Thursday, April 3, 2008

Brooklyn Symposium on Products Restatement

On November 13 and 14, 2008, Brooklyn Law School will host The Products Liability Restatement:  Was it a Success?.  A program is not yet available, but the participants are confirmed.  The legal academics presenting are:  Richard Ausness (Kentucky), Anita Bernstein (Brooklyn), Margaret Berger (Brooklyn), Ellen Bublick (Arizona), Edward Cheng (Brooklyn), Richard Cupp (Pepperdine), Mary Davis (Kentucky), Mark Geistfeld (NYU), Michael Green (Wake Forest), James Henderson (Cornell), Lars Noah (Florida), David Owen (South Carolina), Robert Rabin (Stanford), Jane Stapleton(Texas), and Aaron Twerski (Brooklyn).  Practitioners include Sheila Birnbaum (Skadden) and Victor Schwartz (Shook, Hardy).

--CJR 

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/tortsprof/2008/04/brooklyn-sympos.html

Conferences | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00e551ac94fc8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Brooklyn Symposium on Products Restatement:

Comments

If one wanted the list of the members of the lawyer hierarchy, one could just get the member list of the American Law Institute, including its ex officio members. They call their reports and rules, Restatements. They are often just made up rules, reflecting the personal preferences of these elites. Most went only to law school, and know nothing else than law school indoctrination about their subject matter. I doubt any of these people ever made a product. Even if they write a rule adverse to the rent seeking interests of the lawyer profession, it has no legitimacy. Its sole legitimacy stems from the threat of violence from the little Caesar on the bench. He can send Army Airborne to impose his tyranny on an oppressed nation. Outside of this fearful threat, the public has no respect for this pro-lawyer rent seeking biased lawyer on the bench.

If a court refers to a rule from any Restatement to justify a decision, the decision should be reversible error per se. It obeys privately invented law. Such obedience violates Article I Section 1 of the Constitution, and any state equivalent granting law making power to the legislature. Any judge citing private law is in insurrection against the Constitution. The judge may appeal to outside sources, such as science, social science, common sense, with legitimacy. Private laws are impermissible in the Constitution. If a legislature adopts these Restatement rules out of laziness, that is the law, and permitted by the Constitution. If the matter does not get addressed by any law, regulation, then the case should get dismissed. It is outside the power of the court to remedy. That this never happens is lawyer hierarchy self-dealing corruption.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Apr 3, 2008 5:56:25 PM

Let's have a conference on the Restatement of the Law Governing Slavery. Let's invite only slave owners. Let's exclude slaves. Let's have another on the Restatement of the Law Governing Wife Abuse. Let's invite only husbands. Let's exclude wives.

Without product makers, with product users only, does a conference on Product Liability Law have validity?

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Apr 4, 2008 6:04:55 AM

As you know, I am always trying to think of ways for my lawyer, good, e-friends to make money.

The Restatement should not have First Amendment immunity. Its intent is to boss a judge, not to express thoughts. It is a lawyer tool, like a gun. It is not a book. It contains the word, Rule, not Opinion, not Suggestion, not Proposal, not Good Idea.

If a Restatement results in an adverse ruling, the injured party should sue the ALI, the authors, and their employers for wrongful, incompetent legislating, in violation of the Constitution, with knowledge. This is a per se Constitutional tort.

The ALI has $25 mil in assets. Who cares. However, the lawyers are employees of top tier law schools. These are part of universities with a $trillion in endowment assets.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Apr 4, 2008 6:12:01 AM

Post a comment