-The Docket-

[captain_jay_conrad]

I see that I was wrong about her being a mermaid. I couldn't tell in the short time I had to glance at it. Rather it's a fully body woman resting against a pillow of lilies. But for 114 years old it's in immaculate condition, beautifully colored to a near perfect Amber, and yes that case is original too, with the original velvet. A piece like that is extremely rare. (I love pipes, and have a collection, but none of my pieces are as good as this.)

That's the cigar holder, the stem comes out and it can fit into the bowl, but I won't try that, the chances of harming the pipe are too great.

 

[Trygon]

Ho-leeeee shit. You weren't kidding about the value of that piece.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

I'll be honest, I've never seen a pipe quite like that one before. It's just absolutely beautiful.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-judg...94--sector.html;_ylt=AwrBEiQquf9SuWEAkDPQtDMD

•A Telling Change In Standard Tort Cases•​

I'm sure you've seen it countless times throughout the years, those scumbag plaintiff's attorneys attempting to get those poor souls suffering from mesothelioma, or any other form of lung cancer to call in and see if they have a case against the asbestos manufacturers, and have a chance at a get rich quick scheme, the likes of which this country hasn't seen in the past thirty years. Well, a judge in Delaware decided to initiate a tidal change of epic proportions in this main-stay of predatory tort law for the past thirty-some-odd years.

So, what's the deal with asbestos, and why had it been such a prominent product for decades? Well, asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral, which has extraordinary fire retardant properties, and worked well as a method of insulating houses. It first started seeing use as a protective shell around high risk fire zones. Included among these were early movie theaters, which used nitrate film stock, which is highly flammable. In fact, most of the special effects fires seen in movies from the 1930's all the way through the 1950's used deteriorating nitrate film stock to create the massive explosions for their special effects.

Needless to say, theater fires were a common occurrence during the early days of the cinema, and asbestos was seen as the perfect solution to the fire threats facing the entire industry. Well, soon, builders noticed this fine quality of the natural mineral, and began utilizing it in such things as naval ships, roofs, insulation, ceiling tiles, wall fillings, etc. Of course, unknown at the time, was the fact that this little mineral possessed significant quantities of carcinogens which, if inhaled, significantly increased the risk of contracting rare and aggressive forms of lung cancer, such as the most prominent type, mesothelioma. But, only when inhaled (meaning during the removal process or when fibers come lose. Otherwise it is fairly harmless).

So, over a period of thirty years, plaintiff's attorneys flocked to the courts with massively expensive class-action law suits which drove over 100 American companies into bankruptcy, and instead of drawing the law suits to a close after the manufacturers ceased production and use of asbestos as a building material, the lawyers continued salivating at the huge potential settlement offers. They started doing what the worst elements of the profession are known for, inventing evidence, reusing x-rays and other forms of evidence for multiple different cases, all while claiming that it was original evidence.

Of course, that sort of activity is not only unethical, it's violative of the court's rules, and the various codes of professional conduct which bind and govern attorney practices. But, until recently, most judges sat back and allowed it to continue, while the reputation of the legal community continued to deteriorate to a worsened state. I mean, these sharks are the ones who most people think of, when they think of the bastard attorney. I find, in fact, that the two most common types of hated attorneys fall into the category of the slip-and-fall plaintiff's attorneys, and the divorce attorneys. I suppose this is because these are the most common types of attorneys that the general public ever interacts with. Of course, with respect to the slip-and-fall attorneys, their ludicrous ads add to the over all negative perspective of attorneys.

Nevertheless, this judge in the article I posted at the top of this decided to put a complete stop to these practices within that specific court. The judge was handling one of the bankruptcies of the various companies who once utilized asbestos in the construction of various products and buildings. The judge correctly noted that these attorneys had been misusing evidence, abusing trust funds set aside to aid those victims who truly suffered lung cancer from the natural mineral, as opposed to none related causes such as cigarette smoking. And, as a consequence, the defense bar has seized upon the opportunity to aid their beleaguered clients. Now, the plaintiff's attorneys' law firms are facing some serious class action suits of their own.

This comes full circle, back to one of the points I made in a previous post, that the get-rich-quick mindset which has come to dominate the legal profession would come back to devastate the attorneys themselves. Well, that has come to pass, and those attorneys have no one to blame other than themselves. Vengeance is a bitch, but a bitch with a bitterly sweet sense of irony.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

God dammit! Why do my favorite restaurants close to home usually go down in flames? All to be replaced with some fucking generic chain of "Fuck I hate myself" food? Son of a bitch! Oh well, at least the place has another location...twice as far from home. Yes I can drive the extra distance...but I'm a lazy ass hole who wants things to remain the same, because I don't like change...unless I change it...Wait, holy shit, I'm pretty inflexible!

Oh well, it doesn't change the point that I don't like it when my favorite restaurants close down! But some good news, the Texas Bar wants to teach me how to write divorce complaints for a scant $700. I can think of several areas of law I would rather practice than divorce law...and that includes, Fed Tax, Estate tax, Tax tax, FUCK YOU...tax, and if I keep this up I might have to shoot myself...and be taxed, law. As you can see, I don't much like tax law...but family law is still a step below it!

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

•Thoughts on Justice•​

I think one of the interesting things that happens within our legal system is that we focus on broad and enigmatic terms, rather than focusing on the concrete realities. Everyone speaks of achieving that wonderfully vague and abstract notion of justice, without actually defining what true justice is. Not to jump on the moral relativism bandwagon here, but I suspect that each and everyone of us have slightly differing points of view on what justice really is.

Thus, how can we truly claim that a court system, which is supposed to be uniform in its applicability, be something of true value? These are staggering questions which can be leveled at our entire system, and I haven't enough nicotine or willpower to flesh that out further.

Rather, I will approach this half-sleep-deprived rant from a different angle. I believe that the approach must be one of which we evaluate just how well the system works, taking into account that we really don't have a true working definition of justice. Other than maybe something slightly along the circular lines of "Justice is the state of something being just"...Okay...that sounds like a John Marshall Answer in Marbury v. Madison.

But, what it does allow, is for a uniform picture of what could be justice to emerge for us. For instance, I think one aspect we can get behind is the notion that a true form of justice would be freedom from oppression. But again, oppression can take on an abstract form. Nevertheless, it's more of a real quantifiable notion than say "justice" itself is.

Quite frankly, the way the justice system is now, I'd say it's more about rubber stamping some bureaucrat's wet dream, than it is for ensuring that an accused has a fair shot at a trial. But hey, I'm biased. I'm only the poor schmuck trying to help the bastards who get caught, and have to fight their way through the system. One thing I'm not, is a guardian angel. But, if as a client, you work well with me. Then I'll cross on bent knee to get my client the best result possible. I'm a fighter, but I need my client to be my best cheerleader, or else I cannot fight as hard for them as I possibly can.

Perhaps I'm being selfish here, but part of me really doesn't give a damn. I am there because I want the system to be fair, and I damn well know it isn't. But I have enough opponents to worry about, I don't need an ungrateful client added to my long list of "Who wants to fuck me over today?".

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

•NSA Strikes Again•​

The New York Times has now reported that the long list of people affected by the most recent spying tactics of the National Security Agency (N.S.A.) includes American attorneys. In other words, the confidentiality of client information has been breached by the ever watchful eye of the Federal government, leaving me to wonder what the purpose of even having Attorney-Client Privilege serves anymore. The notion of Constitutional protections and privacy have completely gone out the window, and our politicians do nothing to alleviate this real burden and problem for the American people.

It disgusts me to see that the government has transformed into some sort of beast like this, and the blame must rest at the feet of every political party, for allowing the government to become what it has. Nevertheless, these politicians have positioned themselves in such a place that they are becoming a ruling elite, who stands completely separated from the constituents, and no longer give a God damn about what happens to them. As such, it also raises the question of what we should do to sustain the lifestyle which we have grown accustomed to. Something must be done, because every facet of our society is coming under attack by such a broad surveillance scheme, and it will ultimately end in tragedy.

It is a tragedy that we no long adhere to the principles which made this country great. Moreover, it is a tragedy that our leaders are so impotent, concerned more with partisan squabble, than they are with really preserving the form of government we have. When that happens, the legitimacy of the entire United States government comes into question. And, I, for one, am fairly certain that others are beginning to raise similar questions. I believe that each of these stories represents a warning, much like the warning light one might see when something is wrong with their car. But, instead of pulling over and attempting to repair the problem, our politicians seem content simply mashing the accelerator, and seeing where the car winds up before the engine blows up.

That's not responsible leadership! That's plain idiocy. Then again, I don't think we've had true leadership in this country for decades. We teeter on the edge of ruin, and our elected leaders fan the flames. To hell with them all, because they have only made things far worse in this country. I only pray that we can find some workable solution to these problems, before things get out of hand any further.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

•Thoughts on Editing Manuscripts•​

I know that I have a fairly active imagination. It's constantly working on some project or the next, and I often find myself struggling with imagination overload, unable to finish many of the creative writing tasks that I set for myself. Nevertheless, I have finished about three full first drafts for novels, and am more than half-way through a fourth. While the characters all speak to me, and inspire me to map out the plot lines, and stories, editing remains one of the biggest draw backs for writing for me. In the past, it didn't bother me quite as much as it does today. I suppose this has something to do with the fact that in law school, the goal becomes creating as air-tight of a first draft as possible, because for most of our writing, we never had the chance or time to rework our writing.

Thus, we learned the art of attempting to make our writing flow as seamlessly and smoothly as possible within the first draft. It also taught us how to write rapidly, filling volume after volume of quick drafts, which carried the reader through the points we desired to make, without much hand-holding, because the message was clear from the outset. However, this doesn't really lend itself well to writing creatively.

One of the biggest challenges a writer faces, is making their characters and worlds believable for their readers. It also means making sure that the author has taken enough time to make the story more believable from the plot and setting characteristics as well. And, of course, this task is all the more difficult, when the story is based in another world entirely of your own creation. That is currently the process that I'm working through right now. I'm about sixteen chapters into the story, and have filled it up with about 70,000 words at the moment. Nevertheless, I let my uncle, who was a former editor for an Encyclopedia, read over my works and leave comments and suggestions. This is the typical editing process, and I hate to say it, but I loathe it.

The thought of going over the work again, changing this, that or the other, just drains me. The characters begin to lose their appeal. That's why, when I'm going through the first draft, I never go back and do the edits, until I have finished the entire draft. This process may seem more arduous than it needs to be, however, I think it is something that I have to do, to prevent me from dropping the project all together, as I have done so often in the past.

Yet, I'm two years out from the completion of my first novel, and haven't even gone back to look at it yet. I simply lack the energy to do so at the moment. I do plan to go back and work on it. I wish to have it published, just as I managed to get one of my legal works published myself. Of course, the problem with legal books is no one ever wants to buy them, especially when it's examining the history of legal writing in general. Nevertheless, that is something I remain quite proud of, even though I published it myself, and sales have been limited at best.

I can still claim that I have published something, and it is a work that I put my heart into. That being said, I want my novels and fictional works to have better following, and to serve a deeper and more meaningful impact upon the reader. That's why I take the extra time to chart the characters out, and to flesh the story line out as much as possible, before I even commit to writing. Writing endearing characters is no worry for me. I know I possess the skills to do it, otherwise my role playing partners wouldn't always speak so highly of the story lines and characters I create.

On the other hand, I know that reading a poorly edited work can drive readers away, and that's not something I wish to see happen either. I just wish there were some easier method in which to do the editing, or to find some way to force myself to do it, without losing the creative energy to continue working on the current project I have set myself to. of course, balancing this with work is a challenge all unto itself. Nevertheless, there has to be a way to make the process a bit less daunting, and I suppose what I'm going to have to do is to force myself to work on it at a scheduled pace. Which, of course, is another thing I'm not really looking forward to doing with it.

But, the major step for me is that I have gone from start projects, only to abandon them half-way through the initial draft, to completing the initial draft, but doing nothing else with it from there. I suppose I could claim that this is progress, but I want to take it to the next step. It's just going to take some cajoling of my mind to force this to happen, and I believe that it will happen at some point. I'd really like to share the ideas that drove me to such a point to pen them to paper in the first place.

Writing is like an addiction. It haunts your soul, and it forces you to record the ideas on paper, because they play before your mind's eye as though they were actually happening. You begin to feel for your characters, and you want to share that emotion with an audience, because it captivated you to such a point that you were willing to actually reduce these thoughts and emotions to writing. That, in and of itself, is a very powerful experience. Yet, I do think that I could get even more out of this, by seeing the expressions of delight from readers, hopefully inspiring them to create their own works of art.

Because, in its truest form, creative writing is an art. The ability to paint a picture with words is just as enticing as a great artist working on his or her greatest masterpiece. Of course, any art takes dedication, and that's something I need to work on, on my end, at least.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

•N.S.A. Snooping A Rare Issue Of Political Unity In The U.S.A.•​

The Article

If there's one thing that can allow me to sleep a little better at night, it's the fact that most Americans are equally disturbed by the vast overreach occurring at the hands of the National Security Agency (N.S.A.). I believe that this is perhaps one of the greatest, if not the greatest issue of our generation, and it is one which should be more than a little disconcerting for all of us. For a while, I have also been a little more than discouraged by just how divided the American people have become, unable to find much middle ground on anything. But, seeing that the people seem to be coming to a consensus on the issue of spying by the N.S.A. I am finding my faith within this country and its people restored little by little.

I know that I seem to be harping on this spying issue a fair amount, however, as an attorney, I cherish my freedom, and the ability to keep confidential client information...well, confidential. The naysayers, who claim that if we truly want to live in a private and confidential world, then we need to give up the Internet, as well as all of the convenient electronic gadgets that we have come to rely upon over the years, fail to realize, that the nature of business, and interactions have changed to such a degree that we cannot realistically go back to a "disconnected world".

I mean, looking at the ways to apply for jobs in most fields, the reality is increasingly becoming, one where job applications are only accepted online, or at least, that's the case in law. How can I return to a disconnected life style, in order to procure employment, when my options are strictly limited to a connected and online world. Therefore, I believe that claiming that the only way that we can ever truly return to privacy in this digital age, is to completely divorce ourselves from it, is nothing short of a cop out.

Man kind is full of ingenuity, and people who possess incredible intellect. After all, we wouldn't have gotten to the point of being so connected without the brilliant minds which made all of this possible. However, it seems that more of the pundits are concerned with making the spying an openly accepted part of society, as if it is to be the new normal, instead of championing new ideas for finding a way to make our digital and connected life styles more secure than they currently are. I don't think that this is such a far-fetched idea.

After all, if the government is going to insist that we supply more of our information to them online, then we must also find a way to make this process more secure, so that we are not left to the mercy of identity thefts, who care nothing about the havoc they cause in disrupting our lives. Therefore, a true solution needs to be worked up, but I don't think that we're going to find a permanent answer.

Rather, I believe that we are entering an age of digital siege warfare. What I mean by this is, throughout history the process of siege warfare, has progressed in a continual weapons race between invader and defender. Castles were built in order to thwart the efforts of the invaders, and new siege engines and eventually cannon were developed in order to breach the supposedly impenetrable walls of the various castles. I believe that this is the stage that the Internet is currently in. We are going to see a swath of new Internet security programs, designed to make more of our data encrypted and protected, and at the same time, we're going to see the various hacker groups, and governmental entities, act in such a way so as to penetrate and bypass these new firewalls and protective software. Thus, it is really becoming the age of Internet siege warfare.

But, as long as the people are starting to come together on this end, then perhaps it will become a real possibility that we can mount a united front against the undesirable and illegal activity that is occurring at the behest of our government. I mean, how can one find merit in following the law, when our government openly, and continuously refuses to abide by the very laws which are supposed to bind both the government and the people. Once we march down this horrific path, we have entered the stage of where we are no longer a nation of laws, but are rather a nation of men. And a nation of men can be toppled by the first strong man to come along and dupe the people into believing that what he offers as freedom, is nothing more than a poison pill, leading us straight into the grips of dictatorship. This is something I pray we never see in the United States.

However, the way things are currently developing in our nation, I'm afraid that what we are seeing, is that our nation is becoming ripe for just such a sleight of hands. We must remain ever vigilant, and hope that we can keep ourselves on the straight and narrow, but I'm beginning to wonder if that is possible. As long as we the people remember what our role in this great chess board of life is, then I think we can overcome any adversity which presents itself before us. But, we must remember that the politicians are not necessarily our friends in this process. In fact, they are more likely to be our enemy than they are to be anything else, and we must remind them who truly holds power. Of course, that in and of itself, requires that we be willing to act. We shall see how all of this unfolds, and I hope that it unfolds in the favor of the people, helping to return us to a path of rights, instead of a path of ruin.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

• An Objective Examination Of Executive Orders•​

Ever since the beginning of President Obama's second term, the President has frequently voiced his willingness to use his "pen and telephone" to bypass the Congress on achieving critical goals for America and her people. Needless to say, the opposition aren't exactly thrilled about this use of the Executive power, and are now taking steps in an attempt to curtail the Presidential power to use Executive Orders. But, what exactly is an "Executive Order"? And, what does it really allow the President to do?

Well, to fully answer these questions, we have to examine the manner in which the United States Constitution established the three co-equal branches of government, and then evaluate the gradual evolution of this power over time. I will attempt to do so here, through the research I have done, as well as relying upon my training as an officer of the court. So, to get started, let's take a look at how the Constitution set things up.

One of the beautiful aspects of the United States Government, is just how magnificent its foundational document really is. The Constitutional Convention occurred in the height of the Age of Enlightenment, and many of those ideals shine through within the structure and language of the document, even today. It was during the Age of Enlightenment that the authority of monarchy came under question, and western philosophers began looking back to the roots of society itself. That is, they started examining the benefits and shortcomings of the classical Greco-Roman systems of government, and started adapting those systems for a more modern era.

In the case of the United States government, the Founders settled upon a representative republic. However, it was not quite the same system as we know today. But, for purposes of my brief examination of Executive Orders, here, we don't really need to delve into how the fundamental fabric of the entire government developed. Rather, we merely need to examine certain portions or aspects of the ultimate evolution of the government.

At the core of the United States Constitution are three foundational Articles, which establish three separate, yet co-equal branches of government. Each of these co-equal branches of government serves a specific function, which the others are not supposed to encroach upon. Thus, Article I creates the Legislature, which is tasked with the duty to draft and create the laws of the United States. Article II creates the Executive Branch which is tasked with enforcing the laws drafted by the Legislature; and, Article III creates the Judiciary which interprets the laws passed by the Legislature and determines whether they are in compliance with the United States Constitution or not. (There are exceptions, such as the Bankruptcy and Tax Courts, but they are not considered full-fledged courts, as matters of appeals go from said Article I courts to a more traditional Article III court).

Therefore, under the original system, the Legislature carries the power to draft the laws and legislation of the country, whereas the Executive enforces it. However, the Executive had several agencies under its direct control, and they needed ways to promulgate rules and regulations for the proper running of these agencies, and without the need of turning to Congress. It is here, that we first see the adoption of "Executive Orders". That is, the Chief Executive (The President of the United States), has the power to draft the rules and regulations governing the internal structure and functions of these agencies― Agencies such as the Department of the Treasury and State― and therefore, the President would utilize the tool of the Executive Order, to ensure that these agencies ran smoothly and efficiently.

However, as Congress began implementing ever increasing numbers of laws, and saw their workloads increase exponentially, the need to delegate some of their legislative authority arose. Of course, Article I allows the Legislature to delegate some of their authority to unelected executive agencies, in order to streamline the process of law making throughout the country. Thus, we began to see more Executive Orders used to help regulate the guidelines created by such "new" agencies as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Federal Housing Authority― Housing and Urban Development, (HUD)― and a plethora of other organizations.

As time went on however, a marked difference in Executive Orders began to emerge, where the orders themselves were being implemented in a way to act as some sort of substitute for legislation. During the latter half of the Twentieth Century, these Executive Orders were basically being used to circumvent Congress, and to establish a sort of Executive capability of creating legislation. That is, however, unconstitutional, as it violates the express divisions and separations of powers as enumerated throughout Articles I-III.

Nevertheless, proponents of this new method of using Executive Orders contended that such a point is moot, because Congress has delegated their legislative authority to these numerous agencies. While that may be true, Congress is also free to reign in such agencies through the power of the purse denying these agencies any funding whatsoever. Unfortunately, that also carries a political stigma with it, which means that the Representatives and Senators are likely to never utilize such a "nuclear option".

However, that leaves the country in a real dilemma. Because these unelected bureaucrats who run these Executive agencies, are not elected by the people, and therefore have no accountability for their actions to the people, thereby defeating one the core principles behind a representative republic. Indeed, it raises images of one of the main battle cries of the Revolutionary War, "taxation without representation!"

Thus, even though President Obama has used the Executive Order less often than his two immediate predecessors, nevertheless, the methodology behind such Executive Orders― even including those implemented by his predecessors― is violative of the Constitution. This is because the original purpose, as previously stated, for such Executive Orders is to structure the internal organization and governance of Executive Agencies, which does not include the ability to create binding laws on the American People, as that is reserved to The United States Congress.

Should the Republican Congress actually enact a measure curtailing the power of the Executive Order, for the first time in a great many years, they'll actually be doing something I agree with. Of course, such a measure stands no chance of passing in the Senate, where partisan politics again seems to trump the greater good for the American people. This is one of the greatest problems that I have with politics in America today. Our political leaders are more concerned with their political alliances, than they are with actually seeing that the American people are protected from abuse and encroachment by the Federal government.

I believe that the Executive Order has been misused for generations now, and is something which needs to be reigned in. It is time for our politicians to remember how the Constitution worked, and to live by it. Otherwise, they are sending a clear signal of a willingness to operate outside of the law, which means that we are no longer, as Chief Justice Marshall once proclaimed in Marbury v. Madison a nation of laws, rather than a nation of men.

There is always a delicate balance required in the mantels of government. It is not easy to run a country, when the population is easily split right down the middle. Nevertheless, unless they are willing to go through the proper channels to completely amend the Constitution, or to set it aside all together, then every branch of government MUST operate within the boundaries of the Constitution. Otherwise, we are not a government at all, but rather a rouge establishment of an autocracy.

Perhaps my feelings and opinions on this are too strong, but I believe in the applicability of Article VI's Supremacy Clause, and I made these same arguments during my first year of law school, when President Bush was still in power. The fact of the matter is, we must maintain a system of government which is fully accountable to the American People, or else we can no longer claim to be a representative republic, with democratic tendencies. It's as though the parties have forgotten the very meaning behind their respective names, and should each be replaced with "The parties of differing cronies"!

We'll see what happens from here on out. But, I honestly don't think we are going to see any significant change, whatsoever. Honest leadership seems to be a thing of the past. I hope I am wrong about this, but thus far, the cards all seem to be falling into place as I have predicted. Let's hope something changes for the better, and sooner, rather than later.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

Well dammit all...the liquor store around the corner burned down...and worst of all...all of the liquor was lost! This is far worse than any other problem I've complained of in the journal!!!!

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

•Strange Argument For Recovering Economy•​

Yay Worsening Divorce Rates Mean Better Economy! DERP!

I must admit that I have heard a lot of crazy arguments contending that the economy is steadily improving. However, I have never really heard the argument that increasing divorce rates represents a marked improvement for the nation's floundering economy. I suppose that it could be the case. Certainly it would be the case for the family lawyers, who always seem to make a bit of a killing off of divorce. That being said, what does it say about the state of our country that an increasing divorce rate is somehow seen as a good thing for the economy?

I mean, I understand that we need something like no fault divorce, because it prevents people from staying in potentially dangerous relationships, or forcing an unhappy union to continue, when it serves no purpose, other than making the parties involved miserable. Nevertheless, I wish that people would take more time, before jumping into marriage in the first place. And, indeed, some states are now starting to require that couples go through some sort of marriage education program, before they will be granted a marriage certificate.

Unhappy marriage is not a new phenomenon, but the ability to leave an unhappy marriage is a somewhat new phenomenon, having only surfaced towards the latter half of the Twentieth Century. Indeed, one of the more odd aspects of studying family law back in law school, was reading some of the early cases on fault based divorce. There were even certain criminal aspects to it as well. Bigamy charges were common, for those who didn't wait a certain period after procuring a divorce, before remarrying, and this could spell public disaster if the couple were high-profile in any way shape or form.

Gradually, however, public opinion towards divorce started to change, and the nature of the beast changed along with it. The practice became more accepted, and by the 1990's the numbers of marriages ending in failure exceeded the number of successful marriages. Of course, that begs the question of whether the reason that the numbers appeared to be much more successful in the past, was because people forced themselves to stay in unhappy marriages, due to the unhealthy social stigma of a failed marriage, and the sheer difficulty in actually obtaining a divorce? I'm not certain that a clear answer to that question can be found at this point; at least, not on a factual level. Conjecture and opinion would point to yes, but actual empirical evidence would be more difficult to find, and point to.

Indeed, the current statistics on states that allow non-fault based divorce speak for themselves, there is only one state in this Union that doesn't allow non-fault divorce (or at least at the time I took family law which was admittedly almost four years ago now). That state being Arkansas. I'm sure many could join me in adding inappropriate jokes for why this is the case. (For instance, it would make the family reunions all the more difficult, in a state where the family trees stop forking.) But, there have been arguments that no-fault divorce have caused more harm than good.

I do not fall into this camp. I have seen far too many people made miserable, and forcing people to stay within an unhealthy marriage is tantamount to torture. Of course, most people don't even realize that the old marriage laws shielded husbands from being charged with rape, if they forced their wife into sexual relations, because...well, she was essentially his chattel. Nor is it all that common for people to recognize the original legal meaning behind the phrase “rule of thumb”. During the Victorian era, a husband was allowed to beat his wife with a stick, so long as the stick was no wider than his thumb, hence “the rule of thumb”.

So, marriage is surrounded with all sorts of odd procedures which date back to an arguably more “barbaric” time. But, I also think that it is equally ghastly to cite increasing divorce rates as a sign of a rebounding economy. If anything, it should be a sign that increased stress levels are causing even more domestic problems, and this, in and of itself, should raise concern, not celebratory articles with little to add to the social discourse.

Then again, I have always said that we should create a ceremonial divorce, to add some pomp and circumstance to the entire situation, since divorce is seemingly more popular than marriage now. I mean the judge could take the rings and throw them at the former bride and groom, and berate them on their stupidity for getting married in the first place. I don't know, maybe I'm like this because I have a mean streak in me. Or, it's because I enjoy laughing at societies oddities. Either way, the nature of marriage in this country is continuing to evolve. Some of the younger generations are simply opting out of the practice all together. Call me old fashioned, but I still would like the chance to find “happy matrimony”. Of course, I view happiness not as “pure bliss”, rather, I view it as “contentment with the complexities of a partner”.

I have seen people with overly romantic notions of marriage, waltz into the contract, only to sprint out of it in a short matter of time. I have seen others, approach it with a logical approach, placing a friendship element to it, above mere romantic feelings, come out as incredibly powerful couples, standing in a united partnership facing the world. I suppose it comes with a mindset, but I have never been married myself. I have come close to getting engaged, but changing circumstances in my ex partners life, as well as in my own, forced us to mutually put aside that dream, and go our separate ways.

Surprisingly, there aren't any bitter feelings about this, despite spending a fantastic three years together. But, with my devotion to career, and the need to focus so much time on my bar exam studies, the relationship suffered more than was fair for either of us to attempt to handle. Nor could I ask her to move so far away from her parents, when I knew that the legal employment opportunities in my area, were rather sparse. (After all, moving from Florida, where my law school was, back to Texas, would mean that she would have to give everything up, and she wasn't at a stage in her life, where she was ready to do such a thing). So, I do know what it is like to have loved and lost, but again, I don't see it as some sort of indication that things are getting better, economically speaking.

If anything, I would think that it suggests the polar opposite. Meaning that things are getting increasingly worse, economically speaking. Uncertainty continues to run amok in the local economy, and I'm fairly certain that this is the case with the economy nation wide. Then again, I'm just a jack ass attorney, writing his thoughts down on an old laptop, while mourning the loss of the corner liquor store.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

There are days that I feel like this. Like the time that a client told me he didn't have a car to get to the Courthouse. Mind you this dip shit already missed his court date, so they put a Failure to Appear Warrant out for his sorry ass. Then, he says I should give him a ride to court, cause he can't afford a car. (Yeah, right. When he was arrested for car jacking...I really think I'm going to give this son-of-a-bitch a ride to court in my car). So I sent the police to address...and THEY gave him a free ride. Only to have the case delayed the next day....because the ADA forgot the case file, and left it at home. Yes, I wanted to put forward the objection as seen at the top of the post.

Come to think of it though, I've had four clients demand I give them a ride to court. And they have each gotten the same response, "No, find a friend to get you there, or call a taxi. I'm your lawyer, not your fucking chauffeur."

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

•Pipe Collecting•​

I don’t actually own that pipe you see depicted. I own several Meerschaums which are similar in appearance to that pipe, but I don’t actually own a briar pipe that looks like that. Never the less, I put the depiction up, because it is a suitable image for what I am thinking about right now. This year marks the eleventh year that I have been collecting and smoking tobacco pipes. It truly seems odd that this is the case, because it feels like that I only just started the hobby yesterday.

There’s something unique about the hobby, something relaxing; but, above all, there truly is something artistic about it. Artistic? But, how? Some jack ass of no importance might attempt to ask. Well, in answering the jack ass, in hopes that he is so shamed that he jumps off a cliff, I need only point to the craftsmanship of some of the finest pipe makers to demonstrate that. Pipes of great beauty hail from all over the world. The Erik Nording of Denmark made fantastic, quality pieces (of which I’m the proud owner of four original pieces, from before his death. Sadly all are in storage with my furniture from my move back from law school).

The Italians make fine pipes, as do the Czechs, and the Russians like to claim they do as well, although I must admit, their pieces lack a certain quality to it. Also, I adore collecting pipes, because there is such a broad range of types and classes of pipes, that you could literally run the gauntlet of class from a working class corn cob, to the elegant clay churchwardens of the aristocrats of yesteryear. Pipes speak to the soul, tell a piece of history, and examine the humanity in us all. They speak to the great achievements that dedicated artisans can accomplish when they dedicate themselves to their hobby and passion.

But above all, they tell us a story. We can capture ideas for things from a pipe. We can learn what the artist who constructed it believed as the pinnacle of beauty. In the case of a briar pipe, we catch a glimpse of a piece of natural beauty. A root that’s usually aged over a century, if you’re purchasing a high quality. No brand makes a better briar pipe than Dunhill. I used to think it bull shit, because, at the time I had never even smoked a Dunhill. Well in my second year of law school, I was with a friend at an estate sale, just looking for cheap shit to buy. As we searched through the items for sale, I spotted a particular pipe, it was a beautiful shelled exterior briar pipe, with an ivory dot on the shank, just shy of the stem. I felt my heart pulse quicken, as I knew exactly what brand that pipe was.

I glimpsed at the price tag, which was dangling by a threat, and my pupils dilated as I read the price. $150.00. $150.00, for a fucking Dunhill? No questions asked, I grabbed the pipe, moved over to the owner, and handed him cash, right then and there. I didn’t haggle, I didn’t dare, for he obviously had no idea what he was selling. A Dunhill usually retails for $1,500. Older Dunhills still fetch an incredibly steep price, and this one was truly an old one. It was a pre war edition, one of the few Dunhills I have ever seen as a bent style (as opposed to something straight like a billiard or Canadian), it was incredibly light, despite possessing a full thickness...and when I got it home, and cleaned the bowl out with just a hint of vinegar and water, I then started the process of re-coating the bowl, with just a touch of honey, mixed with a light blend of Virginia and Burly tobaccos, and all of the sudden, I realized why Dunhills fetch such a price. It was effortless to pull the sweet flavor in. No fuss, just a light drag, and it smoked in a similar fashion to how butter spreads on piping hot toast.

I’d never smoked anything like it. Not even the Erik Nordings smoke as well. The closest thing to ever capturing that sort of ease of smoking is a Stanwell I own, but again, it pales in comparison to the Dunhill. Those cheeky Brit bastards actually created something with those pipes. I couldn’t give two shits about their clothing line, but their pipes; the merchandise that started the entire Dunhill empire, now that is something of true beauty, and extraordinary craftsmanship.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

•Yet Another Journey Through Time: Living Supreme Court Precedence•​

Step right up folks, I've got the old time-machine purring like a cat in heat after being dropped in a vat of boiling oil...oh wait, that means it's dead. Give me a second folks, I'll have it right up. After tinkering away and two mild explosions later, the machine whirs back to life. Ah, there we are, all better. Now the last time we traveled down memory lane, we wound up talking about how cool monopolies are, and why the government might be interested in preserving a steam-boat monopoly they created back in the 1820's. During this journey, we saw some pretty notorious faces, including that lovable king of egalitarianism...Cornelius Vanderbilt.

Well I have a special treat for you today, our case for today is going to take us back to a time before John Marshall decided it would be fun to give the court all sorts of mystical powers that it never possessed before. We step back in time to 1792. The approval for the establishment of the District of Columbia, (Washington D.C. to my friends who belong to the government establishment), was a mere two years old, and the Capitol hadn't been built yet. So the Supreme Court wasn't even in a broom closet yet. They met in several differently selected locations.

The court looked more like an appellate court in that day, than it does today. At the time, in order to be, En Banc meaning a full bench, six justices were required. However, Congress, finding the lovable little court amusing, claimed that one could have a quorum within the court with a mere four justices presiding. (Again demonstrating which branch of government the Legislative Branch truly thought of as the most important, even using legislative language describing the process of the court itself!) We find ourselves in quite a tense setting. It is decision time in an early case from the Supreme Court, Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 U.S. 402 (1792).

The attorneys pace in front of the judge's bench, one nervously smoking a tobacco pipe, while the other snorts a thin line of snuff from his hand, snapping his snuff box shut, with a fluid motion. Memories of the late Revolutionary War remain poignant and fresh. Nowhere is this more true, than in the case of finances. The attorney smoking the clay pipe, represented not an individual client, but the entire state of Georgia. Realizing, "Holy shit! We don't have any money to pay our debts...but wait! Isn't that creditor a damned Brit? Ah, Screw him!", Georgia decided to play the role of troll, and thought it would be cool to seize a private citizens line of credit all of which had a debt owed by a particular British creditor, one, Mr. Brailsford (Oddly the record doesn't give us a first name to this oddly blind sounding surname).

Suddenly, in a flurry of nervous energy, the venerable Justice Thomas Johnson―who would resign from the bench in a mere 163 days, for unknown indiscretions―made his way into the room, with three other justices who are far too unimportant to name. Johnson cleared his throat, and began reading over the opinion he drafted in the tavern across the street, while hookers poured him drinks, and "powdered his wig", if you catch my drift.

The case was one of firsts. It was the first time that a state appeared as a party before the Supreme Court, in its capacity as a state. It was the first time that the United States Supreme Court dealt with the issue of a debtor seeking to quit his debt, and it was the first and as far as I know, only time that Justice Johnson ever delivered an opinion to the Court.

The point of contention revolves around a particular bill, which was originally made out to Brailsford, yet the Court has trouble determining to whom the bill actually belongs. Johnson starts his opinion off stating, "In order to support a motion for an injunction, the bill should set forth a case of probable right, and a probable danger that the right would be defeated, without this special interposition of the court. It does not appear to me, that the present bill sufficiently claims such an interposition. If the State has a right to the debt in question, it may be enforced at common law, notwithstanding the judgment of the Circuit court; and there is no suggestion in the bill, though it has been suggested at the bar, that the State is likely to lose her right by insolvency either of Spalding, the original debtor, or of Brailsford, who will become her debtor..."

Just what in the hell is our mild mannered Justice saying here? Well, for starters, he claims that in order to seek the imposition of an injunction―a remedy of equity (meaning non-legal, or non financial in damages)―halting the requirement of paying a debt, one must show that one has suffered, or is likely to suffer severe damage as a result. He then states that there is no evidence to support the claim that Georgia is about to go belly up, with regards to her finances, whether the insolvency occurs as a result of the original debtor losing everything, or the state itself losing everything...although such has been claimed by several drunkard attorneys around the local bar. (Pun intended).

So what is basically happening here, is that Georgia stepped in and seized a bill of debt, which allegedly was owed by a British Citizen to an American citizen (YAY! Revolutionary War 2!). The purpose for grabbing this debt, was to ensure that the rightful owner could be determined, before a payout could be made. Thus, Georgia is suing in court to enjoin, or prevent, the payment of a debt from British debtor, to an American creditor. In the legal maneuvering, Georgia attempted to claim fraud on the part of Brailsford, and apparently the Attorney General agreed with them, as he attempted to join the case as a party.


Justice Johnson continues, "Nor does the bill state any particular confederacy, or fraud. The refusal to admit the Attorney General as a party on the record, was the act of a competent court; and it is not sufficient barely to alledge [sic], that the defendant has not chosen to sue out a writ of error." Hot damn, there's some familiar sounding logic, akin to a more recent Supreme Court Case― National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ―― (2012), in which Chief Justice John Roberts claimed that the individual mandate was not a tax for purposes of the Anti Injunction Act, and then turns around and says for purposes of enforcement of the law, it is a tax. Meaning the individual mandate is, at the same time, in the same place, both a tax, and not a tax...Which makes perfect sense, like, "Fred is both alive, and not alive, all at the same time!" WOW!!!

Anyhoo, back to the riveting case at issue, Justice Johnson is stating that because the lower courts refused to allow the Attorney General to join the case as a party of record, and it is insufficient to merely suggest that the State of Georgia was in a conspiracy to commit fraud―as, clearly they hadn't, otherwise...the Attorney General would be a party to the case!...then it must mean that this is a civil action (or more specifically an appeal, which at the time was known as a "writ of error".)

Then, Justice Johnson admits that he is probably making a piss poor argument for his ruling, "The case might, perhaps, be made better; but as I can only know, at present, the facts which the bill alledges [sic], and which the affidavit supports, it is my opinion, that there is not a proper foundation for issuing an injunction."

You can see the pipe fall from the Georgia Attorney's mouth. Justice Johnson just pulled a double troll. Not only did he prevent the case from becoming a criminal action, thereby cock blocking the Attorney General and company; but, he also denied Georgia the injunction barring the immediate payment of the debt, meaning they are going to lose the pile of cash they've been sitting on. However, fair sojourners in time, like any good Supreme Court case, worth its merits in lead...er, gold...there is a dissenting opinion! cue melodramatic horror movie plot revealed music! .


Oh yes, Justice Iredell glares at his colleague, and determines that the standard practice of the court should be denied, as based on records alone. For you see, since the Supreme Court had just started getting a permanent base of judges, it might not come as a surprise, that many of the circuit judges of whom now sat on the bench, had only recently heard cases in the lower courts. Well, it just so happens that Justice Iredell here, sat on the bench during the appeal for the case now in front of the Supreme Court. Conflict of interest? Nah, Iredell inspired John Marshall, through his refusal to recuse himself from the bench.

But, good old Iredell tears into Johnson's questionable logic, "The debt claimed by the plaintiffs below, was, likewise, claimed by the State of Georgia. The state applied to be admitted to assert her claim, but the application was rejected; nor has any writ of error been instituted upon the judgment. These facts, however, are only mentioned to introduce this remark, that the Circuit court could not, with propriety, sustain the application of Georgia; because, whenever a state is a party, the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction of the suit; and her right cannot be effectually supported, by a voluntary appearance, before any other tribunal of the Union. Not being a party, nor capable of resorting as a party, to the Circuit court, it is very much to be questioned whether the State could bring a writ of error on the judgment there, even if her claim appeared on the record."

Whew! Let's break down some of that nonsense. Iredell is calling Johnson a moron, because he contended that the State of Georgia had standing to bring the suit, but the Constitution explicitly states, as per Article III, that the Supreme Court holds original (and at that time, exclusive) jurisdiction over cases where a state is a party to the suit. Therefore, how could this case be in court as a writ of error, when that requires that the state have received judgment in a lower court, when, in fact, that was impossible.

Now, if Chief Justice John Marshall had been on the court at this time, his response would have been "Fuck it! We have jurisdiction to determine whether we have jurisdiction, even if we don't have jurisdiction, so...blow it out your ASS, IREDELL!!" But, his famous decision of Marbury v. Madison was still some nine-years away.

So kids, what we learned today is, if you want to cheat on your debt, make sure you get the cops involved...no, wait; that's a stupid idea. Rather, just beat the snot out of the creditor, and take whatever other money is on his person! That's much wiser!

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

•One Year Later•​

Now my friends, we take a step forward in time, by a period of one year. Georgia, having not been satisfied in the prior case, decided that she would take another shot at the Supreme Court, because it isn't good to be the first state to appear before the Supreme Court as a party, only to have the snot beaten out of you by the illogical contentnions of a particular Supreme Court Justice, who, by this point at least, had already resigned from the court. So, we come to the case of Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793).

This case is interesting, as it is considered to be the first United States Supreme Court case of any true significance and impact. Of course, given this early date in the Court's history, there isn't much with respect to legal precedence, especially when considering the broader scope of American jurisprudence. Also, the case was almost immediately superseded by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which I shall cover in a moment, dear sojourner. Now, let's delve into the procedural and factual history of the case, since we wish to understand the scene unfurling before our very eyes!

Back in 1792, Alexander Chisholm served as the executor for the estate of Robert Farquhar, and seeing as Georgia had already proved that it was possible to bring a state before the highest court in the land, Chisholm thought it would be pretty bitchin' to bring suit against the State of Georgia, in the Supreme Court, over the matter of payments due to him for goods that Farquhar had supplied to Georgia during that little skirmish known as the American Revolutionary War. Jurisdictionally speaking, this case proved interesting because Chisholm was a domiciliary (or what most human beings refer to as a “citizen” or “resident”) of the State of South Carolina, and sought damages against a state, as opposed to another individual, or a governmental agent of said state. By this time, John Jay earned the title of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and he sat in the traditional “smaller than full quorum” bench, of five justices, including himself. His partners in crime in this case were: Associate Justices John Blair, James Wilson, and William Cushing, all who joined with him in handing down the majority opinion. Of course, like the previous case there was a dissenting opinion...from none other than our dear friend Justice Iredell, who rather fancied himself as the presiding asshole on the court.

Now, it is important to note, and it is something I failed to mention earlier, because I'm hung over―at this time, there was no “majority opinion”; rather, the Justices delivered their respective opinions seriatim, meaning individually, and in ascending order of seniority...because pecking orders are cool!

Let's dissect the holding, and then the dissent, before moving into the subsequent developments which occurred as a direct result of this rather amusing little case. It's important to note, that at that time, the Attorney General could make arguments before the Supreme Court. That's not how it goes down today. Today, we have the separate office of the “Solicitor General”, and he/she is usually the one who makes oral arguments before the court.

Any how, the majority opinion doesn't seem to hold much weight, and the record is pretty scant on what they said. The case resulted in a 4-1 decision, in which the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, who was represented by then Attorney General, Mr. Randolph. The Court held that Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution abrogated the States' sovereign immunity, which granted federal courts the affirmative power to hear disputes between private citizens and States. The actual holding states in pertinent part:

“...Article III, Section 2's grant of federal jurisdiction over suits 'between a State and Citizens of another State' abrogates the States' sovereign immunity recognized under common law, thus allowing a private individual to hale a State into federal court.”

Oh boy, poor Georgia, they thought, the year before, that they were allowed to be a party within the confines and jurisdiction of the Federal Courts if, and only if, they were the ones bringing suit. However, the majority decided to troll them in a major way, and stated that citizens could avoid the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity, and drag their pathetic asses into Federal court. So, what exactly is sovereign immunity, you might be wondering? Sure, the term has been used rather loosely in the lexicon of the general public; but, it does carry a different meaning, with respect to legal practice. In short, sovereign immunity is the legal protection that prevents a sovereign state or person from being sued without said person or state's consent. Thus, it is a judicial doctrine that prevents the government or its political subdivisions, departments, or agencies from being sued without its express consent. The doctrine has deep and ancient roots from the English principle that the monarch can do no wrong, and how dare a pathetic subject even presume to question this!

The earliest American cases supported the traditional view that the United States [meaning the Federal Government] could not be sued without Congressional authorization first. Indeed, part of the Chisholm decision supported this notion. However, there was that little issue of supremacy, with resepct toe the several states, which Article VI mentions―yet, strangely, made no appearance in this case whatsoever. Rather, the court relied upon the Federal jurisdiction granted to the courts via Article III, and told Georgia that they were morons for thinking that they could avail themselves of the protections afforded the Federal government, thereby avoiding the court in a two-dimensional fashion! Silly little bastards.

Yet, this decision didn't sit too well with our favorite Judicial hell-raiser, Justice Iredell. I honestly wonder if Iredell was merely irritable. (Haha bad pun!), Justice Iredell stated, “This great cause comes before the Court, on a motion made by the Attorney-General, that an order be made by this Court to the following effect:― “That, unless “the State of Georgia shall, after reasonable notice of this motion, “cause an appearance to be entered on behalf of the “said State, on the fourth day of next Term, or shew [sic] cause to “the contrary, judgment shall be entered for the Plaintiff, and “a writ of enquiry [sic] shall be awarded.””

All strange spellings and quotation marks aside, the issue boiled down to whether the State of Georgia had to show up, without prior notice and authorization, and if they should fail to show up, whether the plaintiff had a right to what we now know as “default judgment”, which is simply a judgment handed down for failure to appear as a party when summoned to court. Iredell proceeded, “Before such an order be made, it is proper that this court should be satisfied it hath cognizance of the suit; for, to be sure we ought not to enter a conditional judgment (which this would be) in a case where we were not fully persuaded we had authority to do so.”

Oh my, Iredell would be sorely disappointed with Marshall's "screw you" moment in Marbury v. Madison, where he said it didn't matter one tiddlywink whether the Court believed that it had the authority to review a case, because a court always has jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction, even when it doesn't, for the sole reason that it must have jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction, even if it doesn't...because if it didn't have that power, how could it hand itself even greater power? Ah, but I digress.

Back to our irritable little Associate Justice, Iredell. He's stating that the Court shouldn't review this case, unless it is persuaded that it has the authority to do so. Otherwise, the court ventures into an area of “poor judgment” shall we say. Of course, this matters very little now a-days, because the court exercises poor judgment and illogical reasoning on a regular basis!

Of course, at this time, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was still in effect, because John Marshall hadn't waived his magic wand yet, striking it down in entirety. Thus, Iredell turned to this document, and cited it as the basis of authority for the exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies regarding a civil action, where a state is a party...however, this is not the case when a State is sued by its OWN citizens; and it also doesn't apply in cases between states and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which the Supreme Court possesses original, but not exclusive jurisdiction.

Therefore, what we see developing here, is a widening of jurisdiction for the various federal courts, because, let's face it...the Supreme Court didn't want to be bothered by this idiotic nonsense, and Iredell had more important things to do...such as getting shit-faced, so he decided that the lower courts should have a chance to determine these cases, thereby reducing the amount of cases arriving at the Supreme Court.

Iredell goes on to examine the Constitution itself, determining that subject-matter jurisdiction only occurs when there is an actual controversy. Which, of course, there was in the case at bar. The Attorney General had argued, and flattered the other justices convincingly enough, that the mere existence of the Supreme Court meant that it had absolute authority to determine such issues, whether the Legislature had divested such a power within the Court or not. Of course, Iredell thought that this was pure hogwash. And the hogs of that era were particularly dirty!

Iredell stated, “The Attorney-General has indeed suggested another construction, a construction, I confess, that I never heard of before, nor can I now consider it grounded on any solid foundation, though it appeared to me to be the basis of the Attorney-General's argument. His construction I take to be this:― That the moment a Supreme Court is formed, it is to exercise all the judicial power vested in it by the Constitution, by its own authority, and whether the Legislature has prescribed methods of doing so, or not.”

Ouch! Aside from not hearing poor argumentation on a regular basis, our prickly little judge contends that Attorney General Randolph is a moron, making up his basis for standing (or grounds upon which he has a right to be heard) as he goes along. No lawyer likes to hear this, because it means that the attorney is failing at the most basic level of bringing a case forward, that of jurisdiction and justicibility. In other words, so far as Iredell was concerned, the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity barred the Attorney General, who represented Chisholm―a private citizen, mind you―from dragging Georgia before the court, so that another pot shot could be taken at the weary state. Even though the other Justices disagreed, this point of view would prove rather popular with the Legislature.

In 1795, when the marvelous politicians realized that this might hurt their pocket books, back home, they decided to push forward the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. This meant that all further pending court actions from Chisholm were subsequently dismissed as moot. Moreover, it removed the federal jurisdiction in cases where citizens of one state or of foreign countries attempted to sue another state. It is important to recall, however, that citizens of one state or of foreign countries can still sue the states in Federal courts, if the state consents to be sued, or if Congress, pursuant to a valid exercise of the then non-existent Fourteenth Amendment's remedial powers abrogates the states' immunity from suit. That decision was handed down in 1976 in the landmark case of Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976).

Those remedial powers via the Fourteenth Amendment can be found in § 5 of said Amendment, and Congress has enacted several laws pertaining thereto. The most significant law, which actually predates the Fitzpatrick decision is what is known as the Federal Torts Claims Act. This act allows citizens to sue individual agents for the government, for their individual tortious activity, while working under the auspices of the government. Nevertheless, this didn't allow the government, per se, to be sued. That's why the Fitzpatrick decision was handed down. The other important area where we see this occur is with regards to Due Process Rights and Equal Protection claims, See: Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); and, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

So, needless to say, it wasn't always the Justices, themselves, who made ridiculous arguments with respect to Supreme Court precedence. It also included stupid arguments made by various attorneys. In fact, I think that marks a time-honored tradition with the Supreme Court. Every year, there will always be a case where some moron makes a nonsensical argument! And, now, fair sojourner, we return to your time, until the next adventure pops into my mind!

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

•Disccussion With District Attorney•​

Today marked a strange day for me. Six months after diligent work, tracking down the car mechanic who obsconded with my father's Corvette, and after having the police give me a hell of a time throughout the process, I took matters into my own hands. Back in October, I took all of my collected evidence and the photographs I colelcted, of the extensive amounts of damage sustained by the car over the past five years, and submitted it to the District Attorney. (My Arch Rival in most scenarios). However, I'm wicked enough as an attorney, to know how to play both sides of the issues, and I damn well made sure that the brief and incident report I drafted was so air tight that I, as your typical defense attorney, was unable to poke holes through it. I knew the amount of damage was enough for a felony, and I wrote out my letter and information as such.

Well, I get a call from the Assistant District Attorney today, and great news! The grand jury indicted the son-of-a-bitch, and now he has to fend for himself. Honestly, we wouldn't have gone to such extremes if he hadn't stopped returning our phone calls, and had returned to the car to us after years of back and forth. Nevertheless, I'm sure the bastard is wondering what the fuck just happened. And franky I don't care, I did this to bury him, and now, well he hasn't got a snow balls chance in hell. I know they might try and reduce his sentence...but he's still looking at jail time, and I couldn't be happier.

I'm not normally like this. Part of me feels dirty helping the "enemy" if you will. However, another part of me feels good, finally having a chance to strike back at those who struck at us. And to know that my hard work and diligence in the matter is finally starting to pay off. My next target is the Insurance Company that refused to accept it as stolen. Armed with this new indictment I'm approaching the Texas Board of Insurance, this is going to be a fun little process, where I'm going to stomp on the hopes and asiprations of those who thought it would be wise to take money from us, without delivering services.

When I'm pissed, I'm evil, pure evil. I have no remorse, no pity, no reluctance, and no restraint. Yet, this is entirely fitting for me. I was born under the sign of Gemini, after all. I possess both light and dark, and right now my dark is bleeding through like never before. We'll see how it goes from here, but, after feeling as though I had lost on that entire issue, this information breathed new hope into me. I may hate prosecutors, but that won't stop me from turning to them when someone has wronged my friends or family. That's the purpose of the old adage "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer". Well my court-room enemies are close, to be wielded as a judicial weapon, I just provided the grinding stone to sharpen the sword of justice...nothign more, nothing less. I'm a counselor, not an angel.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

•A Special Place In Hell•​

Dog's owner's boyfriend pours hot sauce in dog's eyes and throat as punishment for a seizure.

I don't usually say that there is a special place in Hell for certain people. However, after reading the above mentioned article, I cannot help but wish that there was some sort of eternal form of punishment for people like this. I waiver between agnostic and deist, and it is at times like this that I feel that out-of-fashion deism comes into effect for me. To pour hot sauce all over a three-month-old Chihuahua for the offense of having a seizure is not only disgusting, it is down-right inhuman. For starters, that dog had no control over whether or not it had a seizure, and the same is true for human beings. Epilepsy is not controllable. Rather, it is a problem with the electrical currents in the brain, which causes uncontrollable spasms within the victim, and frightens them. Of course, we have no real way of understanding this yet, but neurology is making huge leaps and bounds in what they have discovered over the last several decades and years.

Essentially one looses all control of their motor skills, and muscular contractions, rendering them defenseless and helpless for the time that the seizure rages. However, these thoughts never seemed to cross the mind of the dog's owner's boy friend. He was mad at the dog for having a seizure, and therefore decided that it would be cool to punish the dog by pouring hot sauce all over its body, down its throat, and into its eyes. Now the dog is in the vet, unable to open its eyes, and suffering more than it already was, as a direct result of the seizure. This is outrageous.

What possesses a soul to act in such a way towards something that has no say, no ability to consent, and is in no way shape or form responsible for what triggered the man's response? I know that there are certain aspects of the character of certain men which cannot be changed, but I must admit that such people sicken me. I am by no means a psychologists or psychiatrist, I leave that job to my sister. However, I am an attorney, and men like this should be prosecuted under animal cruelty laws.

The dog's owner has since given up the dog to an animal shelter, claiming that she doesn't believe she can own him any more. Again, this is something I wish she would have considered before an incident like this would have happened. Then again, it really isn't up to me to pass judgment on this, especially when I am not in possession of all of the extenuating circumstances that might exist in the case. Nevertheless, the facts alone, here, come to show that she has poor taste in men. The three-month-old Chihuahua is approximately three pounds, and nearly fits in palm of one's hand. This again makes it all the more distressing that the owner's boyfriend could even think of doing such a horrific act to the poor animal.

I hope that the little dog is able to find a loving home, which will not endanger it, or harm it in such a reckless fashion. This is something which should disturb most rational people. From the looks of it, it appears that nothing of much significance shall happen to the man who perpetrated this offense. Which, again, is tragic. Honestly, it becomes difficult to keep one's emotions in check with such stories. This is the sort of person whom I would decline to represent. I don't think I could do so, at least to the degree that the law would require me to.

This ties into another point, that I think is important to address as well, when it comes to the actual criminal defense bar. Our country allows attorneys to deny representation of certain clients, when they feel that they are unable to meet the representational needs of the client. I think that this is a fair system, in that it serves to protect both the counselor and the client, from a situation that would ensure that the client wouldn't receive the best representation, and result in a potential conflict of interest.

Still, there is a bit of hope in this article, in that it states that the dog is expected to make a full recovery. In that sense, the little dog proves to be a fighter, pushing itself to survive, as the great instincts in life push us all to do. Still, it's a tragedy that any such thing could even happen to the little-guy in the first place.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

]

•Shooting At Fort Hood...Again.

If there's one thing that we can learn from all of this, it is that there will always be crazies amongst us who seem hell bent on causing as much destruction as humanly possible. I have long thought that it would be impossible to contain the violent tendencies of those among us who have delusions of grandeur, or believe that society, in general, has wronged them in some way. The reports coming out of Fort Hood today, at least at the moment, remain sketchy, and not very informative.

I might have considered this more of an anomaly, but for the fact that this happened once before, three years ago. We faced a similar gruesome scenario back then, and there was a similar sense of dismay and concern. Yet, what it proves to me, at least, is that there is a sense of notoriety which accompanies such behavior. Media outlets of every caliber line up to sensationalize the news, and stab at wild guesses, while the truth remains hidden, or at least obfuscated by the swirling clouds of speculation drummed up by those pencil pushers seeking a large story to earn a quick buck.

Perhaps it is the attorney in me, which longs for such stories to only be reported upon when the facts make clear the intentions of those who caused such a tragedy. The wide eyed speculation does more harm than good, or so I think. But, on the flip side of the equation, I understand the population's desire to know the news as it is happening. Therefore, I think that there must be some sort of happy medium that we should be able to reach, with regards to such stories.

I just feel that it is far too easy to loose the truth in the whirlwind of speculation surrounding such tragic events, and again...much easier still, to assign blame, where no blame is due. For instance, they're now saying that the suspected shooter is dead, was a soldier, and was seeking revenge. While those facts are most likely true...it seems strange that they wouldn't have reported it the same way with the prior shooter. Major Nidal Hasan. He too, was a soldier.

However, he had some sort of crazed jihadist mentality which drove him to strike out at the military base, to cause as much emotional strain and pain as he possibly could. Such a mentality to alien to me. I don't think like that, and I figure that most sane and rational human beings don't either. Yet, the fact that the United States Government refused to treat that incident as a terrorist act, all to avoid paying the wounded soldiers the sort of hazardous duty pay they deserve, or to give medals for the wounds they suffered, speaks volumes about the current mindset of the United States Government.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist at heart...but part of me wonders whether the two shootings might be related. I wouldn't put it past the current governmental powers to attempt to hide such connections, as this is an election year, and such a connection would hurt the current incumbent party when it comes to November. It's truly sad that such thoughts would even enter my head. But, with the way things are in Washington now, I wouldn't put anything past either side.

We need a breath of fresh air up there. Yet, the only way that we would even come close to achieving that, would be to replace this tiresome two party system that we have now. I don't mean embracing a parliamentary system as they have in Europe and Asia. Rather, I speak of allowing parties like the Libertarians and Greens, to have more of a chance to be present at debates, to allow their candidates to be on ballots...so that the American people could have a better choice than the lesser of two evils...or side one and two of the same warn out coin.

All I know now is, that I hope that the people who have been injured as a result of this loose cannon of an individual, who struck out to cause great harm to the community in this area, and on the base of Fort Hood in particular, make full and speedy recoveries.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

I wish I had something of more pertinence to add here this evening. Alas, I do not. I must admit helping a client with a will, is not exactly my favorite sort of law. I don't know whether it is the discomfort of having to be the master of an older person's fate, when drafting this most personal of documents...or whether it is the fact that I feel as though the questions that I ask the testator (he or she bequeathing or giving away their estate upon death), intrude upon the most basic and fundamental aspects of their private life.

Many come into the entire situation lacking any understanding of estate planning whatsoever. So, in a time when they are feeling vulnerable, I have to sit there like some inquisitor from the Spanish Inquisition, prodding and delving into the private most inter sanctums of their lives. It's not a pretty thing, but once the process finishes, and the attested and witnessed will is deposited with the probate court and money is in hand, I feel as though I have done something worth while for these people. This most recent case involved a client frightened by the chance of things going wrong with a surgical procedure.

So, like a family physician might, some one-hundred years ago, I packed my papers into a leather bag and made a house call, spending six hours on a Sunday evening at this lady's house, working through the will. Then, I jumped through hoops to make sure that it was attested and in the probate court's hands before her surgery on Wednesday. I also made sure that this client had a medical power of attorney, because she hadn't even thought that part of the process through. Basically it prevents a dispute like that old Terri Schiavo dispute some ten years ago. You choose who gets to make the ultimate life or death decisions for you, should you either be dead or incapacitated as a result of the surgery.

All this shit was boring in law school. It's not until one gets out into the real world, and starts seeing this stuff first hand, that the true gravity of the situation, as well as the importance of the skills that we learned starts to sink in. And as many people who think that Legalzoom.com or some other, I'mtoofuckingcheapforanattorney.com type scenario they attempt to work through...Just know this, the greatest expense you'll ever face with respect to the probate process is a contested will. After all, all sorts of egos are involved, and jealousy amongst your descendents and beneficiaries flare up quickly.

It's simply better to have the knowledge that a human being with training in the field actually sat down and wrote out the will, ensuring that the language was clear, and specifically fits the specified needs you have. Or, at least, I know that's how I would prefer to have my final testament and estate to be handled, so Uncle Sam can't swing by and claim that most of the estate belongs to him, because I was too shit faced to draft a will. Yet, I understand that people don't want to do this. Who ever wants to face the fact that they're mortal, and that they live a finite life on earth? Death can be so frightening...but closure, and some security can be well worth it. Or, at least, so I think.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

•GM Recall and Bankruptcy...screwing you to the best of our ability!

I have some wonderful news for all of you. Aren’t you glad to know that General Motors gives two shits about your life, when they’re out recalling vehicles which they’ve known for well over a decade have had faulty ignition systems? What’s that? You’re concerned that it took them over a decade to address this problem, and by the fact that they waited until after over a dozen people died?

Well, piss off...I mean, most of those people probably deserved to die...right? Not exactly. But, would it surprise you that this is the attitude taken by the auto giant, the very same auto giant who thought it would be cool to take a whole bunch of tax payer money for a bail out during the financial crisis of 2008, and then refuse to pay that back. Yeahh...we’re talking about that company.

Well, remember, that part of the purpose of that whole bail out thingy, was supposedly to help the company avoid further bankruptcy proceedings. Now, I’m sure you’re wondering how this has any relevance to what happened with the ignition system design defect. Now now, my friends, with such matters ‘tis always best to approach it with patience.

The reason that I mention the bankruptcy filings is because General Motors had headed to several federal district and bankruptcy courts trying to claim that their bankruptcy filings should preclude any of the victims or their families seeking damages against the company. Their arguments go down the lines of something like this: (1) GM before bankruptcy is a different company than GM after the bankruptcy; and, (2) Because certain financial decisions are still awaiting approval in Bankruptcy Court, we cannot be held responsible for decisions that were made before.

Basically they’re attempting to say that these cars were made by a different company, because the entire corporate structure of the company was reorganized as part of the Chapter 11 Process. That’s cute and all, but it is also an abuse of the Bankruptcy code and system. One will still be responsible for negligence or tortious actions taken prior to bankruptcy, whether they’re technically the same entity or not. Otherwise, we would have even more people trying to escape the responsibilities for their actions via such a method.

Indeed, I might even posit to you, that what GM is attempting to do here is tantamount to Bankruptcy fraud...a felony. Oh what joys this company brings to us all! And, what makes this even worse for GM, is the fact that I’m typically a defense oriented attorney...not so in this case. These bastards are attempting to play a dirty game, and it is not something that should fly in the court. Whether they will be successful or not is yet to be seen. So keep your fingers crossed and we’ll see where it goes from here!

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

Composition

It's been a while since I last tried my hand at composing a piece of music. I felt a bit rusty, but I managed to get a finished piece out, which made me happy, since I have been wanting to get back into my musical endeavors for quite some time now. It's not perfect, since I was creating this via a score editor. (Writing it on the computer with sheet music...lacking the aid of my piano-keyboard...which is in storage because I don't have room for it here).

Still, having to do this from my head a lone, I'm rather pleased with the finished result. I put a link to it here for any of those interested in hearing it.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

Well, I have some interesting news. I’m been languishing at a part-time, dead-end legal job for quite some time now, and was beginning to wonder whether there would ever be any hope whatever of getting out of the situation that I have been stuck in for all this time. I had an interview with a prospective governmental agency, and I felt the interview went well. That being said, this is a department of the Federal Government that I’m speaking of, and they’re not exactly known for being fast.

A month or two rolls by, and no posting of the job on the federal work site. I figured that it probably went to some one who had seniority, and was looking to return to this particular agency, or had, in some way found themselves reemployed with the agency in question. Needless to say, my hopes for getting the job were dashed, after two months had passed. However, in my e-mail yesterday I find a message from the attorney I interviewed with. She informed me that no veteran attorneys have taken the position, and that she’ll give me a heads up right before it goes on the market. (Meaning I get top dibs on shoving my resume in the face of the unfortunate task-masters faced with choosing who becomes their next profit-slave!)

While it doesn’t mean that the job is a sure fire thing, as it most assuredly isn’t, it does mean that I have my foot in the door for a prospective...meaningful and full time employment position...for the first time since I actually got my damned bar card. I’m looking forward to the chances for expanding my horizons, even though it will mean moving away, and finding an apartment in a new city without much time. But, that’s something I can live with, if I’m finally making enough money to pay down my old law school loans...or, even better, since this is a federal position...have the Stafford loans forgiven all together!

That would certainly go a long way towards making my life a whole hell of a lot easier. I’ve enjoyed having time to spend writing and researching and doing God knows what else I do...and can’t remember at the moment. But, I trained to be an attorney, and I really do want to put that to good use. More so than I have in these past two years. My God, I can’t believe it’s been two years―there or abouts―since I got licensed, and three years since I graduated from law school.

It does seem that time moves faster as you get further into the so-called “real world”. Still, I’m happy that this progress is finally starting to happen for me, as I was beginning to wonder whether things would ever improve. One would think that law jobs would be flying off the shelves. But, that’s not really the case in the modern scene. For instance, when I first entered the slum...er halls of law school, graduating law students had a 91% employment rate! Fantastic right?

Well, that was back in 2008. That autumn, the financial sector decided that it would be sorta cool to crash. Well, it did...and by the summer of 2009, the employment rate of recent law school graduates had dropped to 62%. Ouch! But, that was still better than most of the projections, and surely things would turn around by the time I graduated (Oh...ever the optimist!).

Of course, it didn’t. And, the employment rate of recently graduated attorneys by the time I graduated had dropped from the 62% mentioned above...to an abysmal rate of 45%, and has been on a steady decline ever since. Thus, things are looking horribly bleak. That aside, I am not one to give up. I didn’t go through three years of hell to accept mere mediocrity for myself. Money isn’t that much of an issue for me. But, I do have to be able to make enough for ends to meet, otherwise it’s a losing scenario, not just for me, but for my clients as well, as they deserve comfortable office surroundings and accommodations so that I can meet their needs.

All I can say is, I have my fingers crossed that this one will pull through; but, at the same time I’m not holding my breath over it, because the likelihood of it falling through are still high enough...and at the rate that the Federal Government moves, I’d be long past dead by the time any word of yea or nay ever reaches me. Such is life. It’s still one hell of a ride.

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

•Legally Dead?•​

The Case​

One of the more interesting aspects of the law, and something which can cause quite a bit of confusion, is the notion of the legal status of death. Usually, the status makes sense and applies in the most obvious of situations. However, law being what it is, and affecting the great many things that it does, there are those rare occasions, where confusion manages to worm its way into the situation.

Take, for instance, the October 11, 2013, case of Donald E. Miller Jr. of Ohio. Sitting before a Probate Court judge, and to his surprise, Miller was declared legally dead...this, despite the fact that he was sitting in the court room―very much alive and well. Judge Allan H. Davis of the Hancock County Probate Court, declared Mr. Miller dead in 1994, after his mysterious disappearance, where he left behind thousands of dollars of unpaid child support payments. His ex wife, Robin Miller, requested a declaration at the time, so that she might apply for Social Security benefits for their two daughters.

Of course, Mr. Miller hadn't really died at all. Rather, he drifted to Georgia and Florida to work , and he explained to the Judge in 2013, that he wished to apply for a driver's license, and needed to reactivate his Social Security number. The judge, proving himself to be a legal troll, proclaimed that Ohio law doesn't allow for a declaration of death to be reversed when three years or more have passed, since the time of the declaration. Seventeen years, of course, marks a much greater amount of time than the three years allotted by state law.

Needless to say, this created a bizarre situation, and demonstrates just how powerful the law can actually be...and, to make matters worse, the absurd consequences which can unfold due to careless human error, or attempts to defraud others. Whether Mr. Miller intended to escape the financial responsibilities he had for his children, after his divorce, remains a mystery. However, odds are, that he, in fact, was attempting to do just that. Nevertheless, the consequences of such a decision by the Probate Court have potentially ruinous effects which will haunt him until he makes the leap from mere “legal death” to actual death.

In a way, one might say that he has been resurrected, only to find that he is now...”legally undead”, but I'm not really sure how that scenario might play out either. Perhaps he could claim to be a “legal vampire”, and siphon money from the government? Either way, it sets a rather odd, and potentially dangerous precedence.

Now, there's another interesting component to this, which could have unforeseen consequences as well. In smaller counties, at least in my home state, where there is no Probate Court...decisions pertaining to legal death status, can be determined by a Justice of the Peace. Compounding this interesting little caveat, is the fact that the qualifications to become a Justice of the Peace (Hereinafter, “JP”), is rather lax. In fact, one needs no legal training whatsoever to qualify for the position of JP.

Could you imagine what might happen, if a disgruntled JP decides that he or she no longer desires to be obligated to a creditor to whom the JP owes a substantial amount of debt? Why the JP, in his or her infinite wisdom, might declare the individual dead, in a dubious sleight of hands. And, by hiding the decision under a pile of a great number of other decisions, could wait a period of three years, before claiming that he or she cannot pay the debt to the creditor, as the creditor is “legally dead”?

Surely fraud claims might be actionable in such a situation, but, another probate judge might make a similar decision to the one made in the case I reference at the top of this entry. Again, such an hypothetical as this one, might seem far-fetched on the surface, but, the nature of law requires that we take such improbable happenstance into consideration. After all, when it comes to property law, and the infamous “Rule Against Perpetuities”, certain outcomes were considered that are as equally bizarre as the aforementioned hypothetical for “offensive legal death declaration”.

The oddities within property law of which I speak are: (1) The fertile octogenarian; and, (2) The unborn widow. Both require the law to consider even octogenarians as potentially retaining their fertility, and therefore being able to have more children...thereby invalidating a certain gift of land, if it might prove to go on indefinitely. (That is, denying it from entering the Real Estate Market through bequest to heirs forever). On the other hand, it must also consider whether there was a spouse, like Anna Nicole Smith, who would have been included as an heir in the will, but for the fact that she hadn't been born at the time the original will was drafted. Thus, we saw a real-life example of the doctrine of the “unborn widow”.

I cannot help but laugh at some of these scenarios, because they seem so implausible, practically impossible; and, yet, somehow manage to enter the realm of reality. Therefore, if you decide that you're going to attempt to escape paying any amount of back child support, I suggest you prepare for the possibility of being declared Legally Dead, and prepare yourself for the status of “legally undead”, which is no legal status at all!

 

[captain_jay_conrad]

•Department of Justice (DOJ) collecting and studying arrest records for racial bias.•​

The Story​

It seems truly astounding that such a happening still occurs in the second decade of the Twenty-First Century. Yet, tragically, it appears that we have somehow slipped backwards when it comes to racial animosity, especially when it comes down to arrests, and scrutinizing local officials. Why this remains a problem in the United States, or, indeed, in the rest of the world today, seems baffling. I, for one, have continued to hold out hope that things would change, and that a true meritocracy might take hold. Yet, it seems that even in this day and age, such hopes are far distant.

Race itself remains a difficult and touchy subject. Something that no one really wants to touch, because there has developed a sort of fixation around the topic, which carries the power to render someone's public life ruined. Of course, there are fine lines for Constitutional rights that must be considered as well, and whether the law should even be used to enforce certain types of behavior. That being said, I'm certain that there is racism everywhere, because in many respects, racism is a part of the human condition. Everyone is able to relate with their own backgrounds more easily than they might relate to that of another. Despite this, it is possible, or at least I think it is, to overcome these hurdles that we set for ourselves.

I suppose that this is one aspect of justice which truly isn't blind, and I question whether it ever will be. For so long as we refuse to hold a mirror up to ourselves, and hold each and every race with equal dignity, without turning to unfair practices to correct past injustices―then, we will never find equality. Perhaps this is one of the problems I have with the DOJ taking money from tax payers to institute such a program.

We need not study the situation to realize that there is a problem, and has been one for quite some time. On the contrary, we should search for ways of eliminating racial division within the laws themselves, instead of attempting to find ways to cleave sectors of society further apart than they already are. What I mean by this is that the justice system seems to be hell bent on finding ways to punish more, instead of seeking ways to enlighten.

Of course, this touches on the very principles which are at the root of our justice system all together. Should the purpose of the American Justice system be primarily and solely focused on retribution or punishment? Or, should, as it has been attempted before, a more utilitarian approach be adopted, where we seek to enlighten and correct past bad behaviors. This thought process is not a new one. After all, the prison system in the United States falls under the auspices of "The Department of Corrections".

In other words, the goal here should be corrective actions, as opposed to punishment for the sake of punishment alone. With tragedies like the Jewish Center Shooting of weeks back, and various other racially and ethnically based crimes...we see that mere punishment has failed the system, as a whole. Despite this, our leadership continues to look upon the problem as something that should be studied, evaluated, and then discussed. Sure, discussion is fine, but it has been taking place ever since the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

One would think that half-a-century later, we would have made more progress than we already have. I believe that part of the problem is, we continue to assess this situation as something that is separate and distinct. That is, how does this affect one race, as opposed to others. Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic here, but I believe that this is the wrong way to approach the topic entirely. Rather, our focus should be on, what can be done to heal the divisions between all citizens and the justice system.

There can be no question that the public's perception of our justice system is negative. Even on BMA here, the polls show just how woefully inadequate the justice system is perceived to be. Of course, no two people will view the problems and failings of the justice system in the same light. That, in turn, begs the question of what we can do to fix the problem.

Attorney General, Eric Holder, claims that this new initiative by the DOJ is in direct response to President Obama's call to improve relations between law enforcement agents and "men of color", following the case of Trayvon Martin. I don't think it needs to be an issue of "men of color" alone. Certainly women have been arrested too. And yes, the statistics show that it is far greater for minority men to be arrested than others, I think there's more to the issue than mere practices by police departments. (While, at the same time, I'm not denying that there's a problem either).

Like anything dealing with legal principles and policies, this is a very nuanced issue. It carries a plethora of complexities with it that few things within out governmental system do. Thus, I don't believe a singular instance of a jury's decision should provide the sole impetus for reviewing the policies of state and local law enforcement.

There needs to be more to it. Otherwise, we'll replace one disparaged group with another, without ever considering the unforeseen consequences arising therefrom. Demographics and economic opportunities also play a major role here, but it seems that the government's response is more guttural, than factual.

Needless to say, there are problems here, and glaring ones at that. But, I just wish that our response to these problems would constitute more than a two-dimensional response, which seems blinded to an overarching problem of perception for ALL AMERICANS, as opposed to a singular or minority group. Therefore, I am seeking a more comprehensive approach than what I'm seeing proposed by the DOJ.

Maybe I'm wrong, and short-sighted on the matter. But, having worked in Criminal Defense for several years now, I think we need to elevate the discussion to a higher level, focusing more on root causes, than peering again at a surface problem, which is the result of much more sinister and complex circumstances. Let's hope we can get past this alarming issue at some point in the near future, we're far better, as a nation, than this!