Judicial Title Insurance Forms: Fill & Download for Free

I was really moved by an urge for haste when Jonathan Brill (whom I like to thank) asked me to answer this question the past weekend, but then I realized that there is much more to it than PayPal, and I remembered a beautiful article by an Italian screen writer which I read a few months ago and which fits perfectly in my intended answer. The article was written by Francesco Mazza and it talks about the origins of the #metoo movement, but I consider it an absolutely necessary introduction (a long one, so bear with me) to my answer, because it explains very well what is currently going on in our society when it comes to sex and how the path that we seem to have taken originated.Here is my freely adapted translation of the most relevant (to my answer) bits of the original Italian article,[1] kindly authorized by Francesco Mazza himself.I really suggest you to read it all, but if you are in a hurry or lazy, you can jump straight to my angry bits right below. If you suffer of the micro-aggression syndrome, though, you better directly and immediately skip this answer, because it might be directed to you too, dear reader, and it’s not going to be a pleasant one.The real starting point of this madness goes back to June 23, 1972, when Nixon was in full swing and the US Congress approved the so-called Title IX, a historic victory of the feminist movement of the late 1960′s.[2]Title IX establishes that no person, because of their gender, can be excluded or discriminated against in any school program or educational activity that receives federal grants.This is an improvement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the milestone that put an end - in theory - to any kind of racial segregation, but which did not clearly include gender among the categories of discrimination.However, as it always happens in the United States, idealism immediately got exploited by economic interests and for decades the main application of Title IX was in the sporting field. This is because sports in university, in the US, is a very serious thing: it is the universities that start athletes to professionalism, send the best to the Olympics and, through the university championships, give life to a business worth hundreds of millions of dollars.With Title IX, the university sport was forced to open up also to female athletes, who started gaining access to special treatments and grants, until then reserved only to male athletes-students.However, with the arrival of the new millennium, the whole American society got shaken by the plague of rapes on university campuses. One after another, dozens of episodes of sexual violence committed by unsuspecting students started to emerge, often enrolled in the most prestigious universities (the famous Ivy League).The turning point came on March 15, 2011, when Yale's student Alexandra Brodsky and another fifteen girls who were victims of sexual violence denounced the same University on the basis of Title IX.[3]It was a turning point: for the first time it was claimed that a University which fails to offer its students a safe environment would in fact discriminate against them, and the school is therefore to be considered as responsible for the offense as its material authors.Following the example of the girls of Yale, the denunciation on the basis of Title IX started spreading like wildfire, because widespread was (and is) the scourge of rape on campuses. And since the list of the involved campuses featured dozens of colleges belonging to the Ivy League, the problem rose to the attention of the highest levels of the American establishment: in universities where fees cost 100 thousand dollars a year the most likely students are the children of the most prestigious families in the United States - the same who are part or finance the two main political parties - and the Obama administration was forced to intervene in haste, succeeding in the difficult task of worsening a situation almost impossible to worsen.In April 2011 it was established, through a letter by the Department of Education, that all Universities that fail to ensure effective application of Title IX in cases of sexual harassment will immediately stop receiving any kind of federal grants, including "federal loans" used by about two thirds of American students to pay for college.[4]If until then universities, before a rape charge, could protect themselves by relying on the competent authorities, with the consequent times and outcomes of the ordinary justice, now they are called to a preventive control, in order to avoid being blacklisted. But at this point the panic breaks out: entering the black list means losing the students who require federal loans, which would mean seeing their business collapse.For this reason, colleges began to apply Title IX on the basis of a particular legal system, that of "preponderance of the evidence" , which in the Anglo-Saxon system is an alternative criterion to that of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" used in criminal cases and to that of "clear and convincing evidence" used in most civil trials.It's a difference that has culturally revolutionized the current decade: from this moment, in fact, those accused of having committed a rape in a campus undergo two procedures: one by ordinary justice, based on the "beyond reasonable doubt" criterion, another managed internally and directly by the college, based on the "preponderance of the evidence" concept, whose interpretation is left to the discretion of the college itself.While the data of the US Department of Justice speak of 6.1 cases of sexual violence per thousand students,[5] from 2011 onward the complaints are counted in the hundreds; complaints that, however, are always sent to the college and only to a much lesser extent to the judicial authorities, where the outcome of the investigations is much more uncertain: there are several universities sued by male students expelled because they were convicted of sexual violence by the college internal justice system but exonerated completely by the judicial authorities.And there is not only the theme of the preponderance of proof. In this overexcited climate, in order to anticipate and avoid trouble, Universities invent regulations such as that of Northwestern University, which explicitly forbid sexual relations between two sentient adults "in conditions of different power".[6]It is argued, that is, that a sexual relationship between two individuals who occupy different positions within any scale of social differentiation (ie. a professor-student) is forbidden regardless, because the consent of the subaltern person would be determined not by a free choice but influenced by unbalanced power relations. Does that ring the Hollywood bell?It is on the basis of this doctrine that the captain of Yale's basketball team, Jack Montague, was expelled from the University in 2014 following an accusation of sexual assault by his ex-girlfriend. A year after the end of their relationship, the woman reported to the University authorities -- but not to the police -- that her consent was not "free" but influenced by the prestigious role that Montague played in the university environment. [7] Exactly what happened to James Franco two years later, when one of his ex girlfriends stated, a year after the facts, to have consented to oral sex in the actor's car only on the basis of his fame.[8]Not all academics, however, turn out to be willing to accept a breakthrough that smells of witch-hunts a mile away.In 2015, Harvard professors Jacob Gersen and Jeannie Suk wrote on the University of Berkeley's California Law Review like the application of Title IX based on the preponderance of the evidence has effectively ratified the birth of "a bureaucratic apparatus" that "supervise and control the sexuality of free citizens" as a kind of Big Brother; the same year, Laura Kipnis, professor at Northwestern University, published an essay, in which she affirms the right of women of the 21st century to freely choose who they have sex with, without bureaucracies or limitations of any kind.[9] [10] [11]According to Kipnis, the new pseudo-feminism from a university campus would reduce women to the role of "helpless girls", in need of other men to write regulations to protect them, instead of considering them human beings with free will.For Kipnis, if Obama had wanted to do something to solve the plague of campus rape, he could have tightened controls or even banish the "frats", the male student associations repeatedly involved in acts of sexual violence. But touching the "frats" would have meant touching one of the most powerful social structures at the base of the lobbying system with which power is organized in the United States.Obama literally sit on the fence, by allegedly taking a provision to solve the emergency while leaving it to the individual Universities' responsibility instead, through the threat of interrupting funding and with devastating effects on individual freedom.Poor Kipnis is even suffering a proceeding for violation of Title IX just for having called into question...Title IX...With the election of Donald Trump, the situation has worsened even further: every trickle of public debate is polluted with ideological hatred, poisoning the climate to exasperation.In May 2017, Reed College students denounced a professor for proselytism in favor of white suprematism . It happened that the teacher showed an old sketch of Steve Martin dressed as a pharaoh at Saturday Night Life in class to analyze the comic language, and the students saw an attempt to discriminate and ridicule the customs of the Egyptian people.[12]Meanwhile, at Evergreen State College, professor Bret Weinstein refuses to join the protest held by liberal college students who, for one day, forbid access to white students and professors "to reflect on their privileges". Weinstein disputes the crazy idea of ​​wanting to fight racism with other racism, and the students react by threatening him and denouncing him for discrimination. The University decides to terminate its relationship with the teacher, paying a half-million-dollar liquidation.[13]Two cases which show how America has fallen into a nightmare remake of the Lord of the Flies, with the colleges becoming the exclusive territory of the so-called "snowflakes", hypersensitive students who are unable to deal with any kind of critical thought, continually in need of "safe space".It is in this torn and ideological climate that last October the New York Times and The New Yorker dealt with film producer Harvey Weinstein, who all New York City knew and know to be a kind of psychopath. Just go over the weekend at the Balthazar brunch - the well-known restaurant of Soho - to see him smoke cigar despite the ban, ruining the meal throughout the room, and get such an idea.But the sacrosanct accusations against a man who has made blackmail and violence his trademark become a pretext for the principle of the preponderance of evidence to be smuggled well beyond the boundaries of the "safe zones" dear to the "snowflakes" of American colleges. Under the guise of the #metoo movement, the principle extends to the cinematic sphere, then to the entire civil society, and finally breaks down like a hurricane to force 5 on a completely unprepared rest of the world, that of the criterion of "preponderance of evidence" opposed to "clear and convincing evidence" knew absolutely nothing until now.To understand how things work, just think of Woody Allen, acquitted not once but twice but equally dragged into infamy.And what a mockery irony is to see Rose McGowan, muse of Ronan Farrow and first accuser of Harvey Weinstein, being #MeToo-ized by Andi Dier, a transsexual who in New York has accused her of insulting transgender women and of having no idea what it means to be really molested.Got it? We have allowed for the law of suspicion and for the demonization of sex, by endorsing the principle that because sex might not be consensual or just the consequence of a free decision, sex and everything related to it cannot be tolerated; and even when it can be tolerated, that is only until someone regrets it and starts blaming any part directly or indirectly involved in what caused the regret. Why not...even PayPal.Sex is the new evil and its moralization is the new religion of the 21st Century. And the fault is all yours! It’s a generic you of course, but not for this a little inclusive one.Most of you watch porn and have a sex toy somewhere in your household. There are people who work in banks, maybe even at PayPal, among you. You are men and women, trans-sexual, transgenders, blacks, whites and yellows; you masturbate, have casual sex with untested partners every weekend, you cultivate your fetish — be it being penetrated with a strap-on by your mistress or going with prostitutes or swapping your partner in private clubs; the reality is that most of you financially support the adult industry and benefit off of it in terms of your senses' well-being and that almost all of you have sex, some of the kinky type some of a more canonical type, but nonetheless you have sex.Meantime, you can have access to PayPal, to financial credit, you can open a bank account, you can have your business web site hosted wherever you want, you pay regular fees when you use your credit card, you can use any existing service available on the Net and outside of it, you can pay taxes, get insured...all things that most people working in the adult industry can only dream of.Then I have to tell you, and forgive my bluntness: you are hypocrites, when you don't take an open, clear position over the discrimination of adult workers. There is no bigger, most infamous, vile sex discrimination than dividing those who publicly orbit around the business of sex from those who exploit that business and activity in their private yard and taking away from the first those social rights which are instead granted to the latter.Did you know that if you are publicly associated with the adult industry in any shape or form you cannot adopt? Isn't that discriminating? It's like suggesting that the natural children of an adult performer are a an unfortunate event, a despicable incident. "Make children, niggers, so we will have more slaves, because the son of a slave is a slave himself." Sometimes I have the feeling that the only reason why nobody has yet proposed to neuter adult workers is to keep the sluts species alive, like it was for the nigger species: we hate adult performers, but we love the benefits of their work. Just make sure to keep them ghettoized.Imagine the riots if gays or blacks or women weren't allowed to use PayPal. Well, you are not imagining: black, gay and women adult workers are not allowed to use PayPal. We are not even a species anymore: we are a sub-species which crosses the entire spectrum of all other species. Remember it next time when you fight for black, gay and women's rights: you are just fighting for the rights of some blacks gays and women, not for the rights of all blacks gays and women. Unless you start taking this matter seriously by acknowledging the problem and stop this witch-hunt by raising it publicly like you do when Trump tells a locker-room joke. Or when a woman claims that a kiss given to a guy 20 years ago was a stolen one.Society is stealing adult industry workers' rights as I write and before your very eyes; why do I say rights...society steals many adult workers lives, right now as I write and before your very eyes. Would you agree with me that your life has been stolen if I told you that you cannot start a family, have access to credit, being employed in any mainstream business — no matter if you have high top qualifications —, sleep in certain hotels, dine in certain restaurants, invest your savings, getting life and health insurance, and sometimes even opening a bank account? What a fucking life is that?This is the reality: some of these people whose the most basic rights are being denied on a daily basis are gay, some are women, some are blacks, but all of them are people who work in the adult industry at different levels. Don't forget it, the next time you feel the urge of moralizing us; and enjoy sex in your yard until you can: first they isolate patient zero, then they take care of the "disease". Better safe than sorry.Just let me summarize my answer for you, by asking you a question: would you put your money on this answer being even considered for publication outside of Quora? There you have it.Footnotes[1] Ecco perché il #metoo ha fatto a pezzi il garantismo e lo stato di diritto[2] Title IX - Wikipedia[3] Was Yale Really Cleared on Sexual Harassment? [4] Dear Colleague Letter from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn Ali.-- Pg 1[5] http://www.aei.org/publication/new-justice-department-study-reveals-1-52-6-college-women-victims-rapesexual-assault/[6] Consensual Relations and Sexual Misconduct[7] Yale plays hardball with Jack Montague, expelled hoops star, as reverse discrimination lawsuit continues[8] James Franco Accuser Violet Paley: 'I Wish He Made a Promise to Change'[9] The Sex Bureaucracy[10] http://laurakipnis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/My-Title-IX-Inquisition-The-Chronicle-Review-.pdf[11] http://laurakipnis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Sexual-Paranoia-Strikes-Academe.pdf[12] The Surprising Revolt at the Most Liberal College in the Country[13] Evergreen professor at center of protests resigns; college will pay $500,000

Former President Dwight Eisenhower, the 34th president of the United States, is pictured with George H.W. Bush, the future 41st president.The term “Eisenhower Republican” is interpreted somewhat differently today than it was some six decades ago when Eisenhower served as the 34th president.Eisenhower argued that his Republican model, which he alternately described as “modern Republicanism and “dynamic conservatism,” was a realistic one - the only realistic approach possible at the time. And the strong case could be made that he was right. Americans recently had emerged from two of the most cataclysmic events of their country’s relatively brief history: The Great Depression and World War II, each of which had required immense sacrifices on the part of ordinary Americans.Herbert Hoover (pictured left), the 31st president of the United States, and a vitriolic critic of FDR’s New Deal.For better or worse, depending on one’s political orientation, the Roosevelt Administration undertook a massive expansion of federal power in an attempt to mitigate the effects of these two upheavals. To be sure, millions of Americans were disturbed by this expansion. Many even feared that it would portend the end of limited constitutional government.One of the most vocal critiques of FDR’s expanded government vision was his predecessor, the 31st president, Herbert Hoover, who, incidentally, turned out to be one of a handful of U.S. presidents to undertake a systematic articulation of his political philosophy. He outlined his views in two short volumes titled American Individualism and The Challenge to Liberty.Based on his own experiences from his extensive world travel and his work as a humanitarian, especially in Europe following WWI, Hoover regarded American society as unique and set part from the rest of the world largely on the basis of its historic emphasis on individualism and civil society, which he regarded as the basis for resolving the country’s social ills. And he perceived the expansion of government, particularly the federal government, as posing an acute threat to what he regarded as the basic underpinnings of a free society. Despite his presidency being largely regarded today as an unpopular and failed one, his thinking established a template for much of the Republican party, one that, in time, would come to define it.As Hoover, a longstanding progressive, and many other Republicans saw it, there was an irreconcilable hostility between the expansion of federal power and civil society.Eisenhower took a significantly different approach to the New Deal’s legacy, though his personal views were likely not that far removed from Hoover’s. While acknowledging the value of civil society and individualism like any other conservative, he perceived the expansion of federal power as an irreversible fact of life. Americans could channel the expansion of federal power. They could harness it to accomplish social objectives that worked to enhance civil society and individualism, but there was no prospect of a rollback - at least, not at that juncture in history.This sentiment was best expressed in Eisenhower’s letter to his older brother, Edgar, a wealthy attorney and a vitriolic opponent of the New Deal who once told Ike that this first priority as the incoming president in 1953 should be fumigating the White House of the last stench of Roosevelt.Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this – in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything – even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.In many respects, Eisenhower stood at the helm of a party that was still recovering from its searing defeat in 1936, when Alf Landon lost to FDR in both a popular and electoral landslide. By the 1950’s, the party had covered lost ground, but the bureaucratic machinery in Washington and much of the predominant culture in a America leaned firmly toward the Democratic Party.Moreover, Ike perceived that the majority of rank-and-file Americans, while still viewing government power with some wariness, nevertheless believed that the expansion of federal power under Roosevelt and Truman had been altogether a good thing.Moreover, in the mid-20th century, the Republican Party remained a minority party - in some respects, its plight was not that much different from the way the GOP functions today in many coastal blue states, such as New York and California. Eisenhower perceived that Republican electoral success lay in demonstrating to independent and some Democratic voters that the GOP was capable of governing effectively by managing existing New Deal programs in a judicious and fiscally effective manner.Eisenhower’s governing vision was expressed by his close aide and speechwriter, Arthur Larson, who essentially functioned as the chief ideologist of Eisenhower Republicanism. Writing in A Republican Looks at His Party, published in 1956, Larson viewed the party’s role as striking a careful balance between expansive government power and private initiative:Now we have as much government activity as is necessary but not enough to stifle the normal motivations of private enterprise. And we have a higher degree of government concern for the needs of people than ever before in our history, while at the same time pursuing a policy of minimum restoration of responsibility to individuals and private groups. This balance, together with a gradual restoration of a better balance between federal and state governments, is allowing all these elements in society to make their maximum contribution to the common good.Interestingly, while Eisenhower is remembered as one of the most popular presidents of the 20th century, his ideological model never really gained traction among many rank-and-file Republicans as well as Democrats and independents, who, over the course of time, would eventually gravitate to Republican ranks. And this was especially evident in what became known as the Sun Belt region of the United States, one that underwent explosive post-war economic and demographic expansion and, ironically, where Ike remained personally popular and even garnered strong electoral support, in some cases.This region of the country ultimately developed a far more receptive ear to the conservative wing of the GOP that, by the 1960’s, had abandoned much of its old isolationist foreign policy agenda, while still remaining steadfastly opposed to the expansion of federal domestic programs and federal power in general. And like many of their Old Right forebears, most believed that any comprise with federal power - any attempt to strike some kind of balance with it - ultimately would prove futile in the end. Any attempt to manage manage these programs more judiciously simply amounted to a sellout - an attenuated form of liberalism - “Dime Store New Dealism,” as many described it.Goldwater campaigning with Ronald Reagan in 1964.This view was perhaps best expressed by the 1964 GOP nominee, Barry Goldwater, a son of the emerging Sun Belt, in accepting his party’s nomination, which could be interpreted as a veiled repudiation of Eisenhower’s moderate Republican legacy:Anyone who joins us, in all sincerity, we welcome. Those, those who do not care for our cause, we don't expect to enter our ranks in any case. And let our Republicanism so focused and so dedicated not be made fuzzy and futile by unthinking and stupid labels.I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!Goldwater’s doomed candidacy, which, incidentally, received the grudging support of the aging 34th president, could be described to day as the GOP’s Alamo moment. It ended up serving as the battle cry for an ultimately resurgent GOP that achieved an electoral landslide some 16 years later in 1980 and both a popular and electoral landslide in the following election of 1984.Beginning with the Reagan presidency, Eisenhower Republicanism receded into distant political memory, especially as those moderate northwestern Republicans closely associated with Ike’s ideological legacy aged and left the political stage.Today, Eisenhower’s “modern Republicanism” would be regarded by most Republicans today as a detour in Republican Party history. In fact, in the present century, the term “Eisenhower Republican” is most often employed by Democrats to affirm their moderation against what they regard as the strident radicalism of the present-day Republican Party.Consequently, Eisenhower, who is now regarded by many professional historians as a near-great or even great president, represents a rather bifurcated presidential legacy. He is acknowledged by present-day conservative Republicans as great in terms of his moral character and leadership skills, but only Democrats celebrate his personal ideology and policy achievements.

The NYT has a great article + visualizations addressing this question: The Roberts Court’s Surprising Move Leftward. I find the title to be slightly misleading though. If you consider the court along typical decision lines, it would be divided like this:LiberalSotomayorGinsburgBreyerKaganConservativeRobertsScaliaAlitoThomasAs the NYT article shows, Kennedy (like Powell before him) has been the swing vote in 5-4 decisions nearly every time, especially in the past 10 years. In these cases, the distribution is fairly evenly divided between conservative and liberal decisions, although one may argue he leans more conservatively.Source: The Roberts Court’s Surprising Move LeftwardAs a result, the Roberts Court as a whole has been moderate on average.Source: The Roberts Court’s Surprising Move LeftwardThe Roberts Court initially started by delivering more conservative decisions, which is a historical standard for the Supreme Court, as evident by the slight conservative bias since 1969. Since the founding of this country, the judicial branch has philosophically promoted defaulting to the status quo, which often aligns to conservative decisions.Sometimes it does align with a liberal decision though, as noted in the recent King v. Burwell (Affordable Care Act) decision, where this was an argument that partly swayed Roberts and Kennedy to vote in the majority.Here, the statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners’ interpretation because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very “death spirals” that Congress designed the Act to avoid. See New York State Dept. of Social Servs. v. Dublino, 413 U. S. 405, 419–420 (1973) (“We cannot interpret federal statutes to negate their own stated purposes.”).Source: King v. Burwell OpinionsThe same could be said of same-sex marriage, where the majority of states have already legalized it:Source: Gay Marriage State by State: From a Few States to the Whole NationThe recent liberal shift in decisions is largely expected from a moderate court, especially during an administration where the liberal agenda is gaining traction as the status quo.