A collections of my popular ramblings concerning the law, Natural Law, and political issues. Enjoy!

Hades’s Deposition

27 Wednesday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, Other Columns

≈ Comments Off on Hades’s Deposition

Tags

Atlanta, attorneys, civil litigation, clients, deposition, discovery, experts, green space chickens, scotch

A long time ago I participated in a complex civil litigation case which involved a construction project gone wrong. The details do not really matter. I represented the plaintiff in the matter. The case was difficult enough but my client’s expert’s deposition added a new level of complexity I had not contemplated.

Depositions are factual statements taken under oath as part of the discovery/information process. It’s a preview of the other side’s cross-examination of a witness at trial. There are several reasons to depose a witness: first, it provides a oppourtunity to confirm what you know about a case; second, it gives you an idea of what the other side knows and if there any problems on the horizon; third, it sometimes provides a chance to settle a case without further expense. The other side in this case had to depose our expert in order to assess where we all stood, pre-trial.

This particular case was very fact intensive with reports, statements, and other information in great quantity. We had to associate an expert to evaluate all of the facts and condense them into a citable report. The expert hired was a tier one professional who did not come cheap. He spent days reviewing material and preparing his summary. He also generated many questions, all important to our legal position. These questions necessitated the client’s active participation in their answering. For several months the expert requested this participation and was largely rebuffed. The client was not unwilling to help rather, he always seemed to drift to other subjects and find excuses for delaying his responses. We scheduled several (expensive) all day meetings intended to get the client on the same page with the expert. The meetings never answered some questions.

Thus, the expert was left to guess at some factors and to do his best to assess the facts on his own. He did a great job overall. His report served as an excellent basis to proceed in the case. At his deposition, he defended his positions with great skill, confident his findings supported the plaintiff’s position.

My role was to “defend” the expert during the deposition. The other side was represented by two attorneys who both took active roles in the examination. These gentlemen were extremely professional and the expert was not at his first rodeo. Thus, my job should have been fairly simple. In such sessions the defending attorney usually requests question clarification when necessary and objects for the record if some questions over-reach the allowable scope of discovery. The questions may still be asked and answered, the objections take effect if called for later at trial.

Out of professional courtesy, everyone agreed to depose the expert at his metro-Atlanta office, several hours away from mine. I arrived extra early to confer with the man and plan for any expected troubles. We had a good meeting and agreed things looked pretty good. The client was supposed to meet with us in a last-ditch effort to reveal misplaced information. He showed up with little time to spare, along with the other attorneys and the court reporter.

The opposing side had read and were familiar with our expert’s preliminary report. Their questions were efficient and run of the mill. However, my client began at once to exhibit overly odd behavior. He was restless, talked to himself, talked to me (interrupting my train of thought), and interfered with the questioning to the point that I politely requested a break to speak with him in private. He then agreed to calm down.

It did not last. After interrupting several more times, the questioning attorney directed his attention to my client’s disruption. I once again took him aside for a talk. It did not take this time. The client seemed concerned that the expert was not answering certain questions sufficiently as those questions required the information the client was supposed to deliver to the expert but never did. He was suddenly concerned that the expert did not have all facts. I reassured him things were going well and asked if he had the additional information, even at the late hour. He did not. I cautioned him not to interrupt again and back we went.

Then, during the ordinary course of the questioning, the client went berserk. He began to only talk (about the questions and other things). He snatched my note pad and began writing me cryptic notes I did not understand. I ignored him at this point. Then he began to pace around the room like a tiger in a cage. He stopped and talked behind the expert. He looked over the other attorneys while they spoke. He talked to the court reported. I felt a little sick.

At some point one of the opposing lawyers requested a break so I could attempt to regain control of my client. I should have told him to leave or threatened to quite myself. Instead, I pleaded with him to keep from getting himself held in contempt or somethingfor interference.

We resumed after lunch and went on for the rest of the afternoon. My client at least remained seated for the most part but he was of no help to me whatsoever. Usually, a lawyer will ask a present client some questions in order to assist his understanding of the present matter. I knew it was a lost cause. I did request that we have a meeting immediately after the session, a get with Jesus prayer meeting, if you will. He agreed.

However, after the deposition ended the client disappeared. This did give me a few minutes to apologize to the other side and the reporter. I assumed man-tiger had gone to his car for something. I ended up in the expert’s executive office talking about the merits of the matter and the oddity of the day’s event. Neither of us had ever seen anything like it. After about an hour we realized our client had not joined us. I got up and looked for him but found no sign of him in or outside of the office. Honestly, I was a little relieved. However, back in the expert’s office a few minutes later the client called. He reported he was almost back to my office and that he knew where the missing facts were located. I guessed that he did not, in fact, know anything about the facts and that he must be driving over 100 miles per hour.

My partner later reported to me that the client did stop by a little more than one hour after the deposition was finished. He rushed in yelling and frightened several other clients. He ransacked his own files and left muttering to himself. No facts ever came forth.

Around this time the sun was setting and the expert and I were tired, numbed, and hungry. We decided to get dinner and drinks. I called a friend in the area and we all met at a local pub. There I attempted triage of my mind via single-malt scotch. It worked and after sobering up I made the long drive home. By the time I was in the car my brain was dead and I probably would not have passed a road-side sobriety test even if I had not consumed anything. I didn’t care at the time and, fortunately, there was no incident on the highway. I stopped in the office after midnight and wrote myself a memo detailing the unusual circumstances of the day.

I learned several things from this affair. Most importantly, I learned to identify disturbed clients before agreeing to represent them. I also concluded that all clients needed extensive preparation before depositions with adequate warnings about proper conduct. In cases like this one I decided the absence of the client would be in the client’s best interests. I also reflected on the fact that people are not perfect and that patience is a virtue.

In the end, thanks to the expert’s hard work, the deposition was a success for us. I also came away a better attorney. Subsequent depositions, no matter how arduous, didn’t seem that bad by comparison. I hope you learned a little something from this story. Maybe not. Maybe I just needed to vent. Anyway, always follow paid professional advice, keep quiet when necessary, and keep your speed reasonable. My head hurts now…

More Ancient Legal Doctrines of Self-Defense/Preservation

26 Tuesday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

10 Commandments, America, Angles, arms, Assize of Arms, Britain, Catechism, Catholic Church, Cicero, Codex Justianius, Deuteronomy, Digesta, England, Exodus, God, Israel, Jesus Christ, John, King Arthur, King David, King Henry II, King John, kings, law, Leviticus, Lex Talionis, Magna Carta, militia, Natural Law, Normans, Numbers, people, Pilate, Psalms, Romans, Saxons, Second Amendment, self-defense, Smauel, truth, tyranny

This is the second installment in my new series about the Second Amendment, militias, government, and the natural right of self/defense. After a few more segments I’ll get to the American experience. This column is concerned with more ancient sources. Read on.

My last segment concerned the Natural Law and the provisions therein allowing for armed resistance of force and tyranny. For those not acquainted with Natural Law (American attorneys, etc.), it is the universal law instituted by God for the management of human societies. God’s first draft was extraordinarily simple, as He supposed that people would be capable of easily governing themselves in paradise. The law was codified as: “Don’t eat that fruit.” Unfortunately, the first humans were as dense as their descendants today. They ate the fruit and thus complicated our lives forever.

God later attempted to set out ten simple laws He expected us to obey. True to our fallen, fallible, self-determining ways, we messed those up too. After constantly displaying an inability to adhere to the simple, the ancient Hebrews began to demand of God a “modern” system of government for themselves. They seemed jealous of surrounding Peoples who had, among other things, kings. God, in His omnipotence, offered that they Hebrews didn’t really need or want a king. They begged to differ, instituted a king, and began to suffer immediately.

After the failure of the kings, and the subjugation of the people by more powerful earthly empires, God sent His Son in yet another attempt to clarify His law. Jesus, simultaneously ratifying the existing law and providing an alternative route to salvation, issued another simple commandment. We have not been too quick to pick on that one either. Thus, it appears that people are stuck with their worldly trappings and their constant inability to deal honestly ad logically therewith until the Second Coming. Thus, in our present state, and if we are even capable, we must attempt to relate our world to the eternal principles of the Lord. That is Natural Law. Having ignored and broken the concrete mandates given us, we are left to guess at how such Law applies to our civilizations. Unlike the laws of science, math, and physics, which are difficult but possible to extrapolate and apply, the Laws of society are much less definable. This grasping process has been the work of scholars and theologians for millennia.

The Law as applied to self-preservation has been called the first law of nature. This makes sense as, without resorting to keeping ourselves from harm, most of the other “laws” we can divine seem to matter little.

Previously, I examined several Bible verses which supported the right of self-defense and preservation. I also cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the duty (not only the right) to defend oneself and those in one’s charge. This doctrine has existed for thousands of years. We are commanded: “Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.” Psalm 82:4.

King David, definitely not a pacifist, praised God, saying, “Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight.” Psalms 144:1. First Samuel 25:13 described an Israelite muster: “And David said unto his men, Gird ye on every man his sword. And they girded on every man his sword; and David also girded on his sword.” The Israelites were a militia, not a standing army, note that David and every man was equipped with his sword, not a government issue model. Men were expected to report for duty already armed with their own weapons. That means they had to keep and bear those weapons in order to fulfill their duties to their society. This was also the early American situation, as it should be today.

These weapons were and are necessary to preserve freedom in society. Any sane man will pray that he never need use any measure of force in defense however, he should be ready to do so if necessary. The fifth or sixth Commandment (depending on how counted) clearly sets forth God’s intention to preserve life: “Thous shalt not kill.” It is also translated, “Thou shalt not murder.” Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17.

The second translation is a prohibition on illicit killing, the first is a total ban. In a perfect world it would be natural to follow a total ban on killing others made in God’s image. However, as noted above, we have removed ourselves from perfection, be it temporarily. Thus, given where we are, while we should strive for perfection, we may be limited to keeping from unlawful killings.

In Leviticus, it appears that everything carries the death penalty. Many of these provisions have actually been codified into civil law over the ages. I’m not sure if anyone was ever executed for eating a shrimp. However, Leviticus gave us the basis for many capital crimes still such today. Accordingly, killers (murderers) may be executed in contravention of the Lord’s prohibition on killing. Leviticus 24:16-17. Numbers and Deuteronomy give further qualification as to which killings are crimes versus accidents.

Coupled with those passages I cited last time, these dictates seem to logically indicate that force, including lethal force, may be used to repel unjust criminal activities. The attendant duty upon us is to use the least force necessary to accomplish our defense.

Jesus exercised the ultimate restraint, in this regard, while enduring His treatment at the hands of His native detractors and Pilate. Jesus made clear His purpose: “I came into the world…to bear witness to the truth; and all who are on the side of truth listen to my voice.” John 18:38. Demonstrating an eternal human misunderstanding, Pilate replied “What is truth?” His purpose was not to overthrow earthly tyranny, but to provide an eternal alternative. Rather than being an act of non-self-defense, Christ’s actions were the ultimate act of defense of others. This truth may have been lost on one Roman, it was not on all Romans.

American law has been greatly influenced by our colonial past and our origins under the English Constitutional and common law. In turn, English law was dependant on ancient Rome for many of its sources. It must be remembered that the Kingdom of Britain once co-existed with the Eastern Roman Empire. Thus, the legal traditions passed to the Isle of Britannia were those of earlier Roman glory – from the Republic and the earlier Western Empire. From the founding of Rome until the time of Cicero, Roman laws were largely unwritten, even the Constitution. Codification cam much later, under Justinian. The Codex Justianius was issued in 529 A.D., five decades after the fall of the West. The Digesta of ancient law was written soon thereafter. Thus, began our tradition of dual sources of law – statutes and case-law.

(Justinian. Google.)

I previously cited to the Codex for its express allowance of the use of armed force to deter attack, by private parties and government agents. This dual provision is tremendous as it presupposed that no-one is above the law and that even government force may be repelled when illegitimate. Increasingly in America, the government takes the opposite position – that it is infallible and may not be resisted, even when tyrannical. This is nonsense and may be disregarded as such.

In the next installment I will delve into the English tradition regarding arms and defense. This tradition slowly coalesced into the modern theory of the militia being comprised of armed individual men. Here, I will briefly note some of the long-standing traditions concerning arms in the British Isles before the rise of the common law and the Magna Carta.

“England” has been populated by various peoples probably for about 10,000 years. The earliest peoples there were organized along the lines of families and tribes, each with its own society and rules. It is obvious that most of these people were armed as they were constantly at war with one another and with the occasional outsider. It is clear as mud as to what extent they retained formal doctrines regarding rights, arms, militia duties, etc. “Self” defense often involved the entire tribe and was given to degenerating into all out war. We could assign the Lex Talionis “the law of revenge” or the “law of the jungle” as the chief governing principle of these early Britons.

As the centuries B.C. counted down, civilization and order began to grow in the Isles. Legend has it that King Arthur was able to unite most of the peoples of lower England under his banner. Whether he pulled a sword out of a stone is another matter but it seems that by his time (7th Century B.C.) swords were common among the people, both for use defensively and for militia service.

Thus, when the Romans arrived in 43 B.C., they found a fierce and well armed people, not at all amenable to taming. Four centuries of Roman occupation saw many changes in English life, including the ordering of the militias more along the lines of precise Legionary lines. This, civil and engineering upgrades, and Christianity generally served to the benefit of the people, then and following the Roman’s departure.

Following the Romans, came the Angles, the Saxons, and eventually the Normans, each of whom introduced new character to England. By at least the Twelfth Century England had evolved into a nation-state, not entire undistinguishable from its present form. Then, standing armies were rare and the kings relied upon their subjects to form militias during times of needs. Accordingly, free-men were expected, even ordered to keep arms for their and the common defense. Assize of Arms, Henry II (1181).

King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215 which, in Section 61, provided for armed rebellion of sorts (lead by the nobility) in the event the Crown became tyrannical. This process, of course, necessitated the continued institution of armed citizens.

(Magna Carta Memorial, Runnymede, England. Google.)

Next time, I will move forward in history and begin covering more modern English sources concerning the people, their rights, especially concerning arms and defense. This will serve as a prelude to the customs of those English persons who colonized America, carrying the ancient traditions with them.

Natural Origins of Self-Defense

21 Thursday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

10 Commandments, 11th Commandment, aggressor, American, Aristotle, banksters, Bible, Catechism, Catholic Church, Cato, Christ, Christians, Chuck Baldwin, Cicero, civil government, Codex Justinianus, Confucius, Constitution, criminal, David Kopel, Declaration of Human Rights, Declaration of Independence, duty, Eastern, Exodus, God, government, Hitler, Hobbes, Jesus, John, John Locke, justice, King George III, law, leviathan, Liberty, man, Matthew, Michael Grant, money-lenders, murder, Natural Law, Nicomachean Ethics, NRA, On Duties, oppression, Paul, Peter, Plato, political science, political theory, Pope John Paul II, Proverbs, religion, rights, Roman Empire, Roman Law, Roman Republic, Romans, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Second Amendment, self-defense, society, Summa Theologica, sword, The People, The Republic, Timothy, tyranny, U.N., victim, vigilante, weapons, Western

This is the first in a new series, an expansion of my both my Natural Law column and Second Amendment and related columns. Here, I briefly examine the ancient and eternal theories behind the basic rights which gave rise to the doctrine enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Legal practitioners and law and political science scholars, along with the general public, many politicians, and the media, often make the common mistake of looking only to the text of the Constitution (State or federal) or recent court cases in order to gain perspective into the meaning and/or application of the Second Amendment (and related State protections). While government protection of our rights is vital (the only reason for government), rights do not come from government.

My examination here is theoretic in nature and, thus, seeks out existential sources which provide both definition and supporting argumentative and empirical evidence which are fixed throughout history and across all geographic areas. Of course, as my ultimate view is towards the American experience, I will pay closer attention to sources from Western civilization.

The Bible is replete with approval of self-defense. “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” 1 Timothy 5:8. This would seem to encompass the responsibility to keep one’s family safe to the extent possible. “If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.” Exodus 22:2-3. This provision is the basis for the common-law doctrine against burglary, originally extended to night-time attacks. The matter of daylight adds an interesting perspective. Again, this passage addresses a thief, not a would-be murderer of rapist. It is divine commentary on the value of human life over mere possessions when an opportunity exists to examine the intent of a criminal. While it is not a prohibition against using force to deter a thief, the provision indicates the Lord’s wish that force not exceed the attendant circumstantial need.

Paul continues this theme of limited aggression in Romans 12:19: “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'” Again, God does not seem opposed to immediate use of force to deter violence but, once danger has passed, he commands that we leave judgment to him. This is backed by the Old Testament: “Do not say, ‘I will repay evil’; wait for the Lord, and he will deliver you.” Proverbs 20:22. Again, for Christians, after the fact of a crime, the matter is God’s to handle. This is the basis for a general prohibition against vigilante justice.

In Romans 13, often mis-cited as a justification for any and all government action being divine, Paul extolls the virtues of political agencies instituted in God’s Name. When such an entity exists, then it has God’s authority to pursue prosecution of criminal matters. I refuse to accept that this concept applies to all governments – I doubt God approved of Hitler’s action, for instance. Rev. Chuck Baldwin, http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/, has extensively commented on this subject – http://www.romans13truth.com/.

Jesus Christ, himself, tacitly endorsed armed defense: “And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.” Luke 22:36. I say “tacitly” because of the caveats Jesus placed on the use of force, essentially limiting it to only urgent circumstances. Christ urged us to “turn the other cheek” when possible. Matthew 5:39. He also admonished Peter to sheath his sword while repairing the injure Peter had inflicted with his sword. John 18:11. Jesus, while defending the 10 Commandments, issued an 11th: “love one another.” John 13:34. The Son’s words places strict constraints on the Father’s allowance of the use of force. It does not foreclose the concept.

(The ultimate Defender. Google.)

Jesus only once resorted to the use of force, personally. When He discovered the money-changers (the banksters of their time) abusing the Holiness of the Temple, Jesus violently drove them away. John 2:15. This underscores the possibility of defense as an immediate solution, without resort to formal authority or the eventual actions of the Lord. The Church has formally detailed both the right to such defense as well as the moral duty of such action in need. “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.” Catechism of the Catholic Church (“CCC”): 2265 (emphasis added)(see also CCC: 1909).

The Church also commands dignity be afforded to the human body, generally: “This dignity entails the demand that he should treat with respect his own body, but also the body of every other person, especially the suffering” CCC: 1004. While this backs the general prohibition against unlawfully harming others, it also reminds the Believer to respect even his enemy and attempt to limit his forcible response to criminal activity as far as possible to minimize harm.

“… [I]n the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’ (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self.” Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangeliun Vitae (The Gospel of Life), 1995.

The eminent scholar, David Kopel, has documented the general agreement among Eastern Religions along these ideas. In his review of Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism, Kopel explodes common myths that these religions do not allow for proper use of self-defense. David B. Kopel. “Self-Defense in Asian Religions” Liberty Law Review 2 (2007): 79, 80-81 (http://works.bepress.com/david_kopel/20).

Kopel’s expose is excellent. He also touches on the Eastern version of Baldwin’s critique of Romans 13: “Although Confucianism, like most other religions, has been used by tyrants to claim that revolution is immoral, Confucius himself ordered a revolution against an oppressive regime.” Id, at 163. Only the “religion” of the State would decree that the government is above the Natural Law.

Commenting on Exudus 2, above, Saint Thomas Aquinas said, “it is much more lawful to defend one’s life than one’s house. Therefore neither is a man guilty of murder if he kills another in defense of his own life.” Aquinas, Summa Theologica.

“If a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists, ‘it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.’ Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s life than of another’s.” Id.

Plato noted that when one acts in true self-defense, taken as a natural right, one may actually do the criminal perpetrator (in addition to the victim and society) a service: if the criminal survives, he may reflect on his wrongdoing positively. Plato, The Republic, The Problem of Justice. Plato’s great student, Aristotle, agreed. Aristotle noted that a true case of self-defense is not necessarily a voluntary action. Thus, any suffering from the act of defense may be attributed to the aggressor and not the defender. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.

The possession of weapons and their defensive usage, though regulated, was allowed in both the Roman Republic and the Empire. “We grant to all persons the unrestricted power to defend themselves, so that it is proper to subject anyone, whether a private person or a solider … to immediate punishment in accordance with the authority granted to all [up to, and including, death, if warranted].” Codex Justinianus 3.27.1. The Romans regarded the right to use weaponry in defense as implicit to the right itself.

The mighty Cicero opined: “There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.” Cicero, “In Defence of Titus Annus Milo,” Selected Speeches of Cicero, Michael Grant translation, 1969. Again, the esteemed David Kopel gives excellent analysis to this ancient Natural Law position in The Sword and the Tome, America’s 1st Freedom, NRA, 2009.

Cicero’s titanic predecessor, the black-robed Cato, made an interesting analogy along the lines of Jesus’s act of retribution noted above (as noted by Cicero himself): Cato was asked by an ambitious Roman, “What is the most profitable about property?” Cato answered, “To raise cattle with great success.” The young man then asked, “What is the second most profitable?” Cato answered, “Raising cattle with moderate success.” The inquirer pressed again, “The third most profitable?” “Raising cattle with little success.” Finally, the young man cut to his presupposed profession, “How about money-lending?” Cato answered (somewhat in advance of Jesus), “How about murder?” Cicero, On Duties.

I by no means equate money-lending or banking with murder but it appears the subject was considered by multiple ancient sources. It seems the evil of the banksters in as eternal as natural law. Defense against the predation of this wicked class may be something to consider.

Later political theorists expounded the virtue and necessity of self-defense. John Locke described self-defense as the first among Natural Rights. Locke, Second Essay on Civil Government. Hobbes concurred in this assertion, regardless of the state of any society. Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651. Even the craven and generally useless United Nations begrudgingly attempted to acknowledge this fundamental truth: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” Universal Declaration of Human Rights, U.N. General Assembly, Article 12, December 10, 1948.

In the earliest American tradition, we find acknowledgment of the Natural Law (before the adoption of the Second Amendment). The Declaration of Independence (1776) begins: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” (Emphasis added). The Declaration then enumerates the crimes of King George, among them many of which might be defended against under the doctrine explained herein.

(In case of emergency only. Google.)

Again, self-defense is a God-given, eternal right. It is also a duty, one to be exercised only in dire need and with a grave sense of responsibility. As with all matters of Natural Law, man-made legislation must attempt as closely as humanly possible to approximate the divine purposes of the Law. In the next installment of this series, I intend to examine more ancient legislation regarding weapons and self-defense, specifically Roman Law.

Gun Rights Survey

21 Thursday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

America, AR-15, ASU, Australia, Britain, crime, criminals, Dianne Feinstink, firearms, freedom, God, government, law, Liberty, magazines, Natural Law, NRA, regulation, responsibility, Second Amendment, Second Amendment Foundation, self-defense, society, Stand Your Ground, The People, tyranny, violence

This morning I recived an email from The Second Amendment Foundation, a toothier NRAish organization, for those of you unfamiliar. You can see the email as a website here: http://smna.conservativecontacts.com/track?t=v&enid=ZWFzPTEmbWlkPTExODA3Jm1zZ2lkPTgzMDAmZGlkPTQwMCZlZGlkPTQwMCZzbj0xNjc4MjMwMCZlaWQ9bG92ZXR0cEBlYXJ0aGxpbmsubmV0JmVlaWQ9bG92ZXR0cEBlYXJ0aGxpbmsubmV0JnVpZD1sb3ZldHRwQGVhcnRobGluay5uZXQmcmlkPTYwMjYxJmVyaWQ9NjAyNjEmZmw9Jm12aWQ9JnRnaWQ9JmV4dHJhPQ==&&&2100&eu=200&&&. I hope the link works; the site contains a ten question survey, which I decided to turn into a short column. Read on, friends.

By the way, check out the SAF: http://www.saf.org/. They produced the video I posted a while back about racism in gun controls. They do good work on behalf of our freedom. Sign up for their email updates.

I took the liberty of cutting and pasting the survey whole from the email here, without permission. I figure they won’t mind as I am promoting them. Anyway, The questions are “yes” or “no” answerable. I took the opportunity to show you how I would answer along with further explanation. Here we go:

QUESTION 1:	Do you own a semi-automatic firearm that has a detachable magazine, folding stock, or pistol grip? YES NO
I would answer Yes, although all of you know I don’t really own any firearms. I don’t belive in them… (Guns, like cigars and tobacco products are very dangerous. Avoid both…)
QUESTION 2:	Do you own a clip or magazine that holds more than ten rounds? YES NO
Again, with the above “truthful…” caveat, I answer Yes.
QUESTION 3:	Do you think the Feinstein Gun Ban would reduce gun violence? YES NO
NO! Gun control has nothing at all to do with ending violence. Every country which enacts strict gun control (see Britain, Australia, etc.) experiences a dramatic increase in violent crime. Gun control is about disarming the people so as to make them helpless in the face of tyranny.
QUESTION 4:	Do you think you could need more than 10 rounds in a self-defense situation? YES NO
Yes! Abosolutely! The other day at the 2A forum at ASU (GRU), someone asked me this question. I responded with the case of a local gun dealer who was confronted by 4 armed thugs in his shop. They drove a van through the wall in hopes of a 100% discount on his merchandise. Fortunately, he was armed with an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine. It took all 30 rounds to convince the “shoppers” to vacate the premises. There is no rational reason to limit the capacity of self-defense as the chance of danger is never so limited.
QUESTION 5:	Do you oppose all attempts to ban semi-automatic firearms? YES NO
Yes! I oppose all attempts to ban any firearms – semi-automatic, AUTOMATIC, black-powder, or any other kind. The free People should have available for their protection any and all means of defending their liberty and their lives.
QUESTION 6:	Do you oppose regulations that limit the amount of ammunition you may purchase? YES NO
Yes! Like the guns themselves, the only limits on the amount of ammunition one purchases should be desire and ability to pay. I tend to oppose regulations period.
QUESTION 7:	Do you believe gun control laws will only hurt law abiding citizens? YES NO
No. Surprised? Don’t be. I think gun control hurts everyone. Even a convicted felon might find a need for weaponry if attacked in a situation not of his creation. Gun control only helps ACTIVE criminals – the government, banksters, street thugs, etc. I don’t want to help any of these types.
QUESTION 8:	Would you feel safer if all law-abiding citizens possessed firearms? YES NO
No. Again, hear me out. While I support the general right of all qualified, responsible individuals to possess firearms, there are a large number of my fellow citizens I do no trust. I would not fell safer if every Tom, Dick, and Harry had a gun. Some of these folks can’t operate automobiles or shopping carts without trouble. They sure as heck aren’t competent to use weapons. But, I leave this to them, the Lord, and anyone but the government to sort out. You and I owning guns makes me safer (you too), regardless of how we feeeeeel.
QUESTION 9:	Should laws that protect our self-defense such as the Stand Your Ground Law exist? YES NO
Yes, although the need for such laws is a sad commentary on our society. The right to self defense is as natural as the laws of phsyics. We should not need laws to protect the right, though it seems better to have them and not need them than the alternative. Overall, I would prefer if people stopped committing crimes thus eliminating the need in the first place. Again, that’s out of my personal power to control.
QUESTION 10:	Do you believe the 2nd Amendment was written to protect U.S Citizens against a tyrannical take over? YES NO

Yes! There is no doubt about it. While hunting, collecting, and sport shooting are all important, as is the right of defense against criminals and dangerous critters, the real purpose of the 2A was to ensure the People would always be able to resist tyranny if necessary. Thank God we do not face such a situation today. Such tyranny would only come from a regime that did things like tax our incomes and threaten us with death by drones – unheard of in Amerika.

There you have it! My answers and views de jure. Perhaps you have similar or divergent views. You are entitled to them and, by all means, feel free to list them here in response to mine. I only ask that, for any opinion you hold, make sure it is the result of reason and not a knee-jerk or parroted position. Think for yourselves. Arm yourselves. Live free and prosper!

The Second Amendment at ASU and Tuesday Night News

19 Tuesday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on The Second Amendment at ASU and Tuesday Night News

Thanks to everyone at ASU (GRU) for today’s Second Amendment Forum. I ended up serving as a backup presenter of sorts and fielded many questions during the Q&A session. As is my way, I got a little long-winded and once was reminded to speed it up. The panel and the whole presentation was fantastic. The older, incorrect interpretations of the 2A were presented, by and large, as such. The final direct presentation was by Prof. Peter Flanagan on the modern, individual rights interpretation.

Prof. Hubert van Tuyll presented the “collective rights” argument though his position seemed to incorporate the individual right into the militia aspect correctly. He did a great job explaining the immediate history of the 2A after the Revolutionary War until 1791. Prof. William Reese discussed the Miller case of 1939 in vivid detail. He also made the best point of the day – the Second Amendment is primarily purposed for ousting the federal government if necessary. I would have loved to have taken that statement and run with it but I’d still be going on right now.

My contribution, if we can call it that, regarded: state and federal laws; militias in all 50 states (especially Georgia) and the fact of the people being the militia; the difference between the militia and the national guard; and the satanic origins of our federal gun laws – I called them out as racist and Nazi.

Several students made excellent opening remarks and the Q&A session featured numerous intelligent questions from other students. I did detect an air of confusion concerning many of the above topics and the nature of firearms ownership in general. This was by no means caused by bias or ignorance on the part of these very engaged students (the room was packed, btw – around 100 or so in attendance). Rather, I think some of these young people were surprised to hear, for once, the truth about guns, law, freedom, and history in America. I suspect that for most of their adult lives they have been fed a steady diet of misinformation by the media, politicians, and the education establishment (though obviously not at ASU).

This has given me the idea to expand upon my Second Amendment and related columns, perhaps by doing a series which breaks down small parts of information bit by bit. I can systematically position the columns in a way that hopefully will provide clarity on the subjects covered today and others not touched on. I think the first article will deal with the Natural Law rights of defense and self-integrity. I will then move on to ancient history, English History, the early American experience and work my way forward to the present.

More site stuff:

Yesterday I published The People Appreciate a Benevolent Dictator, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/the-people-appreciate-a-benevolent-dictator/, which recounts my personal experience with the hideous forces of government and eminent domain actions. It’s both sad and funny and it’s a true story. Give it a read, if you haven’t.

I have received go-ahead for a new ad, which will either make an appearance tonight or, more likely, tomorrow. It is an introduction to an awesome modern opportunity for thinking people. Check back soon!

The news:

Back to guns: Head Senate Slug, Harry Reid, is saying Dianne Feinstink’s “assault weapons” ban will not be part of the UnConstitutional gun control legislation which goes to the Senate floor. I hope nothing is passed into law; we have too many restrictions on gun ownership right now – they need repealing. I have heard dark rumors of behind the scenes compromises which may allow for easier passage of some seemingly minor, “common sense” “reforms” such as “universal background checks.” Sorry for all the “” but there is so much BS here I have to contain it somehow.

I won’t say what I’ve heard but it seems designed to lure some ticks into voting for the bill in a way that would still allow them to falsely proclaim their support for gun rights. This is a typical Washington tactic used to slowly, incrementally introduce harsh laws over time. Don’t think for a second Feinstink and her ilk will give up their quest to disarm the people. They hate people, especially armed people. Write your Senate Congresscritters and tell them to vote against any and all gun bills unless someone brings an action to abolish an existing law.

In other gun news, Rep. Leonard Lance of New Jersey has requested SS Secretary Janet “Himmler” Napolitano explain why her brown-shirted thugs are purchasing over 1.5 BILLION rounds of ammunition – enough to fight an Iraq-style war for twenty years. Don’t expect an honest answer from the Reichsfuhrer. Instead, allow me to answer the obvious. Like their German predecessors, the Amerikan SS is tasked with keeping order over the sheeple and brutally punishing dissent and nonconformity. They are purchasing the ammunition and 2,700 tanks in preparation for war against you. It’s that simple.

(DHS uniform. Google.)

Don’t forget that Little Barry said in 2008 he wanted a domestic army as powerful as the regular army. Now he almost has it. When Herr Feinstink finally succeeds in banning your guns, the domestic army will make sure you turn them over – or kill you. When the craven thieves of D.C. come for your money as the EU and Cyprus are now, this army will make sure you don’t protest too much. When the time for boxcars and concentration camps comes, look for all those bullets to provide motivation to participate. When writing your Congresscritters, suggest that Ron Paul was wise to call for the dissolution of the SS, tell them to do it before it’s too late. Wake up, America!

The liars in Washington and Tel Aviv now say Bashar Assad is using chemical weapons against the people of Syria. I bet these are similar to the non-existent WMDs allegedly possessed by Saddam Husein. This may give the Empire its excuse to start yet another foreign war. Don’t fall for this crap again. Even if Assad had and used such weapons, heinous crimes for sure, what business is it of the United States? I haven’t heard about the Syrian army using gas in Alabama or Massachusetts, have you? It’s time to mind our own business!

It’s also time to contemplate sleep. Good night!

The People Appreciate a Benevolent Dictator

18 Monday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Amerikans, beer, Constitution, dictators, dumps, electricity, eminent domain, Fifth Amendment, Freud, Georgia, Georgia Power Co., government, Kelo v. City of New London, Liberty, lobbyists, March Madness, Nascar, profits, public use, republic, Sallust, Savannah, Supreme Court, taking, taxes, The People, theft, ticks, Tom Bordeaux, TV

The title here is a quote from a Georgia Power Company lobbyist, made to the Georgia House Judiciary Committee in session, 2003. The remark resulted in outrage from the audience and the committee. I was present and among the most taken-aback members of the peanut gallery.

Eminent Domain is the process by which a government forcible condemns a piece of private property in order to make public use thereof. The usual reasons for the practice include road, bridge, or other infrastructure projects. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states that no such “taking” shall occur without proper compensation.

The subject of the particular committee meeting was a review of Georgia’s unconscionable Constitutional provision allowing for eminent domain actions by private utility companies. Such companies need not have the government condemn your land for power lines or plants, they can do it directly. Yes, we actually have that here. A resolution was before the General Assembly which called for a new Amendment to end the practice. The hearing was a natural result.

(Madness under the Gold Dome. CBS Atlanta.)

The hearing was chaired by the Hon. Tom Bordeaux of Savannah. Tom is a capable attorney and a good politician though his tenure as chair was short-lived. I was working as a legal intern at the State Administrative Office of the Courts at the time and covered the issue, one of the biggest of the 2003 session. Anyway, representatives from various utility companies were on hand to defend the procedure as vitally necessary to the State’s economy and the well-being of the citizens. Rowdy protesters and opposition speakers voiced other opinions.

The general mood of the entire committee seemed dead set against the policy. Tom remarked that if a new Constitution were drafted in 2003, it would certainly not entertain such legalized theft and trespass. The existing provision dated from the early 20th Century when telephone and electric services were relatively new. I suppose the ticks of the day deemed it necessary to modernize the Empire State of the South. The issue in general was receiving major attention nationwide.

Two years later the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Kelo v. The City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), said it was okay for the City to condemn land via eminent domain solely for the purpose of turning the land over to another private party – a developer. The theory was that the older houses condemned would not generate as much tax revenue for the City as the proposed redevelopment complex would. Thus, there existed a “public need” sufficient to justify the takings. The plan went forward. The homes were taken and leveled. Then, fate delivered the City an ironic blow. The developer failed to find financing for the redevelopment and abandoned the project. The lots sat empty. The land is now a dump. I wonder how much revenue that generates, in addition to lovely odors?

Back in Georgia, the lobbyists gave their best explanations for keeping the Constitutional provision the way it was. Essentially they said the people did not realize that they actually believed having electricity, etc. (not to mention corporate profits) were more valuable to them than the homes they reside in; silly people. Their final argument was, “The people appreciate a benevolent dictator.” When the fellow uttered those words the room grew silent. Based on the dropped jaws and red faces of the committee members one would have suspected the lobbyist had just tried to rationalize child rape.

A hurricane of angry comments followed, a verbal lynching of the lobbyist. I thought it was great. He began to back-peddle immediately in stammering, apologetic fashion. I have come to realize though his Freudian slip was, in fact, completely accurate. Most (not all, but most) people DO appreciate a benevolent dictator. I refer once again to my ancient friend, Sallust: “Only a few prefer Liberty, the majority seek nothing more than fair masters.”

People might get upset if a company or the government tells them to move out of their homes. But, the odds are tremendous a taking will only happen to someone else. In that case, the people could care less. They are more than willing to sit by as their neighbors lose their homes so long as the loss results in more creature comforts in their own homes. Cables and wires and such power televisions which display football, basketball, Nascar, reality shows, and pornos. They allow for the refrigeration of cheap beer and processed food – staples of the Amerikan diet. Air conditioning, internet, blabbing on the phone – the benefits are too numerous to list.

It is interesting to note the great debate over this subject has died down recently. Not enough people care, not enough prefer Liberty. In the end, the General Assembly did what it does best – nothing. The provision is still there ten years later. Poor Aunt Matilda may be very sympathetic when the bulldozers approach her house but she never contributes to political campaigns. Arrogant utility companies and their lobbyists give away millions of dollars a year to the ticks. They put their money where their foul mouths are. They also get their way.

This is just a little something to consider when contemplating representative republicanism. Okay, you can go watch March madness now.

It Depends…

16 Saturday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

advice, Atlanta, cases, civil procedure, clients, copyright, court, default, DUI, education, experience, expert, facts, honesty, judges, jury, law it depends, law school, lawyers, Philadelphia movie, research, settlement, skill, State, Tom Hank's, trial

On any given day I receive requests for legal advice – from clients, friends, and strangers. Half of the time I am not truly familiar with the subject and usually not that interested. Lawyers are trained to qualify any response they give to such questions as to their lack of specific knowledge. They can be sanctioned for malpractice for giving advice which is incompetent. Thus, I usually make it known that any answer is largely my off the cuff opinion, that I am not giving official advice unless retained to do so, and that any further explanation will require research. This generally gets rid of most inquirers. Usually their questions aren’t important enough to spend money answering.

My civil procedure professor in law school told us the answer to any legal question, initially, is always, “it depends.” As a first year student, in a class that doesn’t begin to make sense until the end of the semester, this statement was perplexing. It is entirely correct though.

(Uhhhhh…weeeellll. Google Images.)

“It depends” is a fancy, professional way of saying, “I don’t know.” Most attorneys don’t know the answer to most legal questions, even in areas they specialize in. To begin with, the law is such a vast, confusing, and constantly changing field, it is completely impossible to know everything about anything. That senior lawyer with the “encyclopedic knowledge” of the law from the Tom Hanks’ movie, Philadelphia, resides on the silver screen and nowhere else. Next, the facts presented by a particular person’s circumstances may differ from any other set of facts conceivable. Think of laws as wrenches and facts as pipes; a lawyer is like a plumber, applying different wrenches to different pipes. Most importantly, cases in court will ultimately have conclusions which cannot be foreseen, let alone guaranteed. Any lawyer who guarantees an outcome is a liar and should be avoided.

I have won cases I knew I was going to loss. I have lost cases when I should, by all rights, have won. Judges are as fallible as any other human beings and juries are like living roulette wheels. Jurors are often influenced in their decisions by things completely unrelated to the case they’re reviewing. As a prosecutor I once lost a DUI case just because the jury did not like the way my arresting officer presented himself on the witness stand. They agreed the law applied to the defendant and the defendant’s actions qualified under the law as clear indications of guilt. However, the officer kept yawning on the stand and the jury felt he wasn’t interested in the case and didn’t try to convince them of the State’s position.

(Not a good day in court. Google Images.)

That particular officer was well-seasoned and knew his job. Unfortunately for me, he had just come straight into court from the night shift and was focusing most of his energy on staying awake. I did not foresee that and there was nothing I could do about it. As a consolation prize, I did win on the related minor parking charge. The judge informed the very happy defendant he had dodged a bullet. Chance leads to many dodged bullets in the law, and bullets that sometimes find innocent victims.

Usually an experienced attorney, once familiarized with the case in full, has a pretty good idea as to what will happen. The attorney can relay this confidence to his client. However, for the reasons I just gave, no attorney should ever declare even the most trivial matter a slam dunk.

In my article Legal Education I noted that law schools primarily teach worship of court decisions and legal research methods. While it’s impossible to know all the law, it is quite easy for a skilled practitioner to look up and educate himself on any given subject. I’ve had clients call, upset about “research” charges on their bill. I always stand by these fees, so long as they are reasonable for the given case. Doctors do extensive research before they cut a patient in surgery. Lawyers are no different.

Like doctors, lawyers sometimes feel the need to associate expert counsel to assist with a really complicated area of the law. Once a client came to me in a tizzy over a copyright infringement case which had been filed against him in federal court. As the case was in a district where I do not normally practice, and after a cursory review of the maze of intellectual property laws, I concluded justice required me to hire another attorney from a giant Atlanta firm for assistance. This was a very costly decision for the client. In the end, though, the money was well spent. I would draft the responsive pleadings to the best of my ability and with the client’s in-person co-operation. Then I would email the drafts to the expert for touch-up and filing.

As a result we were able to re-open the case and have a default judgment set aside as unjust. Then, we removed the case to my area (where the client lives and operates his business). There’s something to be said for home-field advantage. We even got the “foreign” district judge to issue a scathing censure against the opposing counsel for his obnoxious behavior in the case! That had the dual effect of making me and my expert look good and it took the slimy steam out of the other guy. He was fired shortly thereafter. In the end, we wrangled out a terrific settlement for pennies on the dollar out of the whole ordeal. It was good work of which I am still proud.

Don’t be taken aback if your attorney reveals she isn’t familiar with the topic you present. Such revelation is the mark of honesty. Be ready to spend time and money on an investigation which may end up disappointing you. It’s better to be told your case does not have merit or is unwinnable in the beginning, rather to discover such at a trial.

Remember, the advice I’ve given here is merely legal education for the lay audience, not exact legal advice. If you have a specific case, you should consult a specific attorney. Based on the subject and how your facts fit the law the outcome may be difficult to predict and will require some degree of research and work to resolve. As for what I could tell you right now? It depends.

Constitutional Law

13 Wednesday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

16th Amendment, abortion, activists, America, anarchy, Anti-Federalists, Articles of Confederation, attorneys, Bill of Rights, case-law, Coca-Cola, commerce clause, Congress, Constitution, Constitutional Law, Courts, dissent, Dred Scott v. Sandford, drones, due process, equal protection, Federal Reserve, First Amendment, freedom, General Welfare Clause, Germany, government, Jacobson v. Mass., Japan, John Marshall, judges, law, law school, legal education, Liberty, liberty interests, Max Tucker, McCulloch v. Maryland, Michael Bloomberg, murder, National Security, Natural Law, Necessary and Proper Clause, New York, Ninth Amendment, ObamaCare, patriotism, philosophy, professors, Rand Paul, republic, rights, Roe v. Wade, science, scrutiny, Second Amendment, slavery, States, stict construction, students, Supreme Court, tariffs, taxation, taxes, Tenth Amendment, The People, United States, voting, War Between the States, Washington, wheat, Wickard v. Filburn, World War II

This article is an extension of my recent columns on The Constitution, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/the-united-states-constitution/, and Legal “Education,” https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/legal-education/. One would think that the matter of Constitutional law would have been covered in my article on the Constitution itself – unless one also read my treatise on law schooling.

Oddly, in my experience, the Constitution itself is not required reading for Constitutional law classes. Rather, some imported parts of the document are set forth in the text-book used by the professor. This strikes me as intellectually dishonest and unwise, akin to using a dangerous power tool without first reading the directions. Herein, I briefly cover the usual course material from such as class. The professors, many of whom have never been in a court, let alone argued for or against the Constitution, regurgitate the rulings of different courts regarding a limited number of subjects. While there is an occasional discussion of the reasoning behind the opinions, they are generally viewed as sacred, unswerving law. Rare instances where history has determined the rulings to be invalid (i.e. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)– slavery is okay pre war between the States) are swept under the proverbial rug, written off as mistakes made due to the prevailing thoughts of the cases’ times.

(Prof. Laurence Tribe’s ConLaw Book. Google Images.)

As I have written elsewhere, no reference to Natural Law is made and no critical thought is given to the “why” behind the laws. As Max Tucker wrote recently, any student who dares to pose dissenting views or arguments is detested noticeably by the other students and the faculty. Rarely, student are given the opportunity to delve into the deeper meanings of the cases they study. I was fortunate to be able to write a short essay on the effects of Scott, in which I decried its universal sadness and the role it played in the schism in our nation circa 1861. Part of my essay was read aloud to the class by our professor – another rarity, a former practicing attorney. My points were well accepted. Of course, I had the benefit of over a century of progress on my side. Other topics, which require hypothetical deconstruction, are roundly ignored.

As with all other areas of the law, Constitutional law has degenerated into a study of the constantly shifting case-law which arises under the Constitution. By the way, I always capitalize the “C” in Constitution out of reverence for the document and its place in our Republic (I do the same for “Republic” too). I have explained my philosophical troubles and doubts about the Constitution but, due to my sworn allegiance to it, I am honor-bound to defend its ideals.

Case-law study is important and has a valid place in the legal practice. After all, most attorneys make a living pushing various issues in courts through individual cases. Each provision of any law is subject to some interpretation as part of its application to the circumstances of the real world. The trick of “strict construction” application of the Constitution is to adhere as closely as possible to the text and plain meaning of the old parchment. I follow strict construction as my approach to most laws, in and under the Constitution. The first fork of any analysis is to determine if the issue scrutinized is compatible with the underlying law. If the two are compatible, then the analysis shifts to application of your set of facts to the law. If there is an incongruity, then it is necessary to decide whether the law is improper or if the facts are insufficient for action.

Here’s a brief, over-generalized example, ripped from the recent headlines!: Mary lives in New York City; she is an avid consumer of Coca-Cola beverages, particularly in large volumes. Mary went to the corner store in Hell’s Kitchen and ordered a 40-ounce frozen Coke treat. She was informed by the clerk that a drink of such heft was just outlawed by the wise and magnanimous mayor of NYC, Michael “Soda Jerk” Bloomberg. Mary, offended and hurt, contacts an attorney in order to take action against the mayor and the city. Her attorney files a lawsuit seeking an injunction or some other remedy to force the city to curb its policing of soft drink size. Upon reviewing the case, a judge decides that NYC’s ordinance is too vague to be enforceable and strikes it down accordingly. Mary happily continues on her guest for obesity. This represents proper application and analysis of the law and the facts – in this case Mary’s freedom to drink liquid sugar in peace.

Had Mary had a more pressing cause – say a desire to legally and permanently rid herself of a troublesome in-law and she requested her attorney file a similar action to invalidate New York’s statute against murder, her attorney would have likely declined the case. If he was a fool, and filed an action anyway, the attorney would lose as any court would side with the law irregardless of Mary’s malicious desires. While it is proper to allow peaceful people to purchase and consume products of their desire, it would be improper and an affront to Natural Law, to allow someone to kill another person without good cause (i.e. self-defence).

These examples are extremely simple, but they demonstrate my core points. The problem in the law has arisen from the over deference to certain laws as applied to the real world. Today, the Constitution is not interpreted as strictly dictated by its own terms or by my previous explanation of the powers it grants. As I noted before, a few select clauses have been given immortal omnipresence to the extent the entire document has been rendered a nearly lost cause. All of these clauses give extra, unintended authority to the government to regulate and control everything. Through various cases over the years, the courts have essentially made up the law or, at least by their interpretation of the laws, have allowed over-reaching actions of the government to stand as legitimate.

Popular of late is the criticism of “activist judges” who take on the role of a legislator in their quests to rewrite the laws of Congress. Some courts have gone so far as to divine new rights and powers mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is a poster case for such activism. In Roe, the Supreme Court opined that abortion of unborn children is a right of pregnant women. This right stems, allegedly, from the women’s “liberty interest” in their own bodies. While not found in the text of the Bill of Rights (or elsewhere), this right does exist and should be protected. However, the right, like all rights, has limits. The high Court did not adequately consider the rights of the unborn children to be secure in the integrity of their own bodies during its decision. Instead, the Court issued an incomprehensible psuedo-scienticifc approach to determined when a life becomes a life. Medical science has definitely answered any related questions in favor of the unborn. However, as is, about 1 Million children are murdered every year thanks to the Roe decision. This was a case of improper balancing of competing interests under the umbrella of the law.

I do not roundly condemn “activists.” Sometimes it is advantageous for a jurist to heavily scrutinize the law if the law actually impinges on protected rights. The New York soda decision is a good, if oddly worded, example. Problems happen when judges do not universally review the impact of a law, standing or undone. It is also impermissible in a Republic for a court to institute new law – the domain of the legislature only.

I will herein briefly explain a few of those key clauses and ideas of the Constitution which have given the federal government unlimited power over your lives. These are the basis for Constitutional study in law schools. In summary it suffices to say that they can and do anything they please, without hinderance.

The General Welfare Clause

This clause purportedly allowed Congress to use its defined powers for the betterment of all people. It has been held it “has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.” Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). However, in conjunction with other provisions, the clause has been used to justify countless spending sprees directed towards the profit of a select few, often at the expense of the People.

The Commerce Clause

Congress has the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress.” Constitution, Art. I, Section 8, Clause 3. Rather than regulating commerce between the listed entities, this clause has been egregiously abused to empower Congress to regulate anything which can conceivably occur wishing any of the stated territories. The poster case of the clause is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) in which the Supreme Court declared that wheat grown by a farmer may not necessarily be used privately by the farmer because such use (bread baking) might negatively affect interstate commerce, the ability of bread companies to sell the farmer bread. While defying belief, this case and its ilk are recited as if dictated by Jesus by law professors coast to coast. The Commerce Clause saw minor setbacks in the 1990s but it remains as the basis for most criminal and civil statutes enacted by Congress. Arguing against commerce connections in court is as successful as herding alley cats. I know this from personal experience.

The Necessary and Proper Clause

This clause, known also as the “elastic clause,” appears in Article I, Section 8, Clasue 18. It provides that Congress can authorize the steps required to implement their other enumerated powers. The Anti-Federlists argued against this provision, fearing it would allow the central government to assume endless power in the name of affecting those valid programs instituted under the named authorities. Turns out they were right. In conjunction with the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper clause has been used to justify federal intrusion into everything. It was necessary and proper to prohibit farmers from utilizing their own crops to preserve commerce, and so forth.

National Security

“Patriotism” is regarded as the last refuge of a scoundrel. Frequently, it is the first. There exists an idea that an allegation that a legal measure is warranted in order to preserve security or defeat some enemy regardless of any other factors. Frequently, the government will assert this as a defense in a court case in order to avoid any discussion of the underlying subject matter (torture, internment of citizens, etc.). This tactic usually stops the case dead in its tracks. In a true emergency such a policy might serve a valid purpose. However, as we now are told we live under perpetual threat of all sorts of impropriety, the argument is used as a universal repeal of our rights. History indicates that “emergencies” never go away. For instance, 68 years after winning World War II, we still station troops in Japan and Germany. We also have a portion of our incomes withheld prematurely for taxation purposes – this was supposed to be a temporary war-time measure of WWII. History also shows that a government will do anything to maximize its power under a security “threat,” including the manufacture of threats from nothing.

Taxation

“That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create….” Chief Justice John Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). Governments have proven themselves able to destroy just about anything, they create next to nothing. Originally, our government was funded by tariffs and import fees and simple requests to the States for assistance. The advent of the 16th Amendment gave Washington awesome power to take as much money as the need from the people’s labors. The illegal Federal Reserve scheme allows them to create additional monies at will. The courts have constantly upheld the power of taxation even when Congress didn’t know they were implementing a tax. See: The Obamacare decision, Slip Opinion 11-393, June 28, 2012. Taxation gets its own law school class – where it is worshipped like a god. Dissenters are frowned upon as heretics (I know…).

A Few Rights

Over the years, several levels of scrutiny have been assigned to several pet rights. I am suspicious of each of these levels and will not bore you with their application. For the most part they apply rights based on classification of persons and against the backdrop of government “interests.” It is interesting that usually deference is given to a particular law; the law is presumed Constitutional absence some showing that it is an abuse impermissible under one of the abstractly devised levels of scrutiny. I would prefer deference to the Liberty of the People, with the government left to prove conclusively their law does not infringe that right or that any infringement is necessary in order to secure greater liberties for all.

Most Constitutional law teaching about “rights” center on the First Amendment. There is usually a class devoted singularly to the subject. The First is worthy of great attention. However, too often the cases studied thereunder tend to regard outrageous acts. Rather than securing rights to fundamental speech for example, such as protesting abortion, educating potential jurors, and protecting free speech during an election, the courts have wasted much time protecting things like naked dancing and wearing offensive sloganed t-shirts.

Voting rights, due process, and equal protection in general have also received great review. However, given the steady deterioration of fundamental due process and equal protection, it is obvious there is a systemic bias towards the government over the free people. For example, Rand Paul’s protests aside, next to nothing has been done in response to the President’s plan to murder Americans in America using drones and no legal process. The scheme is likely to survive (hopefully unused) due to deference to vague assertions of “national security.”

The rest of the Constitution is left in the dark void of undecided law. It is either taken for granted that such matters will be resolved in due course by the courts or simply that the provisions have no effect. In law school I was bluntly told that the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments didn’t exist. I found this hard to believe. Now, with several positive court cases to lean on, the Second has been given some legitimacy though many “scholars” still remain grounded in the ancient, misdirected past. On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 I will attend a symposium on the Second Amendment, replete with reference to these lost interpretations. I have several questions sure to generate discussion and maybe laughter among the gathering. Join me if you will.

If you teach Constitutional law, incorporate the actual text into your class. It could be a prerequisite, covered at the beginning of the semester and then referred to during the subsequent discussion of cases. Attorneys need to familiarize themselves with the text of the Constitution, everyone else should too.

Together, each of us acting as we may, we may be able to slowly restore a rational teaching and application of the Constitution. Perhaps someday we will return to the looser confines of the Articles of Confederation, allowing the member States of the Union (closer to their respective citizens) to affect policies towards the People. With an eye towards ultimate freedom, I can envision an even less restrictive society. I am reminded that “anarchy is better than no government at all.” I’m not sure society is ready for that level of responsibility yet. Someday…

Legal “Education”

12 Tuesday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

ABA, bar exam, case-law, changing the world, Constitution, education, Gospel, John Adams, judges, law, law school, lawyer jokes, lies, LSAT, Max Tucker, Muddling Through College, Natural Law, Neal Boortz, profession, racket, Scotland, Thomas Jefferson, trade, U.S. News and World Report, unprepared

This post follows Muddling Through College. It is intended as a truthful assessment of what life in law school is like and the relationship between legal education and the practice of law and society in general. As with my undergraduate article, I realize that my experience is dated by a good decade. Actually, it’s been a pretty bad decade – especially for the legal industry. Therefore, again, I have tried to incorporate “modern” materials herein as well.

I once heard attorney-turned radio talk show host, Neal Boortz state that when he began practice law in the early 1970s, the law was still a profession. He then said when he left the law in the early 1990s to pursue radio full-time, the law had degenerated into a trade. Several times I recall him saying the happiest day of his life was the day he put his status with the Georgia State Bar in the inactive category. I will update his cycle now – the law has further degenerated into a racket.

The average attorney is greeted by society with all the warmth and affection people normally reserve for a visiting termite. I hear lawyer jokes every week. Most are pretty damn funny. I am one of the few attorneys not offended by these jokes. Most attorneys do get offended even if they don’t show it. The reason is that most know the jokes have a great basis in truth and they don’t want to admit the facts.

Mr. Boortz once said, speaking of attorneys, “No other group has done more to help and to damage our society.” He’s right. Lawyers were behind the Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, the civil rights movement, and numerous other causes for freedom. You never hear lawyer jokes in a criminal court. In a jail holding area or cell block, we are greeted like rock stars. However, pick any oppressive, illegal, dishonest, or otherwise unsavory law, business, or relationship and you’ll find lawyer DNA all over it. As a judge I once clerked for said, “It’s amazing how bad most attorneys are.”

The bad begins in law school. There are about 200 law schools in America which have received the ABA’s seal of approval. There are more which operate by special rules within their respective states. U.S. News and World Report ranks and categorizes law schools every year based on a set of semi-relevant criteria. Schools fight hard to place high on the list. I don’t see the point. Judging by the performance of their graduates, all the schools seem equally bad.

(This cat never practiced law and won’t teach you anything. Google Images.)

Max “I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell” Tucker wrote an awesome article, http://lewrockwell.com/orig14/max-t1.1.1.html, on reasons NOT to attend law school. Read it! I agree with every single thing he said. By the way, I fell under the Want To Change the World category. I learned its damn near impossible to change a neighborhood, let alone the world. And, most people don’t want any change – they enjoy their serfdom.

After four (or 6, 8, etc.) years in college one must score decently on the LSAT and submit a rigorous application in order to gain entry into even the lowest ranking law school. Once there, one is suddenly trust into an environment that eerily resembles high school. That’s the law school effect, everyone reverts to teenager-ish behavior and attitudes. Nothing is actually taught in law school except how to look up information and fill out forms. You can learn a thing or two in a specialized elective class but nothing therein will appear on the dreaded bar exam of any state. Given the sad state of the profession, dependant on the exam’s function as a brutal hazing to enter the fraternity, you would think law professors would concentrate on the subjects covered by the bar and the methodology employed for the tests (Byzantine). They do not. In fact, after graduating you MUST take a private prep course in order to have any chance of passing the test. I theorize that any well-educated person could take such a class and pass the bar. I was not supposed to tell you that.

The majority of instructional time is instead devoted to instilling reverence for the system. Courts, judges, and their opinions (case-law) are sold as the Gospel. Rebels like me are interested in core concepts behind the law and the betterment of humanity. The average student simply accepts the drivel and becomes a system cog. As I have stated elsewhere, the average lawyer does not know and does not care why we have law or where the law comes from. Natural Law may as well be officially forbidden by the ABA.

Once one passes the bar and gets that first legal job another enormous short-coming becomes alarmingly clear. Law schools do not prepare anyone to practice law. A friend of mine, a Federal Magistrate Judge once asked me, “Remember when you got out, and knew nothing?” New attorneys are thrown to the wolves. Half can’t hack it; I think 50% is the current percentage who leave the law sooner than later. The other 50% live in a nightmarish state, dreaming of getting out.

In the old days, and in a few foreign countries (Scotland comes to mind), students of the law would apprentice with an existing attorney or law firm for a number of years in order to prepare for actually practicing law. They would simultaneously “read the law” on their own to gain a full understanding of core concepts. After satisfying their mentors, the apprentices would be admitted as attorneys, with or without examination. That’s how Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Abradamn Lincoln and Cicero did it. Today, only California, Maine, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington still allow “reading” and I imagine it is discouraged. This process denies law schools reason to exist and deprives budding young lawyers of their $100,000+ school loan debts. Students might also emerge ready to practice if allowed to study under a competent attorney. I’m not supposed to tell you any of this.

I have applied for several positions, academic and administrative, at a variety of law schools of late. I am hoping my experience will give me an advantage. One would think it was. I make a particular point to explain that I want to help as many young people as possible actually prepare for the racket….er…profession. Oddly, many law professors have never practiced law a day in their lives, many aren’t even members of a bar. It makes sense, in a way, as law school has absolutely nothing to do with practicing. That evil bar exam (truly a horror worthy to justify the myths) has nothing to do with school or practice either. Like the schooling, it’s just there – an unavoidable obstacle to tackle.

Law students become attorneys disillusioned, in debt, unprepared, and in today’s market, with slim job prospects. Most new attorneys today, who can find a job, earn less than $60,000 per year. The big bucks go to the elite few who land jobs with major law firms. At those firms, newbies (with all the problems I mentioned) can start at $150,000 or better. For that pay, they have to “bill” 2500 hours a year. Billing 2500 means working 4000; that means working 80-100 hour weeks, every week, for about $30-$40 per hour. Tucker gives examples of jobs that pay that well, don’t require all the time and hassle, and don’t necessitate wasting 3 years in law school. Remember, those are the best of the best jobs. Most big firm associates wash out quickly or else end up in mental institutions or under bridges.

(Welcome aboard, young associate. Google Images.)

Ponder what I have written here if you think you want to join the lawyer club. Some people are meant to be attorneys and will do well at their chosen work. Most will drudge on miserably until the retire, die, or go nuts. Some, like me get out. Well, I’m trying to get out. Leaving the law can be like leaving a street gang. You have to walk a gauntlet to exit. Please pray I make it. As for you, avoid the whole racket if you can.

PS: I issue a challenge to all attorneys and law school faculties! Change the system! Concentrate on the theory and the practice of the law itself and dispense with the case worship, the obsolete mysteries, and the false illusions of nobility. For you, read Alan Watson’s The Shame of American Legal Education, 2d ed. (Vandeplas Publishing, 2006). Watson, of Scottish legal training, nails the problems of the American system. Let’s change it.

A Successful Sunday

10 Sunday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Al-CIA-da, Atlanta, Augusta, Augusta State, Austin Reed, Bastiat, Bastiat, Detroit, Empire, Georgia, guns, Heller, Karzai, libertarians, Liberty, LP, MacDonald, Marine Corps, militia, Obama, Parker, Peaches, Peaches, people, police, Republicans, Second Amendment, South Carolina, thin Perrin

Today I spoke to the Augusta, GA Libertarian Party about citizen-police encounters, especially when the citizen is armed. What a great group! You can view my presentation materials here: https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/march-10-2013-libertarian-party-event-bullett-points/. It’s a shortened version of How to Interact With the Police, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/how-to-interact-with-the-police/. I think How to Interact may be one of my most popular posts yet. After the great reception today and some of the feedback I got, I think a follow-up of some sort may be in order.

I decided to where a suit and tie to the event today.

(Who the hell is the thin dude???)

Unless they’re Christmas ties, I generally do not like ties. They remind me of upside-down silk nooses. I only don ties when I go to court. In fact, today when I revved up I ditched the tie and jacket. But, I had to wear them. You see, for many years I have had a closet full of really nice suits I couldn’t fit into. I think the one above is an Austin Reed, if that means anything. Thanks to my exercise program and diet, which I think I will patent and hawk on TV, not only do those suits fit – they’re a little loose! My fat suits may need serious surgery.

(Me. Thin. In a suit. With no cigar or beard… Yes, really me.)

I brought my daughter along for the fun. She did great until I went on a little too long – she got up and told me it was time to leave… Thank you, sweetie!!! We had strawberries and a visit to her little friend’s house as a reward.

(Daddy’s little helper.)

I love talking to and with libertarians, big or small “l.” They are the few who prefer liberty, as Sallust suggested 2000 years ago. And, as a rule, they are informed, engaging, and very very nice. Today was no exception. I fielded questions throughout the presentation, questions that greatly contributed to the overall topic. I also discussed the possibility of addressing other groups. I even offered to “debate” any communist or other hack they could dig up at Augusta State (GRU U) on the subject of gun control. It seems there is still doubt as to what the Second Amendment really means, even after Heller, Parker, and MacDonald, and a slew of other cases. I intend to write a clarifying post soon – particularly as to what part the people play with relation to the militia and where the militia stands with regard to the Imperial military (totally different birds).

I always learn something at these types of events, even when I’m the presenter. Speaking of the militia, today I learned that federal and state law enforcement, in conjunction with the MARINE CORPS!, has been conducting hypothetical war games in our area – against the Georgia militia! These exercises take place next door in South Carolina. I think I will write both governors and the interloper in the White House and ask if they would like the Georgia Militia to actively participate! I will lead the effort, if mr. Deal will allow it and appoint me as a Colonel or General or something. Men, I may be calling on you soon. If nothing else, I will demand to know why the USMC is drilling against the people of our state. Have they killed off all “tha taaarrists”???

The news:

Maybe we are the terrorists now. According to Washington’s puppet, Hamid Karzai, the U.S. is colluding with the Taliban. Remember them? They were our allies in the 1980s, who betrayed us on 9/11 and now, after 12 years of war, have become our allies again? I’m confused too. Kind of like al-CIA-da – the terror group developed by Washington during the cold war, who became our enemies in 2001, only to get our help in Libya, Syria, etc. Foreign entanglements, gotta love em.

In other news, Atlanta is now being called the “Detroit of the South” – that can’t be good. More and more suburbs are seceding to get away from the crime, corruption and financial burdens of the Big Peach. I have heard rumors that northern Fulton County may split and reform Milton County or whatever it was called 90 years ago. Peachy.

More rumors – the RepubliCONS, all hyped up on something, are vowing to budget Obamacare away sometime in the future. I have a shiny nickel that says they don’t.

That’s all for now. Many thanks again to Amanda, Rocky and my gracious hosts today. They even gave me a trio of books I have not read before – one about Bastiat! This looks to be a great week. I’m planning some terrific columns and maybe a site upgrade or two. See you tomorrow!