6 ms·

I'm not qualified to say this, so this isn't a diagnosis, but the post strikes me as similar in tone to the postings of a paranoid schizophrenic who regularly u

I'm not qualified to say this, so this isn't a diagnosis, but the post strikes me as similar in tone to the postings of a paranoid schizophrenic who regularly used to post on a forum I visited. Completely convinced they're on the verge of uncovering something that will "change history" yet very difficult to follow the detail of what they're saying.

byecancer21 5y ago
I don't believe or have claimed this will "change history". Had in fact offered to let the whole matter slide if and only if two judges ruling on health insurance matters hand in their resignations, as I consider them a danger to the general public.
- bladegash 5y ago
  Is that really a decision for you to single handedly make? People make mistakes, but it doesn’t mean they are evil. Pushing them to admit their wrong doing, give up their livelihood/careers, etc. is just stupid. Especially if “doing it for fun”. That’s not admirable, it’s disturbing.
  - danuker 5y ago
    > Especially if “doing it for fun”. That’s not admirable, it’s disturbing. I see you are attempting to take away the "hacker" in "hacker news". I see this as social engineering, for a good cause.
    - bladegash 5y ago
      Good cause according to who? The OP? You? How about the other people that have received and live with judgements from this official? And sorry, but social engineering is pretty unethical if you ask me, and has nothing to do with the name of the site.
      - danuker 5y ago
        Exposing a corrupt judge is among the most noble goals a citizen can have. The more incentive judges have to act fairly, the better. I am not sure you read the story correctly. But I'm pretty sure a judge will get due process - not abusive penalties.
        bladegash 5y ago
        People have been using "the ends justify the means" to justify all sorts of unethical behavior, not the least of which includes torture, genocide, and wars. Let's not go down that ethical reasoning wormhole. As for his story, my read on it must be much different from your own. Because from what I am seeing, this is far more about the judge's husband than anyone else, and it is to right a sense of personal injustice than a (still misguided) aim of doing what's best for everyone else. Oh, and he's doing it for fun (his words).
        byecancer21 5y ago
        The judge felt safe to commit an overt serious crime due to her husband. He is the conditio sine qua non without which this the entire matter had not happened. He could make a choice. Either talk to me or influence the court. The choice he ended up making is quite clear. Of course I could not point out his options, as that no doubt would have been misconstrued. There is some evidence suggesting the cases at the court don't get assigned randomly, as per the rules, and she might ask for off-label use cases to get preferentially assigned to herself. Upon an inquiry the court did not deny this is true. To find the truth one would have to verify the sequence of other case assignments, which should be possible from incoming filing times and such. Here a second case got assigned to her but with a sequence number oddly enough belonging to a different chamber. Per the law there was supposed to be a singular number, and for some reason she split the case without a required decision. She is also the only judge at this court who ever wrote anything public on the topic. Due to an adventurous recent personal medical history I became well-aware what problems unlawful denials do cause for patients.
        bakuninsbart 5y ago
  - byecancer21 5y ago
    Different standards apply for judges within proceedings, especially those making decisions at the very top. I did offer each offender a second chance, as I thought they might have learned from this. They chose not to take it. The first instance judge had been given four chances even.
    - bladegash 5y ago
      Why do you believe it is your position to give any official ultimatums just to meet your own perceived sense of Justice? The way your are speaking about this is to right your own feelings of injustice, not anyone else’s, yet you do it under the auspices of doing what’s best for everyone else. Do they get a say in this as well?
      - byecancer21 5y ago
        You interpret this as an ultimatum, I see offering them a way out as being nice. At the same time one has to assert seeing through obvious b-s. What is appropriate gets decided by lawmakers not judges. Once judges willfully violate the code they have stepped outside their assigned role. This quickly became more of a political problem than a legal one, and what is right is ultimately for voters to decide. Whether I am able to interpret the code and precedent correctly we will see. I did score close to the very top when taking the LSAT however.
        bladegash 5y ago
        You can try to wordsmith and twist the logic all you want. Telling someone “resign and do what I want, or else” is an ultimatum and bordering on blackmail. It is an ultimatum that is directly counter to your stated goal as well, which to “allow the voters to decide”. That’s you deciding for them.
        byecancer21 5y ago
        I did not ask her or any judge to resign. This was a proposal to the prosecutor's office prior to filing any of the serious charges and triggering certain events then required from them by law. Unlike public officials I was fully within my rights to first seek a more politically tenable solution. There is no doubt everyone involved is fully aware of the situation, although people won't admit to it.
nairboon 5y ago
Well, if you're not qualified for it, why do you still do it?
joefife 5y ago
It does sound insane, but sometimes these things are founded. Just a few months ago, a local government body finally awards as millions to someone their formed chief executive had been persecuting for two decades. During that time, the random member of the public was imprisoned. This case involved multiple corrupt people. If it wasn't for the happy conclusion, I'd have said this was the tale of a lunatic. The podcast is at https://www.private-eye.co.uk/podcast/68 https://www.private-eye.co.uk/podcast/68
tsol 5y ago
Who knows. They used to say people who think the government is saying on people are tin foil loonies, now everyone is worried about privacy. Don't see the reason to assume this most be crazy. Journalists as a whole have that "when I break this story everything is gonna change" mood regularly

byecancer21 5y ago

I don't believe or have claimed this will "change history". Had in fact offered to let the whole matter slide if and only if two judges ruling on health insurance matters hand in their resignations, as I consider them a danger to the general public.

bladegash 5y ago
Is that really a decision for you to single handedly make? People make mistakes, but it doesn’t mean they are evil. Pushing them to admit their wrong doing, give up their livelihood/careers, etc. is just stupid. Especially if “doing it for fun”. That’s not admirable, it’s disturbing.
- danuker 5y ago
  > Especially if “doing it for fun”. That’s not admirable, it’s disturbing. I see you are attempting to take away the "hacker" in "hacker news". I see this as social engineering, for a good cause.
  - bladegash 5y ago
    Good cause according to who? The OP? You? How about the other people that have received and live with judgements from this official? And sorry, but social engineering is pretty unethical if you ask me, and has nothing to do with the name of the site.
    - danuker 5y ago
      Exposing a corrupt judge is among the most noble goals a citizen can have. The more incentive judges have to act fairly, the better. I am not sure you read the story correctly. But I'm pretty sure a judge will get due process - not abusive penalties.
      - bladegash 5y ago
        People have been using "the ends justify the means" to justify all sorts of unethical behavior, not the least of which includes torture, genocide, and wars. Let's not go down that ethical reasoning wormhole. As for his story, my read on it must be much different from your own. Because from what I am seeing, this is far more about the judge's husband than anyone else, and it is to right a sense of personal injustice than a (still misguided) aim of doing what's best for everyone else. Oh, and he's doing it for fun (his words).
        byecancer21 5y ago
        The judge felt safe to commit an overt serious crime due to her husband. He is the conditio sine qua non without which this the entire matter had not happened. He could make a choice. Either talk to me or influence the court. The choice he ended up making is quite clear. Of course I could not point out his options, as that no doubt would have been misconstrued. There is some evidence suggesting the cases at the court don't get assigned randomly, as per the rules, and she might ask for off-label use cases to get preferentially assigned to herself. Upon an inquiry the court did not deny this is true. To find the truth one would have to verify the sequence of other case assignments, which should be possible from incoming filing times and such. Here a second case got assigned to her but with a sequence number oddly enough belonging to a different chamber. Per the law there was supposed to be a singular number, and for some reason she split the case without a required decision. She is also the only judge at this court who ever wrote anything public on the topic. Due to an adventurous recent personal medical history I became well-aware what problems unlawful denials do cause for patients.
        bakuninsbart 5y ago
- byecancer21 5y ago
  Different standards apply for judges within proceedings, especially those making decisions at the very top. I did offer each offender a second chance, as I thought they might have learned from this. They chose not to take it. The first instance judge had been given four chances even.
  - bladegash 5y ago
    Why do you believe it is your position to give any official ultimatums just to meet your own perceived sense of Justice? The way your are speaking about this is to right your own feelings of injustice, not anyone else’s, yet you do it under the auspices of doing what’s best for everyone else. Do they get a say in this as well?
    - byecancer21 5y ago
      You interpret this as an ultimatum, I see offering them a way out as being nice. At the same time one has to assert seeing through obvious b-s. What is appropriate gets decided by lawmakers not judges. Once judges willfully violate the code they have stepped outside their assigned role. This quickly became more of a political problem than a legal one, and what is right is ultimately for voters to decide. Whether I am able to interpret the code and precedent correctly we will see. I did score close to the very top when taking the LSAT however.
      - bladegash 5y ago
        You can try to wordsmith and twist the logic all you want. Telling someone “resign and do what I want, or else” is an ultimatum and bordering on blackmail. It is an ultimatum that is directly counter to your stated goal as well, which to “allow the voters to decide”. That’s you deciding for them.
        byecancer21 5y ago
        I did not ask her or any judge to resign. This was a proposal to the prosecutor's office prior to filing any of the serious charges and triggering certain events then required from them by law. Unlike public officials I was fully within my rights to first seek a more politically tenable solution. There is no doubt everyone involved is fully aware of the situation, although people won't admit to it.

nairboon 5y ago

Well, if you're not qualified for it, why do you still do it?

joefife 5y ago

It does sound insane, but sometimes these things are founded. Just a few months ago, a local government body finally awards as millions to someone their formed chief executive had been persecuting for two decades. During that time, the random member of the public was imprisoned. This case involved multiple corrupt people. If it wasn't for the happy conclusion, I'd have said this was the tale of a lunatic. The podcast is at https://www.private-eye.co.uk/podcast/68 https://www.private-eye.co.uk/podcast/68

tsol 5y ago

Who knows. They used to say people who think the government is saying on people are tin foil loonies, now everyone is worried about privacy. Don't see the reason to assume this most be crazy. Journalists as a whole have that "when I break this story everything is gonna change" mood regularly