HELP STUDENTS ARGUE BETTER. AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION.

 

Dear DAVID,   Have you ever asked students to analyze an argument, only to discover that they did not even understand the basic structure of the argument?   Do you ever grade essays that are poorly structured and logically incoherent?   If so, you might want to check out our new interactive textbook How We Argue, which helps students review the basic skills of analyzing and constructing arguments. How We Argue is designed for personalized learning, so students work through practice exercises at their own pace, while you focus on teaching your course content. Think of it a bit like a “weight room for arguments” that students can visit outside of class time to strengthen their “logic muscles.”   Please reply to learn more about how you can use How We Argue to enhance your courses this year!   Nate Otey Fellow, Harvard Department of Philosophy Lead Instructor, ThinkerAnalytix

The American Philosophical Association University of Delaware 31 Amstel Avenue, Newark, DE 19716   Note: this email was sent from an unmonitored email address. Please contact info@apaonline.org with questions. Click here to change your subscription settings. To unsubscribe from all APA messages, click here.

NORTH AMERICAN KANT SOCIETY. A few news items, and the VNAKS incubator session tomorrow.

 

Dear David McDonald,

Greetings once again from NAKS.  A couple of announcements:

1. NAKS was very sorry to learn of the July 9th passing of Professor Graham Bird, an inspiration and friend to many.  Please see our in memoriam announcement here:  https://northamericankantsociety.com/Announcements/10745698

2. Tomorrow VNAKS continues with our first "Incubator" session. This involves three "poster-style" talks on a single theme.  The presenter gives us their new idea, and then we "incubate" it together (thus the Q&A is ideally longer than the talk itself).  The somewhat daunting theme for tomorrow is "One Precise way in which Schelling or Hegel genuinely improves on Kant's Theoretical Philosophy."  The incubatees are Naomi Fisher (Loyola-Chicago), Anton Kabeshkin (Potsdam), and Jake McNulty (NYU).  The session will be chaired by James Kreines (Claremont-McKenna).  More info here:  https://northamericankantsociety.org/VNAKS

3. We continue to welcome proposals for future VNAKS sessions here: 

https://forms.gle/mdyhHTwPLnwKDQpq6

Please see the June newsletter for guidelines on making a proposal.

4. NAKS is branching out beyond the APA and will soon be accepting submissions for a special roundtable on "What May we Hope? Answers to a Kantian Question" to be held at the annual meeting of the American Society for 18th-Century Studies (ASECS) at the Hilton Baltimore-Inner Harbor on March 31-April 2, 2022.  More information to come, but here is the ASECS homepage:  https://www.asecs.org/

best regards,

Andrew Chignell, President-Secretary

---

The "North American Kant Society" is a 501(3)(c) non-profit organization, registered in MO.
https://northamericankantsociety.org/

Stand with Texas Democrats fighting to block GOP-backed voting restrictions

---

Texas Democrats flee state in effort to block GOP-backed voting restrictions

---

David,

Today, Texas House Democrats left the state and broke quorum to fight back against state Republicans’ continued attacks on Texas’ freedom to vote.

We need to stand with the brave lawmakers who are doing everything in their power to stop voter suppression in our state. Will you add your name now as a sign of support?

ADD MY NAME »

Republicans wasted no time during the legislative special session to begin trampling on Texans’ freedom to vote.

They’ve introduced multiple bills aimed at adding new identification requirements for mail voting, banning early voting options, and creating new criminal penalties for breaking election code while empowering partisan poll watchers.

Democrats are risking arrest by standing up for what’s right. We need to have their back. Please, add your name today.

Thank you,

Boot Texas Republicans

Paid for by Boot Texas Republicans

REMEMBER THIS, A CASE NOW ON TWITTER: ABUSE OF PROCESS AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.

 Politics · Trending

Sidney Powell

A virtual court session is underway to determine if Sidney Powell, Lin Wood and other lawyers will face sanctions for their lawsuit attempting to overturn Michigan's 2020 election results in favor of former president Donald Trump

Trending withJudge Parker, Fink

An abuse of process is the unjustified or unreasonable use of legal proceedings or process to further a cause of action by an applicant or plaintiff in an action. It is a claim made by the respondent or defendant that the other party is misusing or perverting regularly issued court process (civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action. In common law it is classified as an intentional tort. It is to be distinguished from malicious prosecution, another type of tort that involves misuse of the public right of access to the courts.

The elements of a valid cause of action for abuse of process in most common law jurisdictions are as follows: (1) the existence of an ulterior purpose or motive underlying the use of process, and (2) some act in the use of the legal process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings.[1] Abuse of process can be distinguished from malicious prosecution, in that abuse of process typically does not require proof of malice, lack of probable cause in procuring issuance of the process, or a termination favorable to the plaintiff, all of which are essential to a claim of malicious prosecution.[2] "Process," as used in this context, includes not only the "service of process," i.e. an official summons or other notice issued from a court, but means any method used to acquire jurisdiction over a person or specific property that is issued under the official seal of a court.[3] Typically, the person who abuses process is interested only in accomplishing some improper purpose that is collateral to the proper object of the process and that offends justice, such as an unjustified arrest or an unfounded criminal prosecution. Subpoenas to testify, attachments of property, executions on property, garnishments, and other provisional remedies are among the types of "process" considered to be capable of abuse.

Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort. Like the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally (and maliciously) instituting and pursuing (or causing to be instituted or pursued) a legal action (civil or criminal) that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution. In some jurisdictions, the term "malicious prosecution" denotes the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings, while the term "malicious use of process" denotes the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings.

Criminal prosecuting attorneys and judges are protected from tort liability for malicious prosecution by doctrines of prosecutorial immunity and judicial immunity. Moreover, the mere filing of a complaint cannot constitute an abuse of process. The parties who have abused or misused the process have gone beyond merely filing a lawsuit. The taking of an appeal, even a frivolous one, is not enough to constitute an abuse of process. The mere filing or maintenance of a lawsuit, even for an improper purpose, is not a proper basis for an abuse of process action.

Declining to expand the tort of malicious prosecution, a unanimous California Supreme Court in the case of Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 47 Cal. 3d 863, 873 (1989) observed: "While the filing of frivolous lawsuits is certainly improper and cannot in any way be condoned, in our view the better means of addressing the problem of unjustified litigation is through the adoption of measures facilitating the speedy resolution of the initial lawsuit and authorizing the imposition of sanctions for frivolous or delaying conduct within that first action itself, rather than through an expansion of the opportunities for initiating one or more additional rounds of malicious prosecution litigation after the first action has been concluded."[1]