined Jeb Bush as a signatory on the “Right on Crime” pledge. That pledge entails upholding a series of criminal justice reform principles, including the idea that prisons have been too often relied upon as a shortcut to solving our criminal problems—the equivalent of sweeping dirt under a rug. . . .

Overall, this is pretty mild stuff, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. Perry’s announcement that he was signing the pledge highlighted that he had closed down three prisons in Texas and was amping up treatment programs for “people who wouldn’t be served well by sitting behind bars.”

In the meantime, reforms slated in Utah to “get mentally ill, drug and alcohol addicted criminals into rehabilitation programs, and sentence them to shorter times in prison or secure rehab facilities” seem to be enjoying wide support. 63 percent of “very conservative” respondents to a recent poll on the proposed changes agreed with them—even though they will cost more in the short term.

With growing support from the base and with Presidential candidates signing on (likely to use as a talking point during the election season), the GOP is taking a welcome step forward on making the criminal justice system more humane.

I assume, though, that Dems will still call them racist.

AFTER BREAKING EBOLA QUARANTINE, Nancy Snyder Booted From NBC.

WELL, SURE. SHE’S SHOWN HER FACE AND SPOKEN IN PUBLIC: WaPo: Gallup data shows Hillary favorability plummeting. “Her husband is one of the most naturally-gifted politicians of his generation, but Hillary is most decidedly not. Bill feels your pain; Hillary, as I wrote after her press conference on Tuesday, feels her own entitlement — and it shows.”

MAYBE THEY SHOULD SMOKE THE PEACE PIPE: National Journal: The White House Is Feuding With Elizabeth Warren—Again.

AT AMAZON, fresh deals on bestselling products, updated every hour.

Plus, Kindle Daily Deals.

And, Today’s Featured Digital Deal. The deals are brand new every day, so browse and save!

ROGER SIMON: I Stole Hillary’s Emails. Complete with incriminating photo.

ROLL CALL: Democrats Prep North Carolina Contingency Plan. “National Democrats want former Sen. Kay Hagan to mount another bid for Senate in the Tar Heel State. But in case the former senator declines, party officials have started to key in on other potential recruits.” Well, her husband’s sleazy deals were an issue last time, and they haven’t disappeared.

THE COUNTRY’S IN THE VERY BEST OF HANDS: Drunk Secret Service agents disrupted bomb investigation at White House.

For all the attention the Obama Administration has paid to the Ferguson Police Department, they don’t seem to be doing a very good job with the law enforcement agencies that are actually their responsibility.

ASHE SCHOW: Know your rights: A guide to due process and campus justice.

A newly updated guide to help college students wade through the murky waters of campus disciplinary procedures has been released by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

I suggest every current and incoming college student read the guide in order to be prepared for the (hopefully) unlikely accusation of misconduct. The guide includes basic information about one’s rights as a college student — not just in cases involving sexual assault, but also those pertaining to free speech and academic records. . . .

The guide explains that, students going through the disciplinary process are “entitled to have (1) notices of the charges against them, (2) an explanation of the evidence against them, and (3) an opportunity to tell their side of the story.”

Different types of hearings also require different levels of due process. An accusation of plagiarism requires fewer protections than, say, an accusation of sexual assault.

Along with outlining what rights students have at the college or university (including the differences between public and private institutions), the guide provides a helpful walkthrough of what a disciplinary hearing might entail. Each school has their own procedures, but it is important to know what could happen and have examples of what has happened in the past.

The guide is not only helpful to those accused of misconduct, it also lays out the problems with forcing an accusing student to play the prosecutor when he or she lacks the skills to do so.

As more and more students are suing their universities for denying them due process, it’s important to know what your rights are and whether your school is violating them.

It certainly is.

THEY HAVEN’T GIVEN UP ON GUN CONTROL: The Hill: Dems Push ATF To Revive Bullet Ban:

Congressional Democrats are pressuring the Obama administration to move ahead “swiftly” with a proposal that would ban a form of armor-piercing ammunition.

In a draft letter first obtained by The Hill, Democrats are urging the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to use his “existing authority” to keep “dangerous ammunition out of our communities.”

“We hope that the Bureau will swiftly review comments on the proposed framework and issue a revised proposal that will address the danger posed by handguns that fire 5.56mm and other rifle ammunition,” Democrats write in the letter.

The ATF had sought to prohibit gun companies from manufacturing or selling 5.56 mm projectiles for M855 cartridges, arguing they are a threat to law enforcement officers because they can be used in handguns.

But the proposal generated a firestorm of opposition from Republicans and gun groups, who denounced it as an attack on the Second Amendment that could open the door to sweeping restrictions on ammunition.

With the backlash growing, the ATF backed down earlier this week, shelving the proposal indefinitely to allow time for “further study.”

House Democrats in their letter say they are “very disappointed” that the ATF delayed the rule.

Eternal vigilance and all that.

PEGGY NOONAN: Hillary Seems Old And Tired.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Growing academic bureaucracies are eating academic programs.

McHugh notes that additional costs of growing academic bureaucracies is not only that they expanded so rapidly in the good times of higher education but that they have now proven unusually resistant to shrinkage as budgets have tightened, especially those with politically sensitive constituencies. If budgets shrink and bureaucracy doesn’t: well, do the math, the savings have to come from somewhere, namely academic programs.

McHugh also notes that as the bureaucracy becomes larger and more sprawling it also becomes increasingly difficult to keep track of what all the bureaucrats are doing and making sure that their behavior is aligned with the academic values of the institution.

For some that’s not a bug, but a feature. But as organisms’ parasite load grows too high, they become less competitive and risk extinction.