Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

-The Docket-

Reader mode
•Difficulty of Writing Clear Rules and Regulations.•​

If there is one thing about the Bluemoon staff that makes my attorney excuse for a heart go pitter patter, it's their ability to compose a clear, concise, and readily understandable set of rules and regulations. Now, I know that such a reason might sound a bit bizarre, maybe even bordering on trivial, but bear with me. For, I assure you, there is method to my madness!

So, why would I, a practicing attorney, express such admiration for an on-line role-playing community's staff's superior rule constructing abilities? (As a note, in law, drafting a set of rules or guidelines is known as rule construction). Because, constructing a cohesive set of guidelines and rules is no easy undertaking. What's more, constructing a cohesive set of rules and guidelines without a litany of exceptions corresponding to said rules and guidelines is nothing short of epic! Yet, the question of why I would sing such praises remains.

The best way to answer such a query is through example. Attorneys not only make fools of themselves in open court, or draft annoying small-print warnings that you shouldn't operate chain saws in your underwear. We also construct rules, guidelines, regulations, and suicide notes each and every day. Indeed, many attorneys earn their bread and butter through writing, understanding, and interpreting vast and complex codes of rules! (Think of the Bankruptcy or Tax codes, or the bylaws of multi-national corporations). These types of attorneys are known as "transactional attorneys. However, we attorneys also add to the complexity of such maddening, life-altering, yet hair-brain rules. How? By adding so many exceptions to the rules, that the exceptions far out number the rules themselves, thereby rendering said rules almost meaningless!

So, as promised in the preceding paragraph, here is a prime example from the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct―Rule § 1.7―regarding conflicts of interests for current clients states:

§1.7(a): Except as provided in paragraph (b)―(We're already off to a bad start! An exception noted in the opening paragraph of a rule!)―a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or, (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by a lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client, or a third person, or by a personal interest of the lawyer.

§1.7(b): Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if: (1) the lawyer reasonable believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; (2) the representation is not prohibited by law; (3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and, (4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

As one can clearly see from the above referenced example, the exceptions outnumber the rule itself, and said exceptions rob the rule of almost all of its originally intended meaning. Thus, one could not be faulted for citing the aforementioned rule as a prime example of poor rule construction.

Adding insult to injury is the fact that the above referenced example represents but one rule, in a code comprised of eight specific rules, many with subparts numbering as high as eighteen! But, I know many of you may be thinking that a code of conduct for attorneys, must be nuanced, and therefore far more complicated than the rules and regulations of an on-line writing community.

In response to such rhetorical quandaries, I supply a typically legalistic response of "yes and no". Yes, the rules and guidelines governing the ethical and professional conduct of lawyers is, by its nature, more complex than the necessary rules and guidelines governing the cordial and ethical conduct of the members of an on-line writing community. However, I say no, that doesn't, per se, require that the construction of the rules governing the ethical and professional conduct of attorneys need be constructed through convoluted and oft times contradictory language.

On the contrary, I believe the legal community could greatly benefit from utilizing the rules and guidelines of Bluemoon as a principal example of how properly constructed rules should look. Human interactions are always complex, and drafting a cohesive, intelligent, and practical code of rules and regulations for such communities represents no small task! Consequently, I cannot praise the leaders and staff of this community enough. You have provided an excellent and meaningful code of conduct, and on top of that, you enforce said rules and guidelines in a fair, compassionate, and practicable manner.

So, as ever, this barrister tips his hat to you. Without your diligent and dutiful efforts, this site and community would be but a mere shadow of what it is today. Therefore, take pride in the work you do, for it is nothing short of exceptional!
 
•Google Faces Antitrust Lawsuit•​


The consumer rights law firm of Hagens Berman has filed a nationwide antitrust lawsuit against Google, alleging among other things, that the bundling of Google software on android devices, such as Google Play and Youtube has hampered the market and kept the prices of devices by mobile manufacturers "artificially high". While there may be some truth to the claim that Google has increased a monopolistic control over internet searches, I fail to see how the inclusion of Google's apps or software on such devices keeps the price artificially high.

Yes, it is true that these programs, as per the contractual agreement must be included on the phones, there is nothing that prevents the user, or indeed, the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) from including other services on the device. (Take for instance, AT&T navigator, as opposed to Google maps. My Samsung device came with both programs). Moreover, how can the inclusion of these softwares―which unlike the successful antitrust claim against Microsoft, in which Internet Explorer was included as part of an operating system that had a license FEE―which are FREE TO USE by the OEMs cause the prices to be artificially inflated?

That argument doesn't fly when examined in the light of what antitrust was meant for. The argument fails to make any logical sense, because if the purpose of antitrust laws, is the prevention of monopolization, which increases the cost of the service in question, then it requires that there actually be a cost associated within the use of the actual offending items or systems. As mentioned above, Android carries no cost to the OEM's, and therefore, the OEM's are free to set the price of their devices as they see fit.

Furthermore, the ability of either the end user, or the OEM, or EVEN the carrier to add their own software, in addition to Google's own software, means that they really aren't doing anything which prohibits competition. So, again, I'm rather baffled as to why the attorneys are even bringing this case forward.

The lead counsel bringing this case to the District Court, one Steve Berman, alleges that Google had not achieved its monopoly by offering a better search engine, but through anti-competitive placement and market manipulation. Again, I ask HOW?

If Berman is going to argue that any free service constitutes market manipulation, then a whole slew of companies and softwares could be consider in violation of this alleged "antitrust principal." However, as previously mentioned, I fail to see how this constitutes as market manipulation, or price fixing. All Google has done is offer their services. Google doesn't make money from these services per se. Rather, they make their money from the add revenue resultant therefrom.

Thus, a question that keeps popping into my head, is whether Mr. Berman considers ad revenue as some sort of monopoly...or whether this case is nothing more than a frivolous get-rich-quick scheme stirred up by people desperate for money, and an attorney greedy enough to take the case.

I could see a potential antitrust issue here, if Google charged for their services, and disallowed the use of any other services upon their Android system. But, that's not the case at all. In fact, you can put other web browsers, such as Mozilla's Firefox, on your Android device. Hell, you can even put Apple's Safari browser on your android device...but why would you?

Therefore, again, I'm left wondering at the true intent and purpose behind this legal claim, because it does not seem to be a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act at all.

The Sherman Antitrust Act, as bolstered by later enacted statutes, requires three elements to be satisfied before there is an antitrust violation. Those elements are: (1) An agreement; (2) which unreasonably restricts competition; and, (3) which affects interstate commerce.

Alright, let's delve into this. Is there an agreement between the OEM's and Google. Of course, that's how we get the operating system on the phones. Does this agreement unreasonably restrict competition? As my aforementioned thoughts on the matter demonstrated, no, not really; and sense these are elements, the failure of one element, means the fatal failure of the entire argument.

Alright, maybe a section 1 claim, as the above referenced elements refer to is a no win, perhaps a section 2 claim will allow them to proceed. Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act requires two things: (1) Possession of a monopoly power in the relevant market; and, (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.

Okay, is there possession of a monopoly power with regard to search engines or mobile operating systems by Google...Crap, I think Apple has an operating system, I think Blackberry is somehow still around; Windows has a phone..oh Damn, they don't! Let's see, maybe there's a monopoly on search engines. Let's see, is Google the only search engine available for me to use? Oh Damn...no, because there's Yahoo, Bing, Dogpile, Ask, even search.com exists. So that one fails on element one. And thus, the entire argument collapses.

Therefore, I'm left to conclude that the only reason that this suit is even being considered is because the lawyer things that he can somehow argue that they can get around these fatal elements, based on the fact that they want to win a lot of money. That ain't gonna happen. (Well it could, after all, Apple tried to patent rounded corners.)

Nevertheless, from my legal perspective, this case has no merit whatsoever, and is just an attempt on the part of this alleged "Consumer Rights" firm to get-rich-quick. This sort of legal tactic is annoying, and makes the entire profession look bad. Yet, I still wonder how this will actually unfold.
 
•COLD WAR II ?​

When I was in college, one of my favorite history professors used to say that, in actuality, history never repeats itself. I used to agree wholeheartedly with this assertion, especially when considering the vast technological advances made throughout the past century. But, the more I reflect upon this, the more I come to realize the actual meaning of the old adage, "history repeats itself" is not relegated to technology, or even to quality of life. Rather, the saying focuses on something far more abstract, ideology.

The ideas and philosophies of the past repeat themselves in cyclical fashion. That is not to say that they repeat themselves in the exact same fashion. But, their influence on the subconscious level of nations do come into play and in unexpected ways. It is not my usual course to reflect on the deeper meanings of old clichés, but truth be told, current events sometimes gives me reason to pause, and reflect upon seemingly trivial things.

June 4 2014―two days before the seventieth anniversary of D-Day, the allied invasion of the Normandy Coast of France―marks an important, and calamitous repeat of ideology. With Russia's recent and aggressive incursion into the Crimea―the Ukraine―conjures up faded memories of the Cold War. I was only four-years-old, or so, at the time the Berlin Wall fell. Yet, I still retain vivid images of the German people celebrated the fall of a hated symbol and legacy of cultural division.

Moreover, I harbor similar memories with respect to the fall of the Soviet Union itself, a short time later. For nearly half-a-century, Russia and the United States dictated a proxy war of tragedy, which impacted countless people, and resolved little in regards to meaningful change. Now, some twenty odd years later, Russia and the United States are stepping up to that familiar old chess table, facing off in what seems to be an unfortunate repeat of the politics of the past. Vladamir Putin and Barack Obama sit at this proverbial chess table, within a field which has seen the two nations oppose each other for the greater part of the last century.

Today, Russia was excluded from the G8, or the eight top nations who supposedly meet in order to help negotiate a stable and global economy. Russia's inclusion in this group occurred with great fanfare, as it was supposed to symbolize the absolute finish of the Cold War. So, here we are, steadily slipping back to the dark days of the Cold War, but economically speaking, the United States could not possibly be in a worse position. For the past seven years the United States economy and standard of leaving have been in decline. Unemployment haunts huge swathes of our society, and yet the ghost of the Cold War threatens current events like some recurring nightmare that simply refuses to go away.

I stand in awe, wondering how, or even if, we can manage our way through this new crisis. How could we have allowed ourselves to fall back into this state of affairs? Have we learned nothing over the past sixty, nearly seventy years? Probably not. Like the last time, this promises to be a long, drawn out affair, draining precious resources and capital all to please the egos of two out-of-touch political elites, living out their delusions of grandeur. But, in the end, this will prove to resolve nothing, and the same mistakes of the past will be repeated on the global stage for all to see. What a pernicious lot we are!

It seems as though the world has lost its bearings, and we are unaware of that fact, as we race back to the days of meaningless one-upmanship. I know my history professor never dreamed that the ruinous events of the Cold War would reemerge in such a dramatic fashion. After all, history never repeats itself. Yet, here we stand, nearly seventy years after the start of the first Cold War, facing what appears to be round two of a tango of deceit and despair.

Another old adage is, "humanity learns from its mistakes". And, since we supposedly learn therefrom, we would never be daft enough to repeat those blunders we made in the past! How poetic those words sound. Nevertheless, those words are just that...words. In the course of human events, humanity displays a remarkable capacity to learn very little from the past.

When our actions fail to live up to our grandiose promises, it makes it truly difficult to be optimistic. You know, in the grand stage of the geopolitical theater, such feckless petitions leave much to be desired. I believe, in small part, that it is a wonder that we managed to keep the tepid peace for twenty years, without sinking back into the turmoil of Cold War Era politics. Somehow, for that brief period of time, we managed to keep the lessons of the past close to heart. Alas, all good things must come to an end, or so they say.

I wonder whether there was some other way to resolve this crisis, one which we simply failed to consider. Or, whether a different stance could have halted this fiasco before it even began. Perhaps, but the cynic in me doubts it. Somewhere in the mix, we managed to lose ourselves in the illusions of self importance and romanticism. We wax poetic, yet blunder right back to the untenable scenario which blinded us for half-a-century.

Humanity, in that since, is like a small child, unaware of the harsh realities of a dangerous world. We all attempt to shield ourselves from the bitter truth of it all. Yet, that does not chance the facts as they stand. Truth never holds its punches. It shows no mercy to anyone, and demands strict adherence. Nevertheless, the seductive prowess of delusion draws nations and individuals alike, to the flam that consumes the soul.

Our President addressed the Polish people today, promising, yet again, unwavering support and commitment to their safety. He mentioned the long-standing friendship between the two nations, and vowed to maintain this friendship in the face of a resurgent and aggressive Russia. But, do such promises truly carry any weight at all anymore? Do we even possess the political will or the economic capacity to even back such lofty and aloof commitments? I doubt it.

The United States has committed troops to a war time footing for over a decade, and now, in the midst of economic turmoil at home, we cut the pay of our military; but, demand that retail employees make a minimum wage much higher than that of our fighting men and women? Just where are our priorities in all of this? It is as though we have lost our way, but just have not come to realize it yet. I fear we face some extremely dark times ahead.
 
•D-Day Remembrance•​

Seventy years ago from tomorrow, the Greatest Generation stormed the beaches of Normandy directly assaulting Hitler’s fortress Europe opening a second front in the war for liberty. It is hard to believe that such an extensive amount of time has passed since that generation put their lives on the line so that we may all be free today. Indeed, it represents one of the greatest acts of human compassion that this world has ever seen.

Young boys, many just eighteen or nineteen-years-old, faced off against the greatest evil ever to haunt this world, and with unwavering commitment and devotion these brave lads fought back and turned the tide against the forces of tyranny and oppression. In so doing, they ensured that future generations could unite together in freedom. Moreover, these brave soldiers secured the ability for us to speak our minds and to dedicate ourselves for a better and brighter tomorrow.

It is important that we celebrate and honor the memory of those great heroes from the United States, Canada, Great Britain, France, and all over Europe who joined together to throw off the yoke of tyranny and oppression, securing liberty and equality for us all. I know that my words might sound like mere platitudes, but they come from the heart. Furthermore, my words address the central issue which mere boys sacrificed their youth, their lives, their own hopes and aspirations in order to secure ours.

That cause I mention above, is the cause of liberty and freedom. If there is one thing that each and every one of us possess that makes us uniquely fortuned by the sands of time, it is that we live in a world made safe by the selfless dedication and devotion of the Greatest Generation. My grandparents have been dead for well over a decade now. But, I remember the honor, pride, and commitment they showed to those brave young men who took a powerful stance against the dark forces of oppression. They understood that such a stance made it so that I, and indeed all of us, could avail ourselves of the opportunities we have today.

What these brave souls accomplished is no small task. Farmers, school teachers, college students, and plain ordinary citizens of all walks of life came together and answered the call of their nations, in the face of great adversity and extreme threat to life so that the sacred tenets of freedom and liberty would survive for future generations. We owe them an eternal debt of gratitude that no amount of time can diminish. Therefore, I thought it appropriate to take this opportunity to express my unyielding gratitude for that generation which risked everything for all of us.
Today, June 5, 2014, marks the seventieth anniversary of the night that the pathfinders―those volunteers of both the 82nd All American Airborne, and the 101st Screaming Eagles, landed in Europe the night before the full invasion to secure the path for their fellow troopers and allied bombers could safely fly over and deliver their payloads in support of the cause. The pathfinders leaped into the lion’s den of tyranny, facing near certain death, without question or hesitation and demonstrated a purity of dedication that the world never saw before nor since. They risked everything, but they secured an outstanding victory against all the odds.

D-Day represents the beginning of the end for Hitler’s visions for Europe. And, indeed, it also marked the beginning of the end for fascist totalitarianism throughout Europe. The amazing accomplishments of this generation is truly inspirational. It has led to a bright future which requires a heartfelt dedication to the memory of those who sacrificed everything. Without their sacrifice it is a very real possibility that Europe might still be in the clutches of fascist dictatorships. That would be an unthinkable consequence.

We are truly fortunate that the forces of tyranny and oppression failed in securing victory some seventy years ago. Now, as their numbers dwindle, the generation who experienced that war first hand is passing from reality to memory. But, what a cherished memory it shall be. Because of their willingness to give up everything for our future, we are able to have a free and open community like that here at Bluemoon. That reality, in and of itself, demonstrates the amazing outcome of their dedication and selfless sacrifice.

Throughout the world free speech is the dominant aspiration of each and every person. It is the natural state of the human condition that we all aspire to. The Internet is a pure and positive reflection of the ideals for which the forces of liberty and freedom fought for and defended all those years ago. Consequently, we should all take a moment to marvel at the great and noble sacrifices made by that generation. Indeed, we should take pride in the work we do because it honors their collective memory. It perpetuates their achievements, and it secures a better and brighter future for us all.

Oh how lucky we are to dwell in the shadows of those selfless giants who were just average and ordinary citizens coming together under extraordinary circumstances to face down and resist the greatest evil this world has ever known. What an amazing story they tell. This just goes to show that we can all be optimistic about the future. If they were able to overthrow the chains of tyranny just imagine what we can accomplish today. If the Internet had existed at that time, fascism would have faced much steeper opposition and might never have established its rule in the nations of Europe.

Those eighteen and nineteen-year-old farmers, mechanics, doctors, lawyers, students, people from all walks of life are the greatest heroes to ever walk upon the face of this earth. Fiction could no justice to the heroic feats of those real and amazing heroes. As such, I say from the body of my heart, thank you, bless you, and we will never forget you.
 
•Suing the Executive Branch for Abuse of Power​

We have all seen it in the news. Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R) Ohio, proclaimed that he will sue the President of the United States for abuse of executive orders. Pundits on both sides have criticized this rather bold proclamation. They claim that it is the President's prerogative to use executive orders as he sees fit. Yet, is that really the case? Truth be told, the power of the executive order is perhaps the least understood power of the Executive Branch. As a result, it has been frequently misused.

To understand the heart of the issue we must determine three things: (1) what is an executive order; (2) does an executive order allow the President to change the entire scope and purpose of a particular piece of legislation; and, (3) has the President used executive orders in their originally intended parameters?

With respect to the first issue, Black's Law Dictionary defines an executive order as:

An order or regulation issued by the President or some administrative authority under his direction for the purpose of interpreting, implementing, or giving administrative effect to a provision of the Constitution or of some law or treaty. To have the effect of law, such orders must be published in the Federal Register.

That is, an executive order's primary function is to state the manner in which a specific piece of legislation shall be enforced. This makes sense. Article II of the United States Constitution establishes the scope and purpose of the Executive Branch of government. Unlike Congress, the President and the various Executive Agencies under him lack the express authority to legislate. Of course, as with any legal rules, there are many exceptions. Congress has the ability to delegate certain legislative responsibilities to the various Executive Agencies. With that said, Congress also has the capacity to take such authority away.

For example, the Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA), is an Executive Agency. Congress has specifically delegated a portion of their legislative authority to this agency. Therefore, the EPA has the power to make binding law through regulations. Nonetheless, it lacks the power to regulate around statutes and other pieces of legislation duly enacted by Congress and signed into law by the President.

With this in mind, it is clear to see that the purpose of executive orders is the establishment of rules governing the scope and breadth of such Executive Agencies. Its secondary function is to provide clarification as to unclear provisions within a specific piece of legislation. Thus, if a statute states that a particular Executive Agency shall enforce a section of the law―but, is silent as to how―the President may issue an executive order interpreting the methods by which said agency shall enforce the law.

This leads us to the second issue. Can the President change the entire scope and purpose of a particular statute? While there is no direct precedence on the issue, a similar and related issue has been determined by the Supreme Court. That issue is what is known as a “line item veto”. Black's Law Dictionary defines a line item veto as:

The power which governors possess in most States to veto items in appropriation bills without affecting any other provisions of such bills.

Essentially, a governor may strike out specific portions of funding bills which basically changes the scope and meaning of the bill. Article II of the Constitution, however, enumerates no such equivalent power to the President. Moreover, the Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) held that:

The President's unilateral striking of portions of legislation passed by Congress pursuant to the Line Item Veto Act was without legal force, because the Constitution did not authorize the President to enact federal law of which both houses of Congress had not previously approved the text.

It therefore follows that the President cannot use executive orders to fundamentally alter the Congressional intent of a specific statute. This is because, in so doing, the President is changing the text of the statute without the approval of both houses of Congress. The Constitution specifically divided governmental functions and authority between three separate yet equal branches of government. America's Founding Fathers designed the government in such a manner to prevent one branch of government assuming or concentrating all governmental power unto itself. That, in turn, prevents the formation of an oligarchy or dictatorship.

We now turn to the third and final issue. Has the President used executive orders within their originally intended parameters as established by the Constitution? Let's examine the example of the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, (Dream Act). This controversial piece of legislation was originally introduced in 2001 by Senators Dick Durbin (D) of Illinois and Orin Hatch (R) of Utah. The aim of the DREAM Act is to incentivize educational achievement and pursuit of legal US residency by alien minors who entered the United States illegally. Stated differently, the legislation paves a pathway for illegal aliens to become citizens through higher education or military participation. Moreover, it provides opportunities to apply for legal permanent resident status―i.e., de facto citizenship.

Despite numerous efforts to enact the law, stiff opposition prevented it from ever becoming law. Therefore, in 2012, President Obama unilaterally enacted the statute via an executive order. Looking back to the original definition of an executive order, it is apparent that this enactment is outside of the originally intended parameters of the executive order power. The President enacted a law that never marshaled the votes necessary to pass Congress. In other words, the President created legislation in an unconstitutional manner. This is because the Constitution explicitly states in Article I § 8, that Congress alone possesses the express power of legislation.

Furthermore, Article VI of the Constitution prohibits any action or legislation which is contrary to the Constitution itself. Article VI Clause 2 states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

That is, the Constitution, followed by laws and treaties enacted thereunder constitute the supreme law of the land. As such, the use of executive orders to circumvent the legislative authority expressly enumerated to Congress, by the Constitution, is by its nature unconstitutional. Additionally, when the President claimed that the Executive Branch could determine when the Senate is or is not in session, for purposes of recess appointments, also violates this key provision of the Constitution. Indeed, in a rare unanimous decision, the Supreme Court invalidated three (3) recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012. The Court reasoned that the Senate was not technically in recess, and that the President lacks the authority to define the rules of the Senate.

Thus, it is clear to see that from these two examples alone, the President has abused the executive power and authority of the office of the President. Despite this, questions arise with respect to Speaker Boehner's choice of addressing this issue. The Speaker proclaimed that he would sue the President in federal court over the abuse of this executive power. This is an unprecedented step. No President has ever been sued for the manner in which he exercised executive orders. Worse yet, the issue of standing takes center stage.

Black's Law Dictionary defines legal standing as:

(When) a party has sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy.

Justificiability is defined as:

A controversy in which a present and fixed claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it; rights must be declared upon an existing state of facts and not upon a state of facts that may or may not arise in the future.

Thus, courts will only consider a “justiciable” controversy, as distinguished from a hypothetical difference or dispute or one that is merely academic or mute. Stated differently, it means that the courts will only determine a case in which they may provide a remedy. Likewise, the courts have adopted a doctrine known as the “Political Question Doctrine”, which limits judicial remedies for specific questions involving matters best suited for the other co-equal branches of government. That is, certain issues should not, by their nature, be decided by the courts because the resolution is committed to another branch of government and/or because those issues are not capable, for one reason or another, of judicial resolution.

Therefore, a political question is a question of which courts refuse to take cognizance. They refuse to decide the issue on account of its “purely political character”, or because their determination involves an encroachment upon the executive or legislative powers. With this in mind, the Speaker's proposed lawsuit most likely would not even be heard by the court. There can be no question, however, that the issue of abuse of executive power is an alarming concern. Given the obstructionist nature of the United States Senate under Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid (D) of Nevada, the political solutions are severely curtailed. As such, the Speaker's claim may fall into a rare extenuating circumstance, thereby allowing the courts to overlook classical justiciability concerns. Either way, the government has entered uncharted territory.
 
•Carnage Over Ukraine
The News Story
Human conflict brings tragedy on an unimaginable scale. Both intentional and unintentional consequences shred the fabric of human decency and civil rights. And yet, a nagging question remains. What good comes of it? I ask this because 100 AIDS research scientists were among the innocent victims of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17.

The airliner flew over Ukrainian airspace, when someone shot it down. All 298 passengers, including the scientists, were killed. These scientists were headed to the International AIDS Conference in Australia. Russian separatists, who wage an armed-conflict for control of the Crimea, boasted about downing a military transport plane on Twitter. This tweet mentioned the same location and time that the ill-fated airliner was struck. When word that it was a passenger liner got out, they deleted the tweet and pointed their fingers at the Ukrainian government.

Such a claim is highly dubious, and merely reflects the bloodthirsty motives of the Russian-backed rebels. Tragedies of this nature are nothing new to the course of human events. Nearly one-hundred years ago, a German U-boat torpedoed the British passenger liner, RMS Lusitania, pushing America to the brink of war. In this modern equivalent to that senseless calamity, I find myself asking the same question President Woodrow Wilson proffered. How could a people, claiming to be civilized, do such a horrible deed?

Whether or not Russia is directly responsible for this; we may never know. Irrespective of that fact, she facilitated it. Putin's lust for power threatens the very essence of human decency and compassion. That airliner posed no threat to either Russia or her minions. Yet, Russia overtly supports this chaos, which led to murder in the air.

What scientific breakthroughs were sacrificed for Putin's Neo-Bolshevik whims? How many suffering people will die as a result of this barbarism? And, will the culprits ever be brought to justice? Such questions should never need be asked. Yet, here we are, faced once again with such bitter queries.

One would hope humanity could learn from its past mistakes. But, the facts show otherwise. We haven't learned a damn thing in the past century. Tyrants still slaughter to slake their blood lust. My outrage stems from the pointlessness of it all. We have nothing to gain from Putin's maniacal quest; but, stand to lose our humanity in its wake. Don't we all deserve better than this? Wouldn't a medical breakthrough be much better than Russian imperialism?

Our human savagery unleashes demons well-beyond our ability to control. And, without a harsh and swift response, these ruthless cowards will strike again. We must have safe airspace for travel. No nation, or group, has the right to slaughter innocent air travelers. Such barbarism should not go unpunished. Actions and choices carry consequences. This deliberate act of murder, is no exception. Human decency must be defended. Humane people everywhere demand justice for the victims of this senseless crime. But, will our leaders rectify this? I doubt it.
 
Am I alone in thinking things are about to get bad? Russia shoots down a scientist-filled plane, Israel seems to be embracing genocide as diplomacy, Brazil and China are trying to create a new financial federation with the sole aim of removing the USD as international currency of choice...

All we need now is for Putin's middle east allies to convince him to declare outright war on Israel.
 
I wonder if I could stump for secession support on the "We're Not With That Guy" ticket. A diplomatic blank slate would be marvelous.
 
"The new bastard on the hill" movement. Hell, if Teddy Roosevelt could run, make a speech, get shot, finish the speech, and call his hand picked successor a son of a bitch and still almost win...I think such a plan might just work.
 
Life has moments where joy swiftly turns to sadness. The tides of emotion can engulf us in ways we scarcely imagine. I suppose those are the things that we are supposed to take with the ebbs and flows of emotion. Still, there are times when it can feel overwhelming.

In all the years that I have been on this earth, I have never found the solution for the jarring results that can blindside us from nowhere. Most of the time, I'm a fairly laid back guy. I'm happy go lucky, nothing can keep me down. Other days, not so much. This is one of those "other days". There really isn't a clear or simple answer for it. It just "hits me". The only thing one can do in such situations is to take it in stride. Keep our chins up and hope for a better tomorrow.

Sometimes, I fear, that's easier said than done. The endless tides of life's passions and sorrow blend together. In so doing, it forms the human condition, through which we all travel while in this life. While not in the perfect of moods today, I take solace in the fact that life will ebb the other way soon enough. Each challenge can be overcome. It's a matter of finding the proper solution for it. In time, the answer to the riddles perplexing me will avail themselves. And when they do, I shall be back on the path to achieving the goals I set for myself years ago.

Until then, I carry on. Working towards that goal, even if it feels as if I'm merely spinning my wheels. I have survived all sorts of hardships. In the long run, they have made me both darker and stronger. Yet, the two blend perfectly to shape who I am. Life is a blank canvas, and I have painted a self portrait of which I can take pride. Otherwise, I wouldn't have gone through the hell that I have. So, again, I turn my eye to the future. The possibilities are limitless.
 
•The Legal Field as Economic Indicator​


More often than not, economic pundits on various market news shows proclaim― through crooked grins― that the economy is well on its way to full recovery. The Federal Reserve downplays the rate of inflation by excluding commodities― such as energy, fuel and groceries― from the calculation. At the same time, unemployment is artificially deflated, via the automatic exclusion of those who have been on unemployment for a specified period of time.

When misleading indicators reign supreme, a startling question arises. How do you determine the actual state of the economy? Through a bit of digging, the truth can be uncovered. One indicator is whether new jobs created are low-end jobs which are temporary in nature. Similarly, one can uproot the truth by ascertaining whether those formerly on unemployment are now underemployed. (If employed at all). Of course, there is another indicator as well. That is, the state of the legal field.

When the economy is robust― as the above mentioned pundits claim― then, the employment opportunities for recent law school grads are plentiful. That has yet to be seen, in our current economic climate. As our well established law firms downsize in response to clients' inability to pay, laid off experienced attorneys snatch opening positions once filled by up and coming attorneys. This phenomenon, in turn, inflates the minimum qualifications while deflating the earnings potentials of legal professionals across the board.

What does that mean for the state of the economy in general? The answer is not good. Lawyers help establish new businesses― such as assisting companies to incorporate― and help protect existing businesses. On top of that, attorneys help regulate the ethical operations of businesses. Thus, when businesses retrench, the legal field suffers. It is safe to say that we all suffer as a result of these economic trends.

My complaint may sound like sour grapes. I readily admit that many lack the opportunities I had. My family helped support my education. Consequently, my student loan debts are far lower than most law school grads. That being said, the staggering expense of obtaining a law degree is unjustified, considering the scant earnings potentials currently available. It is true, that the legal market is over saturated. However, the meager offerings are more indicative of a weak economy, as opposed to a glut of licensed attorneys.

College graduates face equally grim employment prospects in this current economy. Current employment opportunities are at a thirty-year low. And, to make matters worse, this abysmal truth disproportionately effects America's youth. Despite this, all of what I say here is nothing new. This pathetic trend has been with us since the financial meltdown of 2008. As a result, economic pundits have been wringing their hands for six years. All the while, they have failed to proffer any meaningful solutions.

Sure, some argue that the way to kick start the economy is to raise the minimum wage to a so-called “living wage”. But, under careful scrutiny, one finds that such a solution only makes matters worse. Don't get me wrong, I am extremely sympathetic to the plight of those who hold minimum wage jobs. Nonetheless, sympathy does nothing to change stark economic reality.

Using the above mentioned trend in legal employment― where more experienced lawyers grab opening positions― we can see that more experience diminishes the value of experience overall. Likewise, increasing the minimum wage has the net effect of reducing the value of wages across the board. In other words, businesses raise their prices, cut back on hiring and downsize to adjust to the increased cost of business. Therefore, such a policy exacerbates an already bleak situation. As a result, one cannot, in good faith, argue that minimum wage hikes offer a realistic or meaningful solution to America's economic hardships.

In all honesty, I fail to see any readily apparent solution to our economic woes. We need drastic reductions in governmental spending, and I don't see that coming any time in the near future. Furthermore, the looming expenses from the Affordable Care Act merely add to the economic uncertainty and instability. America has backed herself into an unsustainable situation, and we shall all suffer as a direct consequence.
 
Any thoughts on this?

I'm not so interested in to posturing and the blustering, more the precedent. Is this a bad thing being born, or a terrible idea that's about to be smothered in the crib?
 
Well, from a legal procedure standpoint, I think the suit will face standing challenges. It comes down to separations of power again. The Court loathes to touch political questions. In fact, there's a precedence for not doing so―established in that most logical of Chief Justices' tenure...John Marshall―which states that the Court won't resolve matters best reserved for the separate, political (meaning those subject to elections) branches.

In this case, that means Congress, and it's power of the purse. On the other hand, I see a need to try and preserve the limited powers of the President. It's not the number of executive orders issued by President Obama. (In fact, he has utilized it to a lesser extent than his predecessor). Rather, it's the way in which he implements it. Whether his actions are benign, or not, is immaterial. It's as you said, there's a dangerous precedence forming here.

Separation of powers should be a core concern to anyone, irrespective of whether they're ludicrous libertarians like me; or idealistic socialists/green's like Nader. When power is concentrated, evil has the ability to spread. Actually, there's a well known extreme-left-wing law professor that voices the same concerns I am here. Professor Johnathan Turley explains that Congress must act. In that sense, the whole law suit thing just seems moot. Congress must act as the titular head of legislation and funding, as constitutionally required.

Will they? Probably not. They are a do-nothing Congress, but not for the reasons that the media harps about. They're do nothing because they're complacent and spoiled with power. Washington DC is like a Mount Olympus. The gods (government people) work and dwell in ivory towers, while veterans and other unfortunates live homeless in the streets. But, the grandeur and status of the seats of power can blind a soul to reality.

In some ways, and tell me if you agree, our politicians have become like the French Aristocracy at the time of the French Revolution. They seclude themselves in their palaces, instead of using their traditional powers for the good of the people.
 
I wish I could be a politician for a year or two, just to observe firsthand. I really don't know, is the problem. Nobody's really sure what goes on in there, why people are spit out the other side corrupt, aged, and broken.

It seems heavily illogical to me. Like, if lobbyists are so goddamn good at securing compliance, why aren't we adapting their brainwashing techniques into the appropriate military wings? If we treated our enemies the way we treat our leaders, perhaps they could be shocked and awed into complacent, fat, self-importance, too.

I just don't understand why it happens to everyone. Nothing should happen to everyone. A disease combining the best efforts of nature and man both can't pull a 100% success rate. So why?
 
Narcissism plays a big role in all of it. I mean, lobbyists are some of the most egotistical and amoral people around. I remember when I went to DC twelve years ago―which happened to be the moment I decided to become a lawyer to try and combat some of this nonsense―I saw a no smoking lobbyist running down the stairs of the Capital building. He had the large no smoking button on his coat lapel...and a lit stogi clenched between his teeth. It struck me as bizarre. But, I can say the image has stuck with me for all these years.

But, you're right in that it defies logic. Our system has devolved into a large faceless bureaucracy where it's so big that it contradicts itself. And, if there's one inescapable truth about bureaucracy and their insect-minded agents, it's that their rules must be followed (as long as it helps the boss)―even to the point of creating chaos and waste. Logic divorces itself from the picture, and egotism takes its place.

As for why it happens to everyone, I think there's something about the job. When the system was developed, Congress wasn't supposed to meet all the time. They were expected to go home for a period of time, resume life as citizens, and stay in touch with their voters. Gradually, that changed. I don't know if we could go back to a so-called "citizen farmer/soldier/jackass society. It's highly doubtful that we could. That being said, the people that get up there just get worn down. There's so much corruption, and the way the system became around the turn of the Twentieth Century, the system itself protects the corruption. Un-elected officials made it that way.

In a sense, I think this points back to the problems that Professor Turley pointed out. Congress (and through supposed representation) represents the will of the people. When they delegate too much of this authority to people who are put in power and can stay well past the end of election cycles, it diminishes a safety valve that the people have in controlling their government. Over time, they come to think that we don't matter, and they write regulations that protect themselves.

Then there's the perks. Congressmen can still smoke and drink in their offices. The rest of D.C. prohibits it. But not Congress, no those precious little ponies have a pasture of oats all to themselves. So, it comes down to a combination of two things: (1) Decent people who actually give a damn are toothless now; and, (2) Indecent people game the system. The net sum of that is...the bullshit we have now. The sad part is, the people are so wedded to false identities through a sort of "political balkinazation". So there's a "Nah nah I don't give a shit what you say because you're a Republican. Nah nah I don't give a shit what you say because you're a Democrat," mentality that fucks everything up. Oddly enough Washington worried about political factions for this reason. However, I don't think he ever envisioned un-elected bureaucrats running the show. That just adds a whole new dimension to feckless and useless government. I could be wrong, but having seen it at the local level as well, I'm fairly certain that the above mentioned reasons have a lot to do with it.

I do like the thought of thrusting our perverse system of corruption on our enemies. It would be interesting to see them rot from the problems we have. It's a sort of macabre reverse version of President Wilson's obsessive desire to "Americanize" the world.
 
•Identity Politics or Balkanization: Ferguson Missouri and the Court of Public Opinio

Story 1,Story 2,Story 3. Ferguson Missouri has erupted in violent protest over the shooting death of a local Black teen, Michael Brown, 18. Apparently, Brown, who had just been accepted to technical college, was involved in a tussle with Ferguson Police. Several eyewitness accounts state that Brown was unarmed at the time of the fatal shooting.

The scant information released by the police, thus far, claim that Brown reached for the officer's service hand-gun―after being placed in the police cruiser. While attempting to grab the officer's weapon, said weapon discharged inside the cruiser, causing police to unleash a deadly hail of bullets into the young man, killing him. However, the police account contradicts at least four separate eyewitness accounts. Brown never entered the patrol car, as the authorities claim, and the officer involved, assumed an aggressive posture towards Brown, before any altercation ensued. Each eyewitness recounts a similar version of events. While eyewitness accounts are notoriously inaccurate, when there is enough over lap, as here, it lends their accounts additional credibility that they would otherwise lack.

Resultantly, the Black Community of Ferguson are outraged, and are comparing the tragedy to the alleged injustice of the 2012 shooting of Florida teen, Trayvon Martin. Recent protests resulted in the outbreak of violent, deadly and chaotic clashes between police and members of the Black Community. Nationally known Black leaders, such as Al Sharpton, have traveled to the scene and are fanning the flames of dissent. In other words, an admitted tragedy now threatens to boil over into a full-scale riot.

Normally, my instinct as an attorney, is to reserve judgment until after a full-scale investigation is completed. However, subsequent action taken by Ferguson P.D. Raises alarming questions. Police have attacked members of the Press with tear gas, and even detained two reporters for asking questions about why the McDonald's restaurant―where they were eating―was being cleared. With respect to the two reporters, no booking photos were made, officers refused to inform them of the charges for which they were being detained, and refused to provide them with their names and badge numbers. This violates the reporters' Constitutional rights.

Police should always inform the arrestees of the charges against them, of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights per Miranda; and, provide the name and badge number of the officers involved. None of this information was provided to the reporters who were detained, in jail, for no legal purpose whatever. Consequently, I now view the actions of the police with extreme suspicion. I do not deny that the police face a difficult and potentially dangerous situation. But, they are sworn to serve and protect, as well as to uphold the laws of the land―including the Constitution. Clearly, Ferguson Police have failed to do so, in the case at hand.

With that in mind, I am also troubled by the violence exhibited by both sides in the wave of protests rocking Ferguson. Such clashes serve only to foster racial animus, while hampering any legal efforts to uncover the truth. Equally disturbing is the near-military appearance, tactics and attitudes exhibited by local law enforcement. This issue should be about the Constitutional rights of every American, as opposed to a detrimental form of Balkanization of our citizens. Moreover, the police should not devolve into a form of civilian para-military militia.

We must overcome, as a nation, these divisions which threaten to tear our Nation apart. The path we are on now can only lead to more heartache and bloodshed. Indeed, we are better than this, and it is high time that we prove it. Until we do, matters will only grow worse.

Consequently, we must also reexamine race relations within this country. All the progress that has been made since the days of the Civil Rights Movement, are teetering on the edge of destruction. Therefore, we must evaluate the reasons behind such deterioration of race-relations within this country. I believe that both sides are at fault. The police are not taking the steps necessary to ensure that the investigative process is transparent, and they are blatantly violating the civil liberties of multiple parties.

Attacking the Press with tear gas is more akin to Nazi Germany, than the United States of America. Something has gone dreadfully wrong within our society, and we must fix it sooner rather than later. True leadership is required. Leadership which calls for an end to hostilities, as opposed to silence or even conspicuous encouragement. It was once said that President Obama personified the post-racial era of the United States. Yet, the failure to call for a peaceful resolution is deafening. Again, I must reiterate the fact that, as a nation, we are better than this.

Nonetheless, the powers that be, both locally and nationally, have been indecisive at best, and outright complicit at worst. In regards to Ferguson P.D., their public relations director should be terminated post haste. Refusing to provide the unlawfully detained reporters with the names and badge numbers of their detaining officers, represents a blatant attempt at hindering any forthcoming legal actions which might―and most assuredly will―arise from this case.

Madness is an inexplicable part of this entire tragic debacle. A free Press is necessary for any liberty-loving society. Yet, the police have acted in such a way as to bring into question the freedom's guaranteed to the Press via the First Amendment. It is yet to be seen how the entirety of this case shall play out. But, thus far, it has been a disaster from its inception. Openness, honesty and a full-scale investigation by disinterested third-parties is paramount. Otherwise, hostilities and tensions will continue to grow.
 
Federal Agency in Charge of HIPAA Enforcement Lacks the Data to Determine Whether Oba

http://washingtonexaminer.com/feds-lack-the-data-to-determine-how-well-key-obamacare-provisions-are-working/article/2553802 (News Article) and, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-697 (GAO findings).

President Obama once vowed to the American people that, should he be elected President in 2008, his administration would be the most open and transparent in American history. However, a recent news piece clearly demonstrates that nothing could be further from the truth. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported to Congress that it is unable to provide a complete and accurate accounting of expenditures made for the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

They went on to site inaccurate and incomplete information as the cause behind this information deficiency. Such information includes: (1) Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) records respecting polling; (2) advertising; (3) expenditures made on behalf of focus groups; and, (4) other expenditures made in conjunction with various public relations activities. Added to this, is the fact that federal officials are uncertain as to whether they possess enough personnel to satisfy the stringent requirements imposed by Obamacare.

What's alarming about this is that the very governmental agency in charge of collecting and collating this information―the Center for Medicare and Medicaid―is also the agency in charge of enforcement of the Privacy and Security rules of HIPAA. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, establishes strict, draconian and unreasonable requirements for compliance with the Act. Private health-care providers must meet these requirements or suffer stiff civil penalties and even face criminal charges. Such requirements were devised in order to protect individually identifiable health information.

In other words, the same government agency, which failed to maintain accurate and meticulous records, demands that the private sector maintain accurate and meticulous records, with no mistakes or they shall suffer stiff civil penalties and potential criminal charges. What can be seen from this is a puzzling double standard with respect to satisfying legal requirements and accountability of the parties who violate said requirements. That is to say, our private health-care providers are expected to meet one standard. While, on the other hand, the government is not required to meet those same standards.

The government has a near-limitless budget to carry out its duties. America's private health-care providers do not have such a luxury. Worse yet, the government has not been held accountable in their failure to maintain accurate records. With this in mind, it brings into question the entire HIPAA apparatus. Why should we expect our private health-care providers to shoulder the burden of draconian standards implemented via HIPAA's Privacy and Security rules, when our federal government fails to maintain and produce complete and accurate accounts regarding expenditures for health-care legislation?

Logic dictates that we cannot, in good faith, expect private institutions to be saddled with such demands. Hypocrisy has always been a part of government, but this brings it to a whole new level. The American people should expect their government to provide them with open, honest, and accurate information. Yet, as this report demonstrates, the government has failed to do so. Whether this is a result of the politicization of governmental bureaucracies or not, is a question that has yet to be answered. Nevertheless, it raises serious concerns with respect to the agencies charged with enforcement of the above mentioned HIPAA requirements. So long as the government continues to operate under this blatant double standard, then it seems that our private health-care providers face an unfair burden which they shouldn't be expected to comply with.

As with the entire Affordable Care Act itself, HIPAA serves as a divider between health-care providers and their patients. It inherently causes the practice of medicine to be more difficult and places unreasonable restraints on patient care. Of course, whenever the government attempts to standardize health care treatment, it ignores the circumstances of the several states. This is why our Founding Fathers created our government in such a way that the state and local governments would be responsible for the care of their respective populace.

State governments are, and have always been in the best position to represent the needs of their constituents. This is shown by facts and circumstances within their jurisdiction. Consequently, they should be the ones making these sorts of decisions. Despite this, the long term trend with the federal government has been the increased centralization of governmental power. We now suffer the direct consequences of such a failed policy.
 
• Simple Advice for Attorneys and Clients

What is one of the biggest problems facing the modern practice of law? This is a question that every lawyer, whether they have long-established legal practices or are just getting out of law school, needs to ask him or herself. The answer may seem deceptively simple, however, it is just that―deceptively simple. Our legal world is fast changing. But, this is diametrically opposed to the nature of law itself. What I mean is that law is very slow to adapt to rapid changes, but our world is changing at an ever increasing pace. All one has to do to see this is look at the technology field. The Internet, like so many other things, has influenced and forever changed the way we do things.

Through the Internet we have made mass communication cheaper, faster, and more efficient than ever before. Nonetheless, the traditional focus of law itself is nearly medieval in its application and scope. Many smaller jurisdictions are only now beginning to delve into the world of electronic discovery (e-discovery). Some courts are also only now beginning to allow certain legal forms and documents to be faxed into the clerk. What a strange state, in a world where email is king, and text messaging is the new norm for telecommunications. Despite this, it is quite clear that the legal market still has a long way to go before it is able to catch up to the popular culture. By the time it manages to do this, however, pop culture has already left it behind.

So, what to do? The problem sits before us without any signs of dissipating. Truth be told, it shall never dissipate. People hate reading things that merely list out a bulleted list of problems while providing nothing in the form of solutions. The same is true of clients who expect the world from their legal representative. Worse still, these clients expect that their counselor will have an absolute grasp of the law. They have faded and lingering images of Perry Mason in their head. Television has painted the picture of the one-hour legal case and resolution. Of course, such depictions of the law are nothing short of modern fantasy. Using Perry Mason as an example, he is the figurative knight in shining armor, climbing onto his steed and jousting with the District Attorney over rapid moving criminal cases.

What the series doesn’t show is the vast amount of time, effort, and work that actual legal and criminal cases take. That’s understandable, Earl Stanley Gardner, the author and creator of Perry Mason, had spent years practicing law. He hated every moment of it, except for the trial experience. Trial is theater. It is the drama stage upon which lawyers engage in mental combat and war-time strategy. The rest of the legal profession is slogging the way through precedence, research, and mind-numbing reading. If it is boring to a prominent litigant, such as Gardner, it is even more so for the general public.

However, more than anything else, a general lack of understanding or communication with the legal field has led many clients to constructing an unrealistic image of the legal profession. Stated differently, they have painted a different picture from reality. Along with this lofty view of the “most hated profession” comes lofty and unrealistic expectations. Clients feel they have an understanding of the law because they have read legal novels, or seen episodes of Law and Order on television. Yet, reality is nothing like the fiction which, in many cases, is the only experience the general public has with the legal world.

Now, as I stated above, people hate reading things that provide only a bulleted list of problems. Everyone seeks solutions, and it is the job of an attorney to seek the best solutions for their client. That’s an easy recipe. Right? Well, not entirely. As with most things related to the law, solutions are rarely ever something one can merely pluck from the sky. As law is akin to a form of mental combat, it is important for the client to understand that the other side will have representation which diligently works for an equal but opposite reaction. Thus, their legal representative must weigh the facts and realities of the prospective case, in order to determine whether a good outcome is even possible.

Clients don’t understand this. It doesn’t fit into the quaint picture they have developed of the law. And, in this modern age of instant gratification, who can blame them? Therefore, the most important thing that an attorney can do for a client is to explain to them that their case will take a long time. But what in the hell is a long time? Concrete answers aren’t available. A long time means just that. It’s an educated guess as to how long it will take. Many variables come into play. Chief among these are the relative complexities of the case.

For example, a simple case involving a small claim, such as a desk maintained by a landlord in a rent dispute, could be resolved in one week, or one month. The other variables, such as how willing the respective parties are willing to contest the matter come into play. On the opposite end of the spectrum the numbers grow even larger. In complex civil litigation, or even in something as high-impact (emotionally any way) as a murder trial, one can expect the case to last months, years, or even decades. There’s no way around this. It’s the nature of the beast.

Thus, an attorney must paint this picture in no uncertain terms to their clients. The second thing any attorney worth their salt must do is to frequently remind their clients of this undeniable truth. The client will demand rapid-fire responses. Yet, if an attorney were to acquiesce without any further thought...the results would be disastrous for that client. It requires more than knee-jerk reactions. As a result, the client will need to be coached and re-coached about the reality of not only their case, but also the nature of the legal profession.

What it all boils down to is effective communication. Lawyers must be masters of short, concise, and well-meaning communication. If you look at the number one complaint clients have with regard to their legal representation, it almost always boils down to lack of communication. The same is true for most of the successful disciplinary actions against attorneys by their bar associations. It’s understandable for attorneys to let this slip. Many clients are hostile, and force their unrealistic expectations upon the lawyers. Worse yet, when it comes time to pay their legal fees, they begin to feel that the attorney hasn’t done an adequate enough job to warrant the staggering expenses. Be that as it may, the lawyer has still expended valuable time to the case, and cannot work for free.

Thus, the best advice that any attorney, no matter how long they have been in practice, can receive is: take the extra step to communicate with your clients at regular intervals. On top of that, the attorney should be willing to eat the expenses for this. Clients hate being charged for mere status updates on their cases. And, in the current legal market, they are willing to move on leaving the attorney with nothing. Life ain’t fair, so to say. But, no one ever said a damn thing about it being fair. Don’t wallow in self pity. Take the extra step and ensure that the client is pleased with your results. Once your reputation for fine work is established, the client will be all the more willing to pay your legal fees.
 
The Internet has changed. It has changed in such drastic ways, that the Internet of yesteryear wouldn't be recognizable to modern users. Coupled with changing technology, is the fact that the Internet culture has vastly changed as well. What I mean is, the purposes for which people go online, and the sort of entertainment that they sought has changed entirely.

In the early days of online interaction, going online was something of an adventure. One was forced to sit before an Internet Service Provider (ISP) dial up screen, waiting for the key and globe to unite, so that your little window into the exciting world beyond could be opened. Unlike today, the Internet didn't follow you every where you go. Cellphones were just phones that could travel. Thus, the only option most people had for connecting to the Internet was through their clunky, expensive, and slow desktop towers.

Looking through a large CRT monitor, one could see a new world that was otherwise unavailable. This meant allot to a young thirteen-year-old stuck in a small town without much to do. Sure I had friends, but my difficulties in school meant that I hardly had enough time to spend with them, when I was much more focused on surviving the academic endeavors before me. For me, those were some of the hardest days of my life. (Though not at age thirteen. My real troubles didn't truly start until I hit high school).

At that time I was a lonely adolescent boy. The touch of women was something I both longed for, but feared. Through the Internet, I was able to alleviate some of the concerns that I had. Chat rooms offered real-time interaction with people of similar interests and talents. All of the sudden, I discovered that I wasn't the only person out there, who longed for more meaningful relationships. Now, some fifteen-years later, It's hard to fathom that the Internet has changed so drastically.

In the late Nineties, people ventured to the Internet in order to shed their true identity. These same people, myself included, discarded their in real life (IRL) persona, donning an alter ego. Said alter ego protected us from the deluge of the real world. It allowed us to open the taps of creativity without any second thought as to potential repercussions. As of 2013, everyone is concerned with the fact that the government and private companies are tracking our very lives through the Internet.

To me, this is some strange paradox. It's completely contradictory to the experiences I recall from a decade-and-a-half ago. Part of me longs for the simplicity of Web 1.0 (as they call the early Internet experience now), and the sense of anonymity that it gave me. I guess I finally understand how the Mountain Men must have felt, witnessing their culture die as the east moved west, taming the land in the process. It must have been a mixture of pride and absolute sorrow. On the one hand, they could hold themselves with pride, having paved the path for civilization. While, on the other hand, this must have been coupled with great remorse and regret; because they had ended the very life and tradition that they had grown to know and love. Stated more simply still, they lost the very freedom and independence they left society to gain in the first place.

So too, do the early pioneers of the mainstream Internet revolution feel the same. I preface my early days on the Internet with "mainstream", because I am not one of the true pioneers. Those brave souls, the real path finders of communication started their journey more than a decade before I stumbled onto the net. My first forray into the Internet occurred sometime in 1991 or 1992. Father had purchased some strange "IBM clone" (Since nearly all PC's other than Apple Macintosh, were called IBM's back then). Indeed, the machine even had a sticker which proclaimed that it was a "PC Brand" computer. Along with this beige box, with it's thirteen-inch CRT monitor, and Windows 3.1, came a strange floppy. This disk boasted a red label with a yellow key and globe behind the much larger key. Emblazoned above that, in bold black letters was, "AOL 1.0".

Being a six-year-old, snot-nosed brat at the time, I was curious as to what this meant. I had seen computers before. After all, my first computer was a second-hand Apple II GS. It didn't have a hard drive, couldn't connect to the Internet, and was really only good for playing the very early version of Oregon Trail. The memory of the first time I heard the siren's song of a dial-up modem connecting to the Internet, still reverberates through my head to this day. This strange chirping sound was all part of the sense of adventure that the modern Internet has lost. Today, it's so mundane, there's no magical sound whisking you away to some distant adventure.

Now, you just look at the palm of your hand, and your smart phone has all the information that we had to wait for. But, there's something more to it. A sense of freedom, now lost. I suppose what I'm getting at is that, at the time at least, the Internet served as an escape. Today, people say that they need to disconnect to "escape from the Internet". How strange, it is the complete and polar opposite of how things were back then. Moreover, I think that this complete reversal of attitudes will only continue.

Just yesterday, I saw a commercial from Chevrolet, talking about how most of their vehicles would now include a service for 4g wifi. In other words, their cars would be wireless hot spots, providing Internet where ever one drives. The idea would have enthralled the younger me. Such possibility, such hope. But, as the Internet has become less about creativity, and more about the mundane and every day; that sense of excitement just isn't there anymore. I don't venture online to meet new people anymore. There really aren't that many avenues to do so either. Chat rooms are gone, and chat rooms provided the best medium for expanding one's horizons with respect to meeting new people, at least.

Perhaps I'm looking back with the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia. But, I do sense that, like individuals do, the Internet has lost some of its innocence. In its stead, we face the ugly truth of reality. Yet, it isn't all bad either. Our lives have been enriched by this "information super highway". It has opened the doors to products and cultures that we would otherwise never have experienced. In that sense, it excites the imagination, and allows us to share our thoughts and ideas in exciting, rapid, and liberating ways. Nevertheless, it continues to change, and I consider myself fortunate to have experienced its earliest days.
 
Ebola is a significant problem for the United States. It is a disease with no known cure, a lengthy incubation period, and is highly contagious. Medical personnel are exposed to increased risks, and governmental guidelines have proven inadequate. To make matters worse, the disease has a tendency to evolve on a regular basis. As a result, treating the disease has been all but impossible. Thus, now that Ebola has arrived on American shores, it is understandable that a sense of unease has gripped the people.

America has never been exposed to the disease before this year. Ebola was first discovered in Africa in the 1970's. The disease has been concentrated in that area ever since. Earlier this year, west Africa suffered the worst outbreak of Ebola in history. The disease overpowered the rudimentary health care systems in the nations hardest hit by the disease, and has led to a sense of panic in most of those nations. On top of these concerns, the World Health Organization has warned that by the end of this year, more than 10,000 cases will arise per month. This frightful statistic clearly demonstrates just how contagious this disease really is. At the beginning of this month, the first case of Ebola, in America was recorded in Dallas Texas. The patient suffering from the disease had not been honest with nurses, when he reported to Texas Presbyterian Hospital with symptoms of Ebola.

Consequently, our preparedness for it has been lax. However, logistical concerns hampered the proper diagnosis of the disease as well. Texas Presbyterian utilizes electronic medical records. While this new system of patient health data was designed to improve the treatment process, many aspects of the system have proven woefully inadequate. For instance, physicians at the hospital were unable to access the nurses notes. Consequently, important information regarding the patient's medical history were unavailable to the treating physicians. That, in turn, led to a misdiagnosis of the patient's condition.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provided guidelines, but they proved inadequate. Indeed, the guidelines for protective suits were not enough to prevent treating nurses from catching the disease. Adding to the general confusion concerning this problem, were several missteps provided by the CDC. One of the nurses, who had been treating the patient in question, started suffering from a low-grade fever. She was planning to visit family in Ohio. She called the CDC and explained the situation, asking whether it was safe for her to make the flight. They gave her the green light, and once she was diagnosed with the disease, a new wave of panic gripped the nation.

Now, in the face of such a horrible disease, our medical personnel have been left scrambling for a solution to a disease which has no full cure. This is reflected in the knee-jerk reaction to the disease in the North East. A physician from the group, Doctors Without Borders, had been using public transportation, and engaging in public functions, the night before he was diagnosed with the disease. New York, New Jersey, and Chicago beefed up their Ebola quarantine policies.

These developments have led to their own problems. Katie Hicox, a nurse who traveled to Africa to battle Ebola, was quarantined upon her return to the United States. Authorities held her up at customs for more than three hours. They interrogated her like a common criminal, denied her food or water. After berating her for such an extent of time, they took her temperature with a forehead scanner. She recorded a temperature of 99 degrees Fahrenheit. This caused the officials to race her to the hospital, detain her in an isolation unit, and deny her contact with anyone. All of this occurred, despite her second temperature reading being a normal 98.6 degrees Farenheit.

Ms. Hicox demanded to speak with an attorney, and be able to tell her family that she was okay. Initially, these things were denied her. However, on the second day, authorities allowed her to have a laptop with wireless Internet connection. The nurse claimed that she felt like her Constitutional rights had been denied her. She also procured an Attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. Her attorney said that the case presents significant civil liberties concerns, and that they may initiate a lawsuit.

While there is a push to send more health care workers to Africa to treat the disease, these attempts have been cited as creating a chilling effect on any health workers considering the dangerous job. Ms. Hicox warned that such rough treatment by governmental authorities will cause workers to rethink plans of traveling to the region to fight the disease. It has also lead to a schism between State and Federal governments. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, remained unapologetic for the stricter quarantine penalties. He claimed that she had shown signs of a fever, and that he was not going to take chances with the health and safety of his constituents. Despite his bold proclamations, Nurse Hicox was released as of yesterday, Monday, October 27, 2014.

We still have a long way to go, but as long as we maintain the balance between public safety and civil liberties, then we can overcome the epidemic which threatens our country. It is important that we approach this problem with common sense procedures, otherwise we risk making a bad problem significantly worse.
 
And so we begin the march towards the end of another year. Time seems to fly more rapidly with each passing year. And of course, we've come to another election year.

That means that all of the politicians are coming forward with sensationalized claims, without any basis in reality. And, all for what? Continuing the status quo which hasn't done a damp bit of good for anybody? Well that's what politics has been about since it started. We crawled out of some worthless cave somewhere, and thought that we had to seduce our neighbors into giving us their stuff.

Thus, if you think about it, politics is like a game of diplomatic theft. We hoodwink one another in a made up charade of civility and culture. Does man care about his neighbor? Only in as much as he can seek to benefit from his neighbor. That's not necessarily a bad thing. But, it is a rather bleak view of human cukture.

It's one I hope that can change. Yet, when looking at the way things have gone in this election cycle, I cannot hold out much hope for the positive changes that I seek. Still, after this Tuesday, the cycle ends, and the next, even more annoying cycle--presidential election--starts anew. So, I suppose that is a small reason to celebrate. We'll see if things change, though I highly doubt it.
 
Inciting violence in Ferguson?

The Story


If what this article reports is true, then Michael Brown’s stepfather needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. While the untimely death of the unarmed eighteen-year-old black youth is unquestioningly tragic, it is no excuse to incite or condone lawless acts of violence and destruction. After all, the victims of looting and vandalism were not responsible for Brown’s death. They are just as entitled to seek a peaceful life as Mr. Brown was.

While the protesters and Brown’s stepfather disagree with the decision not to indict officer Darren Wilson, America is a nation of laws. Every man and woman, irrespective of race, is entitled to procedural Due Process under the law. In potential felony cases, that means that the accused must first be indicted by a grand jury of his or her peers. The grand jury system, just as any other legal process, has its flaws, but such flaws assist the prosecutor bringing the charges.

For instance, the grand jury proceedings are conducted in secret. That means: (1) presence of the accused is not required; (2) Counsel for the accused is not allowed to speak, unless invited to do so by the grand jury; and, (3) the accused is not allowed to argue his or her side of the case or present evidence. Thus, only the prosecutor is allowed to present his or her version of the case, supported only by his or her evidence. For that very reason, it is claimed that a grand jury would “indict a ham sandwich”.

The purpose of an indictment is to show that there is sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. Probable cause means that, pursuant to the evidence, it is more likely than not, that the accused committed a criminal act. If a majority of the grand jurors determines the evidence is insufficient to establish probable cause, the law dictates that the charges be dropped. In the case of Officer Wilson, the grand jury determined there was insufficient evidence to establish probable cause. They carried out their duty, and refused to indict the officer.

This is the same process any one of us would face, if brought up on felony charges. None of us could present our own evidence before the grand jury. Likewise, each of us could be summoned to present testimony, which could be used to indict us. So, as flawed as the grand jury system is, everyone faces an equal chance of being indicted based on the prosecutor’s evidence.

In the era of Jim Crow, the system was rigged. Blacks were not allowed to sit on the grand jury, and evidence was frequently ignored. That era tarnished the reputation of the justice system, and is a black mark on American History. Despite this, significant advances in race relations have occurred since the Civil Rights movement. Blacks are no longer barred from grand juries, or juries in general. Indeed, challenging a juror on the basis of race alone, is strictly prohibited.

Therefore, in light of the significant gains made in race relations, Brown’s stepfather’s cry of, “burn the bitch down”, is appalling. He invited the rioters to engage in unlawful acts of violence. People were harmed as a direct consequence of this incitement to violence. Several local businesses were vandalized and burnt to the ground. An owner of a small cake shop burst into tears when she learned that her shop had been attacked. She wondered how she would be able to earn enough money to place food on the table for her children. See this and this. None of these people deserved to be wantonly attacked like that. And, those who encouraged and engaged in such acts should be held fully accountable.

Pursuant to Missouri Revised Statutes § 574.115: It is a class C felony for a person to make a terrorist threat to cause an incident or condition involving danger to life...with criminal negligence regarding the risk of causing the evacuation, quarantine or closure of any portion of a building, inhabitable structure, place of assembly or facility of transportation.

Clearly, the stepfather’s threat resulted in the closure of buildings and streets. As a felony charge, he should be subjected to the same grand jury process as Officer Wilson. That would further demonstrate the unbiased application of the law. His reckless conduct encouraged the horrific acts of violence and destruction that tore through Ferguson last night. And, people, like the small cake shop owner, needlessly suffered as a result.

It is understandable for a person to grieve. However, Brown’s stepfather understood the risk of violence that his words might unleash. After all, Ferguson was subjected to wide-spread violence in the wake of his stepson’s shooting back in August. For months, the town had been engrossed in extreme tension, and now more lives have been shattered from needless violence.

No one is above the law. And everyone should be treated equally under the law. That is why, if the statements are true, this man should face felony charges. We cannot make exceptions. Lives were lost and put in danger as a result of this conduct.
 
In Rebuttal of Time's article defending the riots in Ferguson.

http://time.com/3605606/ferguson-in-defense-of-rioting/

The author of this article defends the violent looting and destruction of private businesses, in the wake of the grand jury decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson. She attempts to compare it to the Boston Tea-party of 1773. Furthermore, she claims that peaceful protest is a luxury only afforded to accepted classes of mainstream culture.

In addition, the author claims that White people are racist because they are not Black and couldn’t possibly begin to understand the motivations of the Black community. I suppose her contentions may hold some merit. Nevertheless, I’m compelled to rebut them.

I’ll start with her comparison of the Ferguson riots to the Boston Tea-party. Yes, the Tea-party involved the destruction of valuable property. However, said property came from outside the local community and was supplied by a company funded by the British government. In Ferguson, many of the rioters are from outside communities, and those who aren’t, are willingly destroying their own community. That’s a far cry from what the participants in the Boston Tea-party did. The local businesses targeted by wanton acts of violence and destruction weren’t funded by a government across the ocean. Their functions and services are not directly tied to the source of the rioter’s anger―the grand jury process and decision. Whereas, the Colonists destroyed the tea, as it was directly related to a tax which had been designed, in part, to fund the government subsidized company.

Therefore, the current rioting in Ferguson cannot be justified on similar terms as the Boston Tea-party. The author’s mention of the violence of the Revolutionary War doesn’t apply in this case either. That’s because the Revolution was an actual war, supported by the Declaration of Independence. Thus, that lends no credence to the violent and destructive behavior of the rioters.

With respect to her claim that peaceful protest is a luxury only available to members of the mainstream society...with all due respect, such a claim is ludicrous. Firstly, Blacks are part of mainstream society. We have Black congressmen and women, a Black Supreme Court justice, a Black Attorney General, and a Black President. That seems pretty “mainstream” to me. Secondly, Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi weren’t part of the mainstream society. And yet the cornerstone of their movements was peaceful protest.

Thus, the author’s claim that peaceful protest is a luxury afforded only to allegedly accepted classes is invalid on its face. If Gandhi and King could orchestrate change via non-violence, then why can’t the demonstrators in Ferguson and cities around the country do the same? That leads me to her next argument.

This argument, that Whites and Blacks are inherently racist due to White and Black privilege, seems to institutionalize racism. It is true, as a White, I’ll never understand what it’s like being Black in America, nor would a Black person ever understand what it’s like being White in America. I concede that, however, the argument is irrelevant. Black or White, we have to coexist. Therefore, rioting, vandalizing and destroying our commonly shared communities harms us all, irrespective of race.

Peaceful protest is not a luxury. It’s a mandate to preserve our shared communities. Violence serves to separate. That’s why the Revolutionary War was violent. America separated herself from Britain. Rioting in response to a process equally applicable to us all, and destruction of our own communities also seeks to separate. But, it does not serve justice. There is no justice in harming your own community. There’s only pain and tragedy.
 
If there's one thing about the law that many outsiders find frustrating, it's that the purpose of law seems befuddled in the modern system. This is seen when people find themselves disagreeing with an important and/or controversial decision that's been handed down by the court system. I've heard my fair share of "Well, what's the point of having a court system then...if there's no justice?"

It's an understandable question. Indeed, the frustration that people feel with the system makes sense as well. There's a disconnect somewhere in there, and people really aren't sure what it is. In order to answer this, it's important to take a step back and examine the legal system from a distance. While I know it is never easy or even possible to completely examine the court system in a detached manner, eliminating all emotional connections or conceptions about it, nevertheless, I'm going to attempt to do just that.

Today, the court system has become more of a "get-rich-quick" scheme. Far too often it's abused in the civil sector by plaintiffs who think that they have found their way to fortune. On the flip side of this, there are greedy plaintiff's attorneys who see abusing the system as the surest ticket to a Ferrari and a different hooker on their arm each night. It's a sexy...if not disturbing image. Nevertheless, these are the sorts of impressions that many are left with, when evaluating the court system.

On the criminal side, you have well-meaning, underpaid, slightly naive public defenders, or private attorneys who are appointed by the court to defend indigent persons accused of committing a crime. (I fall into this category). Then you have the prosecutor who has aspirations on higher office. This is the man or woman who will make up whatever facts are necessary to make themselves shine for the electorate. Fantastic, this too creates a rather unsavory image of the court system. And, if we look at it this way, the system has earned the rather dubious reputation that it has. However, I think there's a deeper element to it. Perhaps, one might call it a theoretical perfect perception of what the legal system is.

Why do we have a court system? The question seems silly, at least at first glance. However, dig deeper, and some of the realities about the court system shine through. We have a court system as a safety valve for society. It's adversarial in nature. The whole purpose of law is "conflict". That's right, law is conflict, and the purpose of courts is to prevent disputes from turning into blood feuds or armed conflict.

In a very real sense, your attorney is a paid mercenary. You pay us to take up your case, present your facts to the judge and jury, in the best light possible for you. Does that mean that we lie for you? Not really, it means we fight on your behalf. The courtroom is a jousting stadium. Two selected warriors move to the arena, and engage in a mental battle to the death. Ever wonder why the term "Esquire", though haughty it may be, is affixed to a lawyer's name?

It has its roots in the feudal system. Shire courts were the courts of knights and vassals. A knight would select one of his squires to serve as his representative in legal disputes between other landed gentry. Thus, the resolution came to his squires. After which, the two parties most likely went to a pub and drank themselves into a stupor. Hell, that pretty much sounds like how the modern legal system works. Nevertheless, the martial component of law was very real.

It's adversarial because conflict is needed to root out the truth. As a partisan, a lawyer can only present facts (or colored facts). It's up to the fact finder to determine or discover the truth. Usually the fact finder is a jury. However, a judge may also serve the role as "fact finder". Either way, it is important to remember that the lawyer represents a party, they do not represent the truth.

Conflict...that word is so central to the legal system. But, wouldn't conflict be considered something less than desirable...or, as an evil? It could be viewed that way. Yet, conflict, in and of itself, is neither good nor evil. It serves a purpose. It's the grindstone upon which we develop improvement. In the case of a legal matter, it is the well-regulated application of conflict to resolve a dispute, without it boiling over into actual armed conflict.

Regulated conflict can be good. Uncontrolled conflict, on the other hand, leads to undesirable results. Uncontrolled conflict is pure rioting. That's what we have seen in the wake of the Ferguson grand jury decision. It's a clear demonstration that a certain portion of the population is dissatisfied with the legal system.

I won't begrudge them of this. It is true that the legal system is far from perfect, and it's also true that the court system gets it wrong all too often. Yet, by the same token, engaging in uncontrolled conflict tarnishes the meaning of the court system. It makes it devoid of its true purpose. And, yet again, that true purpose has been lost over time, as the system has hoisted itself onto some unobtainable pedestal of self-importance.

We should never view the courts as something grand or lofty. Yet, the courts view themselves in such a manner. Rather, the courts should be viewed as what they really are...a last resort, designed to prevent open hostilities. It was never intended to be a get rich quick scheme, or some lofty ideal of perfection. It is muddy, dirty, disgusting, and it is adversarial. As long as humanity continues to find ways to despise each other, and as long as we covet what others have...or act in criminal ways...there will be a need for the muck of our court system.

That's just the way it is. That aspect of it shall never change, for if it did, we would lose all order within society. Which brings up that oft-times misquoted phrase from Shakespeare...



All:
God save your majesty!

Cade:
I thank you, good people—there shall be no money; all shall eat
and drink on my score, and I will apparel them all in one livery,
that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.

Dick:
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Cade:
Nay, that I mean to do.

Henry VI, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78

What does that line really mean...the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers? Well, It's important to remember that the play is about the War of the Roses. Each faction looking to destabilize the other faction's government. What better way to destabilize a government than by removing all order? Well, how does one go about removing order in society? Kill the lawyers, destroy the legal system. You thereby remove the safety valve that keeps the people somewhat satisfied and placated.

Thus, if you remove the safety valve, the people's anger grows. When their anger grows, and disputes remain unresolved, then said disputes are resolved with violence. That really is a stark, unromantic view of what the system is. Sure, it's not a pretty outlook...but, there is meaning in the role that the courts play for any society. We just don't look at it that way very often. Nonetheless, that's its true purpose, as clear as day.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom