The Psychology of Support

There are various instances of odd fandom. One thesis documents the followers of Ted Bundy and notes those attracted to "Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson," and others. This scholar characterizes the fandom as a "pattern of fascination" and notes that “crime is no longer a bar to celebrity; indeed, it is as close to a guarantee of celebrity as one can find."

My discovery of such academic insight was driven by recent examples of citizens celebrating criminal behavior.

Luigi Mantioni admitted to shooting Brian Thompson in the back on a New York street. PBS reported that he pled guilty to the killing and admitted he knew what he was doing was illegal. It noted that "he expressed no contrition (or) remorse." 

The shooter has supporters. Some even profess feelings of love for the killer. There is a feeling among some of them that killing someone in cold blood is a heroic act and that such killers are "martyr" material.

Online contributors, according to The Dallas Express, raised over $1.5 million for his defense. The fundraiser attracted about 28,000 donations. The contributions were characterized there as necessary "in pursuing justice for Mr. Mangione." The choice of words is careful. The desire is "justice," and in this phraseology, Mr. Mangione is cast as the victim. 

The Sunday Times reported in 2025 that young people's heroification has been driven or "shaped by the internet." One psychologist quoted there concludes that some young people are drawn to "extreme 'binary thinking.'" This is antithetical to "rational thinking" and is contributed to by the internet and social media. 

He explains that "spectrum thinking looks at nuance and the grey area in between." But the inverse, "binary thinking," is more prone to "black and white" and "thrives on polarity and extremes." There may thus be value in one promoting a polar perspective, and others may be drawn to that light like a moth to flame. 

The implication is that while killing is wrong or criminal, there is a tendency among some to cast their conclusion depending on who was killed. This has become a Hollywood trope, with examples such as Payback (Icon 1999), The Equalizer (Sony 2014), Death Wish (Paramount 1974), and Taken (Europacorp 2008). 

We collectively cheer for the underdog. Perhaps we reflexively cheer for the underdog. We are drawn in these cinematic examples to the protagonist, who is the sole investigator, judge, jury, and executioner. And we continue to cheer despite the growing trail of bodies they leave behind. 

But perhaps not.

Perhaps it is "all about perspective"; see A Hero? (January 2026). We all have predispositions that challenge us. In my latest book, Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025), I have tried to overview how we may find ourselves viewing and interpreting information even without our conscious engagement.

The Hero post also may raise questions about how we associate or acclimate various people. Do we use personal touchstones in our decision-making? Do we acknowledge we are doing so?

Why do people care when one person is killed and yet cheer for the killer of another? There is the potential here to discuss Moral Disengagement. That is "a psychological and sociological concept that describes how individuals rationalize and justify immoral behaviors."

Causes or explanations for Disengagement may include "individual psychological traits," "societal influences," and perceptions of how others are reacting. That might come from the news, social media, or social associates (friends, neighbors, classmates).

There is also the chance that our reaction is driven by "in-group bias," a tendency to feel for people who are like you in some manner(s), but to feel less empathy for those who are not in such a group that drives your feelings. This is akin to tribalism, where someone favors the "us" and cares less or nothing for "them." 

Some argue that reactions are a form of "Cognitive Dissonance." This is a reaction that may cause ignorance or apathy about the actions of someone viewed or perceived as being like us or on our side of an argument or feeling. 

Dissonance comes because it is painful to accept that someone like you or affiliated with you would commit an atrocity. Their atrocity might implicate us by association, subconsciously, and so we deflect from the seriousness of their action or even blame their victim.

These same implications may drive both perceptions and reactions to a variety of alleged behavior. The allegations currently roiling Cornell University are perhaps a corollary. There is significant collective outrage and support for the victim there, and yet also those who defend the accused. Some vernacular from both camps has been abrasive. Emotions and tension persist.

There are likely deeper pools into which such analysis might delve. I am no psychologist. But the bottom line is that killing is wrong. Shooting an unarmed man in the back on a street is not consistent with society. Hard stop. The same is true of rape. These are lines we have decided, societally, cannot be crossed. 

And yet, there is evidence of underreporting of crimes like rape. There are at least perceptions of victim blaming. There is involvement of social media and our subconscious conclusions or reactions tinged by perception, innuendo, the media, commentators, and more. We have seen many tried in the media.

Whether one identifies with the shooter, finds some affinity for their motivation, or not, shooting an unarmed man in the back on a street is not American. It is not right. It is not heroic. Society's very future rests on sharing the conclusion that killing people, any people, is wrong. 

Similarly, rape is wrong. This is true in America regardless of whether one's personal culture or conclusions respect the equality of women or not. Women are equal. Rape is wrong. These are societal conclusions. Infractions like rape and killing remain wrong regardless of the perpetrator's identity. Defenses may be raised, and the law must be followed, but violence is wrong. 

Nonetheless, we have witnessed a great tendency to forget or ignore the victims. Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and more were implicated in the Me Too movement. And yet, Hollywood has strongly advocated for admitted child rapist Roman Polanski (he has been accused by others). 

Big-name stars have continued to work with him, defend him, and Hollywood even awarded him the "Best Director" Academy Award in 2002. His supporters have derided the judge and criticized the legal process, perhaps with good cause. Yet, if the process is wrong, if the judge is the problem, then there are available avenues, processes, and appeals. 

One can hold the truth that these acts are wrong and still believe any accused killer or rapist is entitled to a defense and their day in court. But drawing distinctions that some killer is a hero while another is a villain, based on the news and tweets, is a slippery slope that defies reason. As observers, we do not know the evidence in the way a judge and jury will. 

The same goes for accusers. All are entitled to access our justice system, their "day in court." They are entitled to a fair and thorough investigation of their allegations. Institutions and society owe this to both alleged victims and perpetrators. And institutional and societal dignity and respect depend on that fairness and thoroughness. 

Individually, however, we have similar responsibility. We have to challenge institutions honestly. Only we can demand fairness and thoroughness for the victims or accused. We can stand impartial, insist on impartiality, and accept that our human imperfections, personal and collective, will produce imperfect results. Despite this, we can nonetheless strive for better, if not perfect, outcomes.  

In the end, there will be outcomes with which we will individually struggle or disagree. Our emotions, feelings, and conclusions may be influenced by the coverage provided, our predispositions, and a raft of other factors. Nonetheless, wrong will remain wrong, and we should each struggle with how our predispositions influence our perceptions and conclusions. 

The Hidden Cost of Misplaced Incentives

I was honored last year to be invited to read and contribute to a paper about misalignments in workers' compensation systems. The product of that collaboration is now online for consideration, debate, and discussion: The Hidden Cost of Misplaced Incentives.

The project was intriguing and involved icons of the community. I was humbled to be momentarily in their midst: William Zachry, Dr. Steven Feinberg, and David North. 

William Zachry has 47 years of experience in risk management, including as risk manager for Safeway. Dr. Steven Feinberg brings over 50 years of medical experience in physiatry, pain management, and workers' compensation. David North has over 30 years of experience in insurance and financial services and was the President and CEO of Sedgwick for many years. To say this is a stellar collection of talent is a gross understatement.

Somehow, I was included in this collective effort that brought together over 170 years of experience in this community. The result was discussed at the National Workers' Compensation Conference in 2026 (Mr. Zachry, Dr. Feinberg, and Raja Sundaram). 

It will also be discussed at the 2026 Montana Governor's Workers' Compensation Conference in 2026 (Mr. Zachry and Mr. North). 

Despite these two platforms and opportunities, this subject deserves broader dissemination and discussion. The challenges identified and discussed need to be a reference or consideration whenever workers' compensation is discussed, particularly in analyzing ideas for change. 

This paper is important. It details how "systems are undermined" and how that produces "predictable but unintended consequences." Those are structural issues within the systems (there are about 60 systems in the U.S. that provide work injury protections and benefits). The critical question proposed for consideration is whether incentives are working as designed and expected. Then, if not, what could be the better path?

Peppered throughout the paper are discussions of process, such as how incentives were designed, intended, or not. There is also discussion of just a few predispositions that impact human decisions and perceptions. For more on predisposition, see Unseen Influence (July 2025), discussing my free book: Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025).

The Incentives paper is built on a foundation that was intended as a touchstone ("an established standard or principle by which something is judged," Cambridge Dictionary). That foundation is the "Ideal Workers' Compensation System." 

The Ideal System considers the original grand bargain, the commitments, rights, and benefits. It presupposes that systems should be true to foundational ideals. How should the workers' and employers' rights and responsibilities be identified, defined, and delimited?

There are plenty of descriptions and discussions. The key focus is the delineation and discussion of "known misplaced financial incentives. " The concrete examples are definitional, illustrative, and informative. 

Some might view the list as exhaustive (or exhausting), but there is every potential for the reader to know of others that are similar to, implicated by, or intertwined with these examples. Nonetheless, the underlying analysis remains static. How are systems, practices, traditions, and more aligned with the purpose of workers' compensation?

For some this will be a novel analysis. For others, perhaps it merely reinforces intuition, perceptions, and suspicions. It may drive debate and discussion, and the reader's conclusions may bring their own experience and  perspective to bear. Regardless, there is merit in considering this touchstone and starting conversations. 

Congress or Progress

The news recently brought reports of Congress conducting a hearing to "explore hurdles related to federal workers' comp programs." The clear focus was the federal program for federal employees.

Nonetheless, one of the committee members used the meeting to level broad and vague allegations about state workers' compensation: “Many workers’ compensation systems have slowly been eroded.” This representative concluded that:

“Over the past several decades, states have reduced benefits, narrowed eligibility and added administrative hurdles. Too often, injured workers receive less support precisely when they need it most.”

It is always interesting when broad allegations are made without even a scintilla of specificity or a single example. In this, there is neither novelty nor news, but there is an opportunity for a headline. The unstated points are likewise worthy of consideration.

The cost of workplace injury must be borne by someone. See Someone Has to Pay (May 2016). To some extent, a state legislature may be able to define what an injured worker receives. See Harris v. Lineage Logistics, CL-2025-1033, 2026 WL 2207386 (Ala. Ct. App., July 31, 2026). But it may face hurdles in that process. See Bouayad v. Normandy Insurance, SC2023-1576 (July 9, 2026).

Nonetheless, there are opportunities for judicial review of the manner in which workers' compensation alters the rights and responsibilities of workers and employers. See It is Padgett Time (June 2015); A Kentucky Constitutional Decision (April 2017); Tennessee and New Mexico Provisions Deemed Unconstitutional (June 2015); Another Constitutional Decision (April 2016); Pennsylvania High Court Magnifies Protz (June 2017); AIS Regulator Forum (May 2017).

In the end, there is a fair volume of legislative compromise in every element of workers' compensation. That was true when the original state statutes were drafted and has persisted over decades of individual state amendments and adjustments. This is all superimposed over the aggregation of various federal regulation efforts in the employer/employee relationship over the last century.

There are various perspectives. Some see benefits and processes that accreted to the benefit of the employer or employee. Each of those likely also involved some co-erosion of the rights of the other. There is an overall balance accomplished by each jurisdictional system (state, territory, etc.). There are often micro-balance considerations in any particular amendment or adjustment.

It is therefore difficult, in the abstract, to conclude anything broadly about "workers’ compensation systems," in the abstract, and without significant research and analysis. In this regard, there will always be value in study. But broad platitudes and accusations are unfortunate.

There is undoubtedly a different balance today than existed when any state adopted workers' compensation. There is a raft of federal legislation with alphabet soup obscurity or familiarity: NLRA (1935), SSA (1935), FLSA (1938), ADEA (1967), ERISA (1974), OSHA (1970), FMLA (1993), ADA (1990), and more. The employer/employee relationship has undoubtedly changed in the last 100 years.

Some might argue that the familiar provisions of the Equal Pay Act (1963), Title VII (1964), and Title IX (1972) belong on that same list, despite being deprived of catchy acronym titles. Interestingly, some would argue that in none of these was there any quid pro quo. Some see these as burdens on American business for which they enjoy no corresponding benefit, unlike the trade-off in workers' compensation.

All that said, this post takes a while to digest, ponder, and even contradict or refute if one wishes. The national headline of "workers' compensation hurdles," in the midst of an unrelated federal issue, is easier. Criticism is easier. But, in the end, workers' compensation provides care and more daily in all 50 states, several territories, and more.

If it is to be criticized, and perhaps that is appropriate, it should be by someone who understands and acknowledges that the quid pro quo is complex and not so amenable to sound bites and simplifications. Anyone seeing diminution in benefits in recent decades might do well to examine whether an injured worker in 2026 is better off than they would have been under the original applicable workers' compensation statute.

Honesty and Vigilance

An interesting decision was delivered by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on March 30, 2026: Danuta Dec v. Markwayne Mullin, No. 25-2417. In it, the court delivered a reasonably basic analysis of judicial review for administrative decisions under legislative delegation to the executive. Interesting, but pretty mundane jurisdictional discussion.

The criticality is eight pages in, where the court notes 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(9)(B)(v), and quotes:

"no court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision or action by [the agency] regarding a waiver."

The appellant made a valiant effort to argue that it "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." But the court did not agree, returning to the tried and true Merriam-Webster and then Black's Law Dictionaries. So much for "is."

This has nothing to do with workers' compensation, per se, though it reminds us that words matter and dictionary definitions may be relied upon in the course of interpretation.

The point here is that the court concluded with section III of its opinion. This notes that the appellant's "brief cites two cases that do not exist and recounts an imaginary quotation. The court expressed a suspicion of "tell-tale signs of AI hallucinations."

The court asked appellant's counsel at oral argument, but she "could not explain these citations." She "denied using AI to prepare the briefs." She later wrote the court a letter, reiterated her inability to use AI, and confessed she "presumably copied and pasted" from another document that she has since not "been able to locate."

The court noted, "Whatever AI's future in litigation, our concern lies with trained lawyers failing to check the accuracy of legal citations and quotations." The court admonished the attorney: "She should have been more careful." 

It also reminded more broadly: "Opposing counsel also failed to catch these errors." It noted this "gives us pause, albeit to a lesser degree." 

The court concluded by admonishing that the bar must recognize "the importance of honesty and vigilance in checking the accuracy of all citations and quotes." Failure to do so leads to "wasted time," "unnecessary work on a case within a case," and violates the lawyer's duty to "be considerate of the time constraints and pressures on the court." 

The criticality of the opinion may be the court's acceptance of "I don't know." I recall a great many childhood disasters that led to parental inquiry as to cause. The "I don't know" defense I mounted time and again never bore fruit. It worked for Spicoli back in the day, but barely. (Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Universal, 1982).

In a world of digital documents, how might one cut and paste a sentence but be unable to search their documents to find that sentence and document again? She "presumably copied and pasted that portion from another brief several months ago." How is that not found?

More important, however, is that the court does not care from where a lawyer derives fiction or falsity. It demands "honesty and vigilance in checking the accuracy of all citations and quotes." This applies to those from any source, including your parents, friends, AI chatbots, old briefs, and beyond. Source is not relevant; diligence is. 

A serious burden? Absolutely. A clear burden? Indubitably. An attainable requirement? Undeniably. 

The issue of hallucination is not difficult. It is a matter of fact. And it is an inherent obligation of the advocate on both sides of the dispute. 

Our Own Language

The vernacular of workers' compensation has often been the target of derision and ire. In this, we are no different than a spectrum of specialties that form their own variety of shortcuts and abbreviations. 

Welcome to the world of your (or your employee's) work accident. Let's discuss MCC, TTD, TPD, MMI, IB, PTD, AOA, C&S, P&I, PICA, MMI, PPI, and so much more. For the frequent participant or the professional earning a living in this space, it becomes familiar and comfortable. For the newcomer, not so much. 

I was reminded of that when an Upworthy post hit my feed recently. This referenced "nonce" words and phrases in rock and roll. The article claims that various words were "made up for songs." Their examples are memorable, but the comments that followed were more informative for me. 

Upworthy noted "Pompatus, Sue-Sue-Sussudio, Fergalicious, Ob-La-Di-Ob-La-Da, and Feminonmenon." In my generation, four of these will be pretty obvious. But, the origin that last one from someone named Chappell Roah and Dan Nigro was new to me at least.

Commenters added: "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida," "Gunter glieben glauchen globen." "ting tang walla walla bing bang," "mmm bop," "curly-wurly," "he got toe-jam football" "Groos," "hubcap diamond star halo," "Do wah diddy diddy, dum diddy do," "koo koo kah choo," "A-weema-weh," and "shizzle." There were multiple expressions of confusion or curiosity.

One of those above was from Blinded by the Light (Manfred Mann, 1973). That song tells a compelling story. About what, I have no idea. 

One commenter noted simply:

"If you are unable to infer the meaning of a word in a song from its context, the song was not written for you. If it was written for you, you know"

If the idea of nonsensical words is not compelling. One commenter took the authors to task for their use of "nonce." Though it has a meaning of "the one, particular, or present occasion, purpose, or use," this critic was troubled by the word because of its British slang connotation of "pedophile.

Where does all this lead? Well, we can learn a few things. 

First, it is possible that words can be made up, mispronounced, or deployed out of context. Just because someone says it does not compel you to accept it. 

Second, going along with the crowd may seem the path of least resistance. Nonetheless, if the terms don't make sense to you, look into them further; ask questions. 

Third, we should not be dependent on some statement being "written for" us. In the world of medicine, law, and workers' compensation, the point is communication. That requires words we can all understand and easily access.

Fourth, access. That needs to mean dictionary meanings. We cannot be aware of every potential slang meaning some culture, somewhere, attaches to a word. That asks too much, and such an expectation is beyond the capability of most. 

The real point is that words matter. They matter to the person speaking/writing them and to a variety of people who will then hear/read them. We have to focus on the point—communicating information. That goal is furthered if we watch our own output, encourage feedback, ask questions, and use our dictionary. 

Neee Help?

The unintended neee (sic) led me to reflect on authenticity and our new world of challenges. The world of artificial intelligence is upon us. It is impacting how we each choose to work, and in a Rush-like realization, we are all making choices. (Freewill, High Tones, 1980). If you have never read those lyrics, you should.

Last month, the Workers' Compensation Institute in Orlando featured many AI segments. I asked Gemini to analyze the program for AI elements, and it said:

"There are 13 specific sessions detailed across the schedule that explicitly address artificial intelligence topics, along with a dedicated full-day AI & Technology Breakout Track"

There was much AI discussion. And there are underlying elements of reticence, curiosity, enthusiasm, and even fanaticism. I know people who literally experience the urge, but before deciding to eat, go to bed, or move their bowels, they "ask AI what it thinks." I fear for their Wall-E future (Pixar 2008).

We have all witnessed the arrival of AI trends on social media. There have been many fads and experiments already. They have led me to learn about the three dots on LinkedIn that allow me to mark content "not interested." That is my first reaction to the AI images and obviously AI-generated dreck posts that increasingly invade my consciousness. 

People have begun, outside the "wild west" of social media, to acknowledge their use of AI. Others not so much. I have begun to decline collaborative opportunities that include contributors who can't or won't be transparent about their AI engagement. One recent social media meltdown essentially concluded "so what," but it took a lot of paragraphs to get there. 

Some guidance has even begun to appear on the what, when, and how. Some academics are even engaging.

More frequently now, you will see acknowledgement, such as

• "The web banner was created by ___________, with the assistance of the Google Gemini Pro AI System."
• "During the preparation of this work, the author used ChatGPT (Version 4o, OpenAI) to improve the clarity and readability of the Discussion section"
• "The authors employed Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Anthropic) in July 2026 to generate concise summaries of text from the initial pool of 150 peer-reviewed articles"

These are largely consistent in their simple transparency. Of course, we all acknowledge that there are examples already in the marketplace of AI-generated dreck that are presented as human output without such admission or explanation.

I was recently amused to run across a LinkedIn post in which the author noted a "neee" for something. I have to admit that I also once made a typographical error. Even in the age of grammar checkers (AI) and assistance, I make mistakes.

I pointed out the "neee" and the author replied good-naturedly:

"I suppose the pivot could be that at least it proves I don’t just share AI-created posts but actually insert human in the loop and thus some human error."

That may be the right outcome. In acknowledging that we are all flawed and will make mistakes, it is certainly appropriate. But the AI aficionados might suggest we ask AI what it thinks. I did, with 

"claude, can I prompt an AI to create a writing for me with the explicit caveat that it include multiple subtle errors so as to appear human-generated?"

Claude admitted

"yes — you can ask me (or another AI) to insert typos, awkward phrasing, inconsistent style, or other "human-like" imperfections into a piece of writing. I can follow that kind of instruction."

In the end, I think we're going to "neee a bigger boat" (Jaws, 1975), or neee a better instrument, indicator, or metric (I got those from a thesaurus - that's a book I periodically use; look it up in your Funk and Wagnalls). 

* Nothing in this post or any other on this blog was created with artificial intelligence. Some might argue no intelligence at all was use. That is for the reader to discern.

Disqualification Timeliness

A Philadelphia Judge raised the discussion of disqualification last July in a high-profile case involving a large consolidated tort claim. The story was interesting from multiple perspectives, including evidence, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and court rules. 

One of the firms involved in that litigation has sought to have the judge removed because of "his wife's employment history." Legal Newsline reported that the lawsuit alleges a medication is tied to cancer and that it is based on science that other judges have found lacking. 

Details on a Delaware dismissal are featured in a Wall Street Journal republication on PubMed describing "junk science" and "a debunking for the ages." It is fair to say that there are critics of the science underlying the litigation and that similar recovery has been pursued in various jurisdictions. 

The subject of evidence sufficiency has been addressed here before. See Daubert Better Explained (May 2016); Daubert's New Day (May 2019); and Daubert in the Courtroom (August 2019). Daubert is tough. I watched a young lawyer in a recent class struggle to build an excellent foundation for the objection. 

That student ultimately concluded not by asking to strike the offending, unscientific opinion(s), but by asking to strike the offending witness for lack of expertise. A subtle difference, but a critical point worthy of attention. 

The litigator's job is to convince the judge that (1) they have authority to act and (2) that they should act. Authority and imperative. But the Daubert objection is to the admissibility of expert opinion, not the qualification of the expert per se. The Student's efforts were solid, but the conclusion was a bit off-target. 

One of the great challenges of the Daubert analysis is that humans seek definitive answers. Whether expert scientific testimony is admissible in a given case often comes down to an answer lawyers dislike: "it depends." 

That "it depends" is part of the frustration. What it depends on is the other shoe that drops. What is the particular case about? What will the specific evidence demonstrate? What is its foundation, replicability, acceptance in the scientific community, and more? The analysis may be fact-specific, and the arguments may be unique to any particular case. 

But on to the effort to remove the judge. In this instance, the judge's wife is a partner in a law firm that represents "a defendant in only one of the 599 cases." Someone has taken testimony to establish that the spouse's income is not "directly related" to the "fees or income made from" that defendant. Nonetheless, one of the other parties has sought to disqualify the judge on the basis of his wife's employment/ownership at that law firm. 

The judge entered an order in April declining to step aside (disqualification). Westlaw Today reported in April 2026. A main theme in this is timeliness. The judge noted that the motion for him to be removed came "eight months after he disclosed his wife’s new job." The motion was apparently raised again in July and denied again. 

As an aside, "recuse" and "disqualify" are often used interchangeably. Nonetheless, they are not synonyms. See Lessons in Recusal and Disqualification (July 2017) and Bigfoot, Unicorns, and Predictability (February 2023). But I have noted before that Pennsylvania has distinctions. See Recusal Lessons from Pennsylvania (February 2018).

The judge's April order is brief and conclusory but has lengthy footnotes with various findings of fact. The Bressler Blog describes findings regarding the disclosure, the parties, and their counsel. Nonetheless, the conclusion seems focused on the timing. Notably, in Florida, a judge is not permitted to proceed to such fact-finding; see below.  This illustrates that the disqualification foundations depend on various state laws and regulations. 

Law.com (paywall) reported more recently that the judge was displeased with the repeated July efforts at disqualification (though mislabeled "recuse"). There is a suggestion by the judge that the efforts "may have crossed the line into violations of the conduct rules." Such a response in Florida might itself create the very level of conflict to compel the judge's removal. 

The reference to the "conduct rules" and allegations that the party's lawyer may have crossed a line is not a ruling on the four corners of the disqualification motion. Those allegations could be seen as a conflict between counsel and bench that justifies disqualification. 

In Florida, the disqualification of judges is addressed in the Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration, Rule 2.330 (which is not applicable in workers' compensation by its own authority but which is applicable due to its adoption/incorporation in Rule 6.126 of the Chapter 60Q-6 Rules of Procedure for Workers' Compensation Adjudications).

The details in Rule 2.330(c) are notable. The rule requires a written motion, specific facts, and recitation of "the precise date when the facts constituting the grounds for the motion were discovered" by either the party or their attorney ("whichever is earlier"). That can be a critical point.

The criticality of the time disclosure is in Rule 2.330(g), which allows filing such a disqualification motion "within a reasonable time not to exceed 20 days after discovery by the party" (or attorney, "whichever is earlier") of the facts underlying the motion. The provision is specific and focuses on both the knowledge of the party and counsel. 

It appears the subject case has been ongoing for years. When did the attorneys learn of the judge's spouse and her employment? The implication seems to support that they learned if some 8 months prior to seeking relief. That might be excused in some settings, but 8 months does seem a long time. 

The other important provision is Rule 2.330(h), which limits the Florida judge's analysis to "only the legal sufficiency of the motion," adding that the judge "shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged" (perhaps such as the spouse's income, involvement, sequestration, and more).

The Florida courts have consistently concluded that:

• A judge's "adverse ruling against" a party "is not a sufficient basis to warrant disqualification. See Pilkington v. Pilkington, 182 So. 3d 776, 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).
• That a judge has "made several highly questionable rulings is not a basis for disqualification. see Eisenberg v. City of Miami Beach, 714 So. 2d 613, 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
• That "a trial judge has made an error of law is not a basis for disqualification.” (Barwick v. State, 660 So. 2d 685, 692 (Fla. 1995).

The bottom line is that a judge addressing such a motion must consider legal sufficiency and timeliness. Those topics should be paramount. If a motion fails on one or both counts, it should be denied. 

Inspiration or Fraud?

The world of Academia recently engaged in yet another debate about plagiarism. The Telegraph reported in July that a 37-year-old professor at Cambridge was publicly lauded and revered. His was a classic Horatio Alger story (Alger was known for the recurring theme of rags-to-riches). 

The challenges of plagiarism in academia are not new. See The Arms Race in Academia (March 2026); Plagiarism Now? (February 2025); Fallacy and Introspection (January 2024). Some are terrified of plagiarism; others seemingly not so much. 

This professor's rise is heroic in a way that might seem Hollywood. He was nonverbal and autistic until he was 11, and learned to read when he was 18. A mere 19 years after learning to read, he had earned his doctorate and become a professor at one of the most prestigious institutions in the world. 

He has now published his autobiography, which may have raised his public profile. Another result was some accusations of plagiarism, which have, in turn, resulted in allegations that seem akin to favoritism in a broad context. 

Seeking to end the debate, or to further malign the professor (pick your perspective), "The Telegraph identified more than 100 passages that are identical or nearly identical to a 2009 PhD thesis by" another university student. The professor's thesis mentions that other student 17 times but apparently does not attribute passages directly to that student's work (and/or perhaps is barely transparent paraphrasing). 

There were defenders also in the news. It is possible that they are true believers in the professor's work. Since graduating with his PhD, he has held "academic posts at the University of Roehampton, Durham University and the University of Glasgow" before more recently "taking up a similar post at Cambridge." Thus, if it is plagiarism, it was missed by many reviewers and institutions whose own credibility now rests with the professor's.

All of those institutions may be motivated to defend the professor for academic or emotional reasons. Their defense might be personal, tied more to their emotional response than The Telegraph's evidence. By the same token, the critics may likewise be so motivated by their own predisposition.

The Conversation contends that this instance may drive a deeper analysis of plagiarism, ghostwriting, originality, and "shifting standards." There are allegations now against his accusers and discussions of the merits or detriments of both originality and flattery (plagiarism). There is discussion of how the engagement of AI is intertwined in academia and beyond.

There may be broader lessons in the story. Those who have spent any time studying predisposition may immediately think here of Anchor Bias. Are those institutions clinging to their first conclusion—"no plagiarism"—because that is true or because that was their first conclusion upon interviewing and hiring? This is similar to the Primacy Effect. 

Another predisposition that may be at play is the Confirmation Bias. This leads us to "search for and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values." This one is a bane of litigators and physicians alike. We form working themes, solutions, or diagnoses, and then we unconsciously interpret and judge incoming data with a tendency to believe that which reinforces our prior conclusions, while doubting anything contradictory.

Another potential bias is the Fading Effect Bias. This leads us to have stronger memories of positivity than negativity. The Fading Effect may make us more prone to believe a story or subject that evokes strong emotional positivity. What is more positive than a good Horatio Alger hero? The professor's book is said to describe "his improbable triumphs and heartbreaking setbacks." We are all inclined to root for the underdog. It is heartwarming to see triumph and success from adversity and challenge.

There is also a tendency to accept facts or outcomes that are "believable rather than because they are logically valid." This Belief Bias may lead us to favor conclusions that are consistent with our "personal worldview." If our worldview includes a belief that certain people or groups are oppressed or marginalized, then we may inherently tend to defend them regardless of facts. 

And one might always need to remain aware of the dreaded Groupthink in which our conclusions are influenced by the number and volume of other voices. This is similar to Confirmation Bias, but with an emphasis on the inputs of our peers' voices or even the most predominant voices around us. 

The debate was interesting in a macro sense. Could blatant plagiarism survive the supposed or expected rigor of the academic world? Might a variety of professors have failed in this instance to identify 100 troublesome passages ("100 passages that are identical or nearly identical")?

In the same sense, might his achievements since then be flavoring the present analysis, either as confirmation or despite it? The former professor, notably, has claimed to have run "300 miles in three days and 600 miles in six days" among other worthy and altruistic feats. The Telegraph notes that some of those achievements have been "amended or deleted from biographies in recent months." It may instead have been "600 miles in 12 days," but how would one know for sure?

But, beyond the debate, the main interest of the situation is the opportunity to consider how the human mind reacts. The inherent predispositions discussed here, and many more, are featured in my free book Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025). The serious litigator, physician, and mediator will take the time to peruse those potentials and better understand how their thoughts may be influenced. 

No sooner had the first Telegraph story broken than another accused the professor of falsifying the publication of a book. Very soon thereafter, Cambridge "announced an investigation," and the professor resigned, according to GMA. The professor asserted he was unfairly maligned; the critics claim academic misconduct, and the perspectives will likely remain polarizing. But the potential for our preconceptions to influence our personal perspective remains worthy of study. 

ABC News then reported in August that the former professor had been found unresponsive in South London. The news and social media feeds illustrated the devotion of his fans. The publisher of his book, Simon & Schuster, expressed belief that he was abused and undermined. The British prime minister commented. There were accusations of racism and even persecution. 

The world of academia will have to deal with the allegations that this particular alleged plagiarism was pursued out of racial animus. There will undoubtedly be comparisons to other plagiarism allegations. And it is possible that the various perspectives might be driven by evidence or predisposition. Time will tell. 

For the rest of us, the perils of plagiarism persist. We strive with software that helps detect it, AI that may proliferate it, and significant public spectrums of ambivalence, denial, denigration, and more. 

* Note that this situation is presented as represented in press reports. There is no intention here to dredge up this person's past for the sake of judgment or ridicule. This is a real-world situation that illustrates and highlights issues for consideration and analysis. 

The Flock and the Response

The ubiquity of surveillance cameras is not news. There are cameras everywhere. Even if you avoid those planted on poles, there are cameras in every phone, ATM, doorbell, and vehicle. I have suggested that these cameras are unavoidable. See Is Privacy Gone (January 2026) and the posts referenced there. 

Mashable claims there are about 128,000 of these cameras in use. One website lets visitors search an address or zip code to see how prevalent such surveillance is for them (I have 6 within a mile of my home, 13 within three miles). At the bottom of their map, the site provides a "Flock safety" meter that allows you to know their perceptions of coverage in a given area. In short, Florida has many. 

Truckers are reportedly learning this. Gadget Review reported in August that "No FMCSA (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration) regulation currently bars officers from using privately collected license plate reader data as evidence of vehicle movement." 

So, as drivers log their hours and interact with inspection stations and law enforcement, it is possible that discrepancies may appear. They may log their time driving, but it may be contradicted by a picture of their truck on the road during an "off-duty" time. Reportedly, those may evolve into "a log falsification citation." A day may come when AI will evaluate that as soon as a truck enters a weigh station. 

These cameras are collecting many photos. The Gadget Review says that "Flock's network captures over a billion vehicle passes per month." The company claims to "help clear 700,000 to one million crimes annually." Yes, cameras are ubiquitous.

ABC13 Houston reports that some Flock users essentially search all Flock data instead of focused searches. It reported that in one 30-day period, that broad process resulted in the Houston, Texas Police searching one Ohio county's data "over 71,000 times." The volume is intriguing. Could the cameras simply monitor us all, every minute, our position, path, and pace?

There are various newsworthy instances in which such video has played a role in catching and convicting criminals. BU Today mentions several examples, including "the murder of ... Ana Walshe, the Idaho murders," and more. Nonetheless, the ubiquity of cameras has not led to a suspect in the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie in February 2026.

These cameras have even been implicated in workers' compensation. TiffinOhio reported in July 2026 that state investigative agencies were "turning to Flock's AI-powered" cameras. It reported the cost to the Bureau of Workers' Compensation as $24,000 in 2025. There were no details provided as to how the Bureau uses those cameras and data.

Some speculate that the Flock system has not helped significantly in the Guthrie case because stolen or counterfeit license plates do not trigger alerts. Others speculate that sophisticated observers might readily adjust their routes to avoid those. Nonetheless, the variety of other potential video sources would suggest the probability of some video evidence.

These camera systems can be misused. A North Carolina officer was arrested for his alleged misuse of the Flock system. He was able to do so even though his police department did not own or operate such cameras, according to WLOS. Another outlet, WYFF, noted this was "a betrayal of the public's trust."

CBS Atlanta reported that a Habersham, Georgia officer was fired and arrested for using that county's Flock "system for personal purposes." This was allegedly related to tracking or locating someone the deputy had a "personal relationship with." Stalking with government acquiescence and help.

Gadget Review claims a man was tracked with the system by an "officer with a grievance" after the many spoke at a "town council meeting (and said) something inconvenient." It asserts there are "more than 50 agencies running hundreds of Flock searches tied to protest activity."

Such examples seem to be increasingly common. On the heels of the examples above, the Savannah, Georgia, police suspended "six employees ... after an internal audit identified potential misuse." These allegedly conducted "searches focused on personal acquaintances and family members." Such examples in the news likely lead to perceptions of "Big Brother" and feed distrust.

In August 2026, the Associated Press reported that Flock was responding to that parade of publicity with policy changes that include decreased retention of data and internal tools to make misuse more difficult. Critics were not mollified; one called it "window dressing." It is possible further legislative constraint will come.

AI is already enhancing the capability of such cameras. In 2024, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reported that "Thousands of motorists have been caught using their phone and not wearing seat belts." The volume of examples there suggests these cameras are both intrusive and effective. Of course, the BBC has had its own credibility issues, but they seem unrelated to this topic.

The use has been more widespread elsewhere. In Australia, there have been many fines for a passenger not wearing a seatbelt, being improperly restrained, holding an electronic device, and more. Citations have been issued, fining drivers significantly ($500), according to ABC News.

One driver also lost her license for three months. The "big brother" element is perhaps diminished by the requirement that a human review the infractions. Nonetheless, it is these cameras that are driving the enforcement. And they are everywhere.

In Santa Monica, California, artificial intelligence cameras are used to issue tickets to vehicles that park in bicycle lanes, Yahoo Tech reports. Los Angeles does similarly with those who "block bus lanes or bus stops."

The Tech article notes that Mississippi contracted in 2026 to employ similar Australian AI cameras. The motivation there was apparently to catch "the truck driver on his cell phone or children standing in the front seat." Safety first - laudable, but at what cost to civil liberty?

When the Mississippi official's motivation for the cameras came to light, "authorities (there) quickly decided to cut ties" with the camera company. A legislator noted that we are "waking up to the fact that we are in a nanny state" (tell that to my car that won't move until I buckle up, or amazingly strong packaging that frustrates any rational attempt to access items I have purchased.

The Tech article explains that these Australian cameras are very powerful and "smart." Their sophistication is one element of concern. Another is the potential that your picture, movement, and habits are being documented. The Australian company swears it does not "store any footage or data." Perhaps folks should simply trust that?

Some municipalities are cancelling contracts for existing cameras. The Record reports that Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Eugene, Oregon, have made those requests. Those officials were not quoted regarding the technology itself, but the Flock vendor in particular. One police chief reiterated he is "still a proponent" of such license plate-reading cameras despite his differences with the company.

What might one do to protect their privacy? The news notes people vandalizing Flock cameras in South Carolina, New York, Idaho, California, and more. Some will see vandalism; others will perhaps think of a massive waste of tea so many years ago. Many in America who have different perspectives and motivations. We may not understand them, but we must admit they are out there.

Futurism reported in July on a 77-year-old Floridian who noted his distaste for such surveillance. He was not arrested, but he also did not damage anyone's property. This man put a protest sign ("down with Flock Cameras") on his pool skimmer (a really long handle) and sat beside a Flock camera, essentially blocking its view. He was apparently questioned by the local constabulary, but not arrested. In the grand scheme of public disobedience, his approach is likely much smarter than destroying property.

The sum of all of this is that privacy has been threatened many times in our history. Electronics and technology like AI cameras, drones, and more are facilitating our exposure and their surveillance. This is all around us. As I noted before, there is little, if any, right to privacy out there in your community, the highway, or similar public areas.

The technology will continue to evolve. Capabilities will continue to improve. Government's ability to see into your life will remain a balancing act of public need versus public sentiment. The issues will likely never again be "can," but increasingly will be questions of "should."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/georgia-crime-center-supervisor-got-190400892.html

Candor and Motions, Yet Again

I wrote several years ago about how lawyers can be persuasive and effective; see Candor, Omission, Persuasion (October 2021). One of the themes there was brevity balanced with necessary exposition. Another was the peril of telling a lie. Most lawyers will make a misrepresentation over the course of their career. 

That is not an indictment of their ethics or professionalism. That is simply the probability in a world of stress, facts, and litigation. Lawyers will make mistakes. That Candor post recognized that and reminded of the critical responsibility to correct those mistakes.

What of the related challenge of acquiescence? When a lawyer is asked about an objection to a motion, the lawyer may want to first see the motion. The imperative in this regard is driven by the personal conferring that is required by Rule 60Q6.115, and that

All motions shall include a statement that the movant has personally conferred or has used good-faith efforts to confer with all other parties or, if represented, their attorneys of record and shall state whether any party has an objection to the motion.

Thus, before a motion is filed, there is always a conversation between the two lawyers. Not their paralegals, their neighbors, or their friends. The lawyers ("personally") confer. It is one of the hallmarks of professionalism and an attractive part of the practice.

Would a competent lawyer "agree" to a motion they have never seen? Is that wise?

Imagine opposing counsel calls and informs they are disappointed in the lingering failure to fully provide requested documents. They cordially note that despite their esteem for you and acceptance of your assurances, their client feels that a motion to compel must be filed. What does your lack of objection signal? Most likely, it means that you are not objecting to the motion. As likely, it does not mean that you acquiesce in the accuracy of the moving party's facts, law, and argument.

In this instance, the lawyer might readily "not object" and thus clear the way for opposing counsel's filing. That attorney would then pay attention to the filings, read the motion as filed, and, if the facts, law, and argument are objectionable, file a response immediately as allowed by the rule.

Competent counsel never fails to read pleadings that are filed. They never fail to file a response to assert factual corrections, legal citations, and provide counterarguments. That is the lawyer's role and privilege. Too many forget that representing a client is a monumental privilege held by few and worthy of respect and appreciation.

But what if the motion is a "joint motion?" Would a competent lawyer agree to such a motion without seeing the document that will be filed? I would suggest not. The "joint" makes the motion an adoption, a representation of both parties. A joint statement of facts, law, and argument. The parties to a "joint" motion have "joint" responsibility for the veracity and accuracy of all the motion contains. see Candor, Omission, Persuasion (October 2021).

Competent counsel should never agree to be a party to ("joint") a motion they have never seen and read. Despite your unmeasurable esteem for opposing counsel, there is simply too much risk in adopting and agreeing to be responsible for representations you have never seen.

It is imperative that the adjudicator is presented with the truth. The adjudicator is going to rely on that motion, its representations, citations, and arguments. The lawyer who plays loosely with their responsibility and obligations will garner skepticism and distrust. The lawyer who allows their name to be associated with such practices will face similar consequences - by association - but nonetheless important.

Sure, "I must not tell lies," but as importantly, I need to be careful not to adopt and endorse the lies, or mistakes even, of others.