Tag Archives: law school

The Independent: Professor John B. Anderson

06 Friday Apr 2018

Posted by in Other Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

That’s what I always called him: Professor Anderson. Not Congressman.Not Mr. Anderson. Not John. Professor. That’s how I knew him.

This continues by series of belated eulogies. (I always find out well after the fact). John B. Anderson, former Illinois Congressman, died Dec. 3, 2017 at age 95. WaPo did a pretty good job of capturing the spirit of his political career. The terms in Congress. The Presidential run in 1980. The issues he thought important and his college teaching.

I knew him from law school. His Constitutional Decision Making and Electoral Process Classes were two electives and two of the few classes I actually enjoyed. He was really into electoral politics, with ideas a bit strange – yet, really, no stranger than the effete system you currently “enjoy.”

The Con Law class was were my work on Posse Comitatus first took shape, outside of a progenitor thought during a G. Gordon Liddy show episode. He initially took the research concept with a grain of salt. The grain developed when the subject contemporaneously arose from the DC sniper case(s). He heard something on the radio and called me with invigorated excitement. The rest was superfluous legal history.

I recall a visit to the Anderson home in Washington one summer (2002, I think). Professor A. and Keke graciously received my wife and I one sticky afternoon. In Keke I believe I saw some of the genesis of that “independent” proclivity. In truth, it looked more like liberalism than rebelliousness. But it was civil and interesting.

Such was the relationship. And the education. The above classes, like most, provided less overt substance than one would have supposed. However it was the idea bouncing that helped, that mattered. One needs that from time to time: someone to bounce the thoughts off. Someone independent.

Godspeed, Professor Anderson.

41j33TVwrhL._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_

John B. Anderson, Atheneum, Amazon.

Law Schools go Full SJW

10 Monday Jul 2017

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

This isn’t good for the legal profession. Actually, the law itself is all but dead. The active practice is in shambles both ideologically and in terms of operation. But the following represents a blow to the underpinnings of basic legal education that will be hard to recover from.

Howard University Professor of Law Reginald Robinson has been found “guilty” of sexual harassment. His offense was asking a question on an exam.

A college law professor has been found guilty of sexual harassment because he gave students a test question about a bikini wax.

Reginald Robinson included the question in a test for students at Howard University in Washington D.C. in September 2015.

It described a hypothetical situation in which a person sued a beauty salon claiming to have been touched inappropriately by a therapist after falling asleep while undergoing a bikini wax.

The question asked whether a court would support the person’s claim against the salon owner as opposed to the therapist and if it would even be upheld given that the person had consented to the somewhat invasive wax on their genitals.

Two students complained to the university. claiming that the question made them feel as though they had to reveal if they had ever undergone bikini waxes themselves.

They said they did not like the use of the word ‘genitals’, according to The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

A lengthy investigation was launched and on Thursday, it concluded that Robinson was guilty of sexual harassment.

As a result, he has to undergo sensitivity training, have all of his test questions screened by another member of staff and his classes will be supervised.

The university also warned that he could face termination if other students complain about him.

The university in Washington D.C. found Robinson guilty of sexual harassment after a lengthy investigation.

Robinson is outraged by the university’s decision which he said stops him from being able to properly educate students.

‘My case should worry every faculty member at Howard University, and perhaps elsewhere, who teaches in substantive areas like law, medicine, history, and literature.

Why? None of these academic areas can be taught without evaluating and discussing contextual facts, especially unsavory and emotionally charged ones.

‘I also can’t prepare my students adequately for legal practice if I can’t teach them new developments and require them to read unedited, unfiltered cases,’ he said in a statement.

The university did not respond to DailyMail.com’s request on Sunday morning. A spokesman for FIRE slammed its findings.

‘Robinson’s test question clearly does not constitute sexual harassment.

‘Howard’s overreaction to a simple hypothetical question is a threat to academic freedom and a professor’s ability to effectively teach students,’ they said.

Here’s the “offensive” question:

422B920D00000578-4679476-image-a-34_1499610567513

Daily Mail / Reginald Robinson.

The subject matter may sound a little silly and even “skanky.” Please rest assured that at least half of all real life civil cases may accurately be described as such. This case, this exact question, is bound to happen somewhere in America if it hasn’t happened already. The real plaintiff will probably be (is) another SJW.

These are the pathetic, demented souls that complain of everything. Then they complain about their complaints. They’re everywhere now, including law schools. That’s the funny part (or another funny part).

Robinson is a full professor; he’s been teaching since 1991 and at Howard since 1994. He has tenure. He’s also a black man. He researches, writes, and teaches extensively about “race theory” and the law. This would seem to be the ideal liberal combination for any law professor in 2017. Then again, he also teaches Business Law and actually has the insane idea that he’s supposed to equip his students for the real world.

Any shrieking, blue-haired, malcontent that can’t handle the word “genitals” won’t fare so well when it comes time to examine in court, in-depth and with a medical examiner’s testimony, the internal autopsy photographs which document exactly how the five-year-old murder victim died. I’ve been there and done that. That sort of thing turns cast iron kettles to say nothing of stomachs. The SJWs will have to be revived by paramedics and rushed to the safe room (surely coming to a courthouse near you).

But coloring books and play mats won’t be able to save what little is left of the legal profession if this kind of bullsh!t is allowed to stand. F.I.R.E. (a likely hate group by SPLC standards) is on the case.

With or without F.I.R.E., Robinson should sue the school. And every other normal law student should implead himself as a third-party plaintiff. This utter nonsense threatens the integrity of every JD granted by Howard. It screams that the graduates are not prepared to leave kindergarten, let alone enter the demanding arena of the juridical combat.

And if a tenured black professor, who actively advances “race theory” can become an SJW target, anyone can be a target. Except, maybe, those who bait the crybabies. By the way, this harassment story reminded me: I didn’t know “harass” was one word until the Clarence Thomas debacle. Ha! Get it? Harass. Her-a…? ??? Eh well.

Seriously, it’s time to drive these pitiful nuts out of the schools, the HR department, out of everywhere of importance, and back into the play pens of make-believe.

For a better understanding of how these losers operate and how to deal with them, please buy and read SWJs Always Lie by Vox Day.

And please Join and Support Perrin over at Patreon!

Just Repeal it Already. Idiots.

22 Thursday Jun 2017

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

I was assured that Karen Handel’s trouncing of the zone jumper boy would instantly fix everything. Yet, now, we here murmurs in the Senate against Trump-RyanCare, or ObamaCare II. Rand and his three fellow conservative musketeers lead a revolt.

The four conservative GOP senators — Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mike Lee of Utah, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Ted Cruz of Texas — released a joint statement Thursday afternoon outlining their concerns:

“Currently, for a variety of reasons, we are not ready to vote for this bill, but we are open to negotiation and obtaining more information before it is brought to the floor. There are provisions in this draft that represent an improvement to our current healthcare system but it does not appear this draft as written will accomplish the most important promise that we made to Americans: to repeal Obamacare and lower their healthcare costs.”

“It looks like a reiteration or a keeping of Obamacare,” Sen. Paul told reporters Thursday afternoon. “I’m a ‘no’ on the bill currently.”

Trump promised us “the best healthcare.” McConnell said he would rip up ObamaCare “root and branch.” Ryan whimpered something. What gives. Rush told us for 25 years the Republicans were the conservatives. Odd, that they would keep having problems getting legislation past that element within their own party.

AP PAUL 2016 A USA IL

“Yeah … no.” Freedom Works.

The shame of it is that these fools are in complete control. The loyal opposition in disarray, unable to win sure runoffs, the Jellyfish Party could simply ram through a full repeal and be done with it – the ensuing “Russia” accusations aside.

No, the real shame is the continuing charade of the “two-party system” and its…

No, wait, the actual shame is that the people believe in any of this. It’s 2017. 10,000 years of political lies would seem enough.

Whatever it is, it is a shame.

For shame. Idiots.

Ohio State Terrorist Attack Highlights Need For Guns On Campus

30 Wednesday Nov 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

ISIS, CNN, BLM, and liberal Amerika are singing the praises of Abdul “Allah Akbar” Artan, the worthless POS who drove into OSU students and hacked survivors with a butcher knife Monday. Normal Americans, real Americans, people with IQs over room temperature are praising Officer Alan Horujko, of the OSU Police.

officer-alan-horujko-1-768x465

Horijko. OSU PD.

Horujko’s proximity to the attack and his skillful and determined reactions prevented more stabbings and likely halted multiple deaths.

The assailant’s death came after Officer Alan Horujko, 28 approached the suspect demanding that he drop his weapon, described as a butcher knife.

Yelled Horujko: ‘Drop it and get down or I’ll shoot.’

Soon after, the officer followed through on his threat and shot Artan, killing him at the scene.

At the time, OSU police officer Alan Horujko, had been nearby to the core of the mayhem because of a gas leak, with the police officer arriving within a minute of the attack beginning where he shot and killed Abdul Artan.

Things ended as well as the could given the circumstances. The only good news out of all of this is that: Artan is dead and more people are waking up. Horujko kept the situation from becoming much worse.

But what if he hadn’t been around?

Ohio State and all college campuses in Ohio are gun free zones. Concealed carry licensees may have a firearm on campus. However, the gun must be uselessly locked up at all times in a motor vehicle.

A valid license does not authorize the licensee to carry a concealed handgun into any of the following places:

…

(5) Any premises owned or leased by any public or private college, university, or other institution of higher education, unless the handgun is in a locked motor vehicle or the licensee is in the immediate process of placing the handgun in a locked motor vehicle; …

– Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2923.126(B)(5).

OSU’s Code of Student Conduct also prohibits firearms:

(E) Dangerous weapons or devices.

Storage or possession of dangerous weapons, devices, or substances including, but not limited to, firearms, ammunition or fireworks, unless authorized by an appropriate university official or permitted by a university policy, even if otherwise permitted by law. Use or misuse of weapons, devices, or substances in a manner that causes or threatens serious harm to the safety or security of others.

– OSU Code of Conduct, 3335-23-04 Prohibited conduct.

Neither of these idiotic policies comport with “shall not be infringed”. They and other laws and rules against murder, mayhem, battery, and terrorism did nothing to stop the crazed jihadi Artan. In fact, they helped his Satanic cause.

If Horujko had not been immediately present, Artan could have continued hacking away until people died. He could expanded the scope of his attack without fear of retaliation. His victims were nearly defenseless.

The above-cited news story contained praise for Horujko from Ohio Governor John Kasich. Kasich shares some of the blame for the attack. He betrayed his citizens by supporting President Obama’s drive to settle international savages and terrorists in Ohio. He’s also the chief enforcer of the unconstitutional anti-gun laws.

College students have the same right to be armed as does everyone else in America. Given the level of “diversity” these days, the need is critical. Those illegal laws must be repealed. Until then they should be ignored or circumvented.

If I were a Ohio student, I would constantly carry a concealed gun. The odds of being “caught” are slim to none. If one is detained or questioned, one has a perfect defense (without explaining the Second Amendment). One just says he’s “in the immediate process of placing the handgun in a locked motor vehicle.” Once the cops are gone retrieve it and carry on.

Thugs like Artan only deserve to be shot down. And on that note I’d like to mention this:

I saw somewhere, Twitter maybe, that BLM and the Marxists administrators at OSU are crying over Artan’s horrible and tragic death. “He was part of the family. Blah, Blah, Blah.” They asked that no pictures of the poor boy’s dead body post to social media.

Therefore, to disrespect and dishonor that demented stupidity, I offer you this in parting:

suspect-dead-osu-575x352

Abdul Artan, at left and on the ground, shortly after he became a “good” terrorist.

Advice for Would-Be Law Students

13 Saturday Aug 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, Other Columns

≈ Comments Off on Advice for Would-Be Law Students

Tags

, , , , , ,

Late this spring, at a school ceremony, I was surprised to learn that my Daughter wants to be an attorney when she grows up. I had thought she wanted to be a marine biologist or a veterinarian or an artist. Maybe like me, she’s a contrarian; after hearing me grumble for years about the law business, maybe she just has to try it. Maybe she’ll grow out of it. Perhaps she’ll become a marine biology attorney. I just want her to be happy.

The law isn’t for everyone and not all areas of the legal profession are the same. The law itself isn’t what it used to be. At Nuremberg the traditions of Western legal philosophy were effectively jettisoned through the window. They clung to the ledge for a while and then fell. Currently, the law lies, dying, on the street below. If one listens, one can still hear it murmur things like “due process” and “no ex post facto…”. Sad, really.

Still, many will want to at least attend law school; several will go on to become practicing attorneys. For these prospective students, I thought I would offer some advice, some ideas about the profession and its formal education process. Here goes:

The practice of law is horrible. Tucker Max wrote the best essay on the subject I have ever read: Why You Shouldn’t Go to Law School: For the overwhelming majority of people (>99.9%), law school is the wrong choice. Here’s why. Read that. Neither he nor I practice now. I fell under his fourth reason not to go to law school – I wanted to do something noble. I didn’t, I couldn’t. It is impossible. My ideal was to bring freedom to as many people as possible. They don’t want it. Most of what I write here is still a vain attempt to bring people around. That, or preaching to the choir. Read that essay – Tucker’s a funny man, but he’s dead serious on all counts. And right too.

 

Even worse than the theory of jurisprudence and the active practice is state of legal education itself, especially in America. Read my essay on that.

American legal education is so bad that the esteemed Alan Watson wrote a book about it: The Shame of American Legal Education. Read that book before you apply to law school.

Alan Watson, Esq. Amazon.

If an American, despite these warnings, must go to law school, they should consider Watson’s alternative. Consider going to law school in Scotland. There, legal theory is still revered and taught. The Scottish schools teach people the law itself. American schools teach being a boring cog in a broken wheel (and most aren’t very good at even that). One might decide to stay in Scotland. Should one return to the U.S. one will have to obtain some auxiliary BS “training” before joining the bar. But, at least that person would be fortified in the truth and the science as American law students are not.

One American law school is about as bad as the rest. Rankings really do not matter. Still, for prestige alone and to help with seeking employment, try a top-rated school if possible. The experience will still disappoint.

These schools, for as little as they are worth, are expensive. A legal education can easily cost $250,000 or more. And low-tier schools can be just as expensive as Harvard or Yale. If one must go, try for a top-ranked state school and try to get a scholarship.

Take a break between undergraduate studies and law school and explore something – anything. This might kill the desire to study law. That would be a good thing.

Consider alternatives. Put some thought into it. In retrospect, I should have pursued an advanced degree in political philosophy or history. Maybe chemistry or forestry. Yes, the law can open many doors of opportunity but it also makes you walk through other doors not so appealing.

Do not study pre-law or business law or any related BS in college thinking it will help with law school. It won’t. English, philosophy, and political theory are better majors. The best course of study is the one that interests you the most. Above all else, remember to learn something.

Before you fully commit to legal education (here or abroad) do two internships or volunteer stints. The first should be in the area you think you are most interested in. The second should be in the field that is most remote from what you think you like. This will provide a real-world perspective and a little balance. Bounce your ideas off of everyone.

Consider the rise of the AI attorney. Robots are not just stealing factory jobs. By the time my daughter graduates from college (or even high school) computers will be doing most legal work. This will be good and bad. It will save many students from horrendous careers though leaving them burdened with debt and regrets.

Consider that people will constantly bother you for advice – even if you can’t give it. “You’re a contracts attorney? Great! Let me ask you about my friend’s DUI charges…” These types love to waste time and they don’t pay for it. They also don’t follow advice anyway. Upon not following it, they will still blame you for the problems they created. As there are a few too many attorneys, so there are WAY too many idiots.

Don’t be afraid of change. Becoming a lawyer doesn’t mean being one for life. One can switch areas of practice or leave the law altogether. Fifty percent or more of American lawyers do not practice law.

In fact, don’t be afraid. That’s the best advice I could give my daughter or anyone else. I just want her to be happy. I want everyone to be happy. And free. See, I’m still at it…

 

*Ads below this line are not Perrin Lovett’s. He hopes they are harmless.

 

Judging Judges and the Law

28 Tuesday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

“Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Matthew 7:1 (KJV). If being a judge means proclaiming judgment, then would it be judgmental to judge judges? You be the judge of that.

Federal appellate judge Richard Posner, the veritable father of “law and economics” is accustomed to passing judgment, in and out of court. He recently told Slate his views on the demise of modern American law schools and of the Constitution, one in conjunction with the other.

He warned that law school faculty is out of touch with the actual practice of the law. They are. Says Posner, “I think law schools should be hiring a higher percentage of lawyers with significant practical experience.” He’s right and continued:

And on another note about academia and practical law, I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today.

He’s right there too. Other than paying it lip service no-one in government – not judges, not Congress, not the President, certainly not the bureaucracy – none of them heed the Constitution whatsoever. I may disagree with Posner’s interpretation approach to the subject but we can agree with the end result. Nino Scalia was the last man to hold the Constitution in awe and he is gone. It’s just what you eventually get from a strong central government, like that one birthed by the Constitution.

However, Posner need not worry about the academic nuances of Constitutional study. That just doesn’t exist anymore. As I noted back in 2013 the one thing left out of Constitutional Law in law school is … the Constitution. To the academics it’s just a list of inexhaustible government powers and a few, pet privileges they call “rights”. It is what it is, what it has become, what it was.

In fairness to Posner, he’s fair across the board when condemning tradition. He’s been trying to abolish reliance on Harvard’s Blue Book for a generation. That one, unlike the Founder’s scribbles, is strictly observed in law school or was when I was there (been a little while). True to disjointed form, almost no practicing lawyers and fewer and fewer trial judges actually observe Harvard’s citation system – they just cut and paste from screen to screen. It makes sense; if the Constitution is out and the laws are never far behind in obsolescence, what’s the point in properly noting them?

One thing is certain – U.S. law schools and the legal system need a severe overhaul soon. On that, we can pass judgment.

Venezuela: Statist Paradise

29 Sunday May 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Simon Bolivar, the father of Venezuela, was a fan of Thomas Jefferson and both the American and the French revolutions. His belief was that South American countries would benefit from republican government so long as there was a firm hand in the government. Looking around his lands, he decried what he called the “triple yoke of ignorance, tyranny, and vice”. Over the past two centuries he’s been proven right and wrong about his creations.

Modern Venezuela is a fantastic country plagued with less-than-fantastic governance. The firm hand Bolivar thought necessary has proven a curse of late (from Hugo Chavez to Nicolas Maduro). The country has also slowly slid off the American model (a little more than America itself has) and into the abyss of socialism.

The United States has, thanks to the industriousness of her people, resisted the perils of statism longer and better than most. That is rapidly changing in the 21st century. Still, some think that America was made great because of various socialistic experiments rather than in spite of them. All of the popular contenders for President are pro-government. Two push traditional liberal/socialist policies and one of those two (Bernie) is a hardliner. Anyone thinking of supporting Bernie, specifically, or the government in general should take a close look at what is unfolding in Venezuela.

Electricity, water, phone access, police services and food are in short supply as a result of decades of mismanagement of the economy. (All socialist intervention is mismanagement.) The global financial crisis is helping to accelerate the vulnerable nation’s decline. A seeming side benefit of the crisis – curtailing of government services on a grand scale – is an illusion. Martial law is being formulated, being partly enacted via two recent state of emergency decrees from Maduro. Such places are prone to military coops. Venezuela will survive but not before the people there see a good deal of needless suffering.

American preppers are taking note as the scenario in Venezuela might as well have come from the warnings of a prepping website. Some are pointing and saying, “see, we told you so.” It could all happen to the U.S.

Others would do well to pay attention too. Most will not. The majority of America citizens are not aware of any wolf at the door until he comes through and pounces on the bed. Even then, most would only ask him not to block the TV. Many elites don’t or won’t care as they have helped create these conditions in the first place. Academics share a large responsibility. A huge share of that blame goes to law professors. American law schools, demographically, do not resemble America – at least not traditional (former) America. According to a Rasmussen Media study 82% of law school professors are Democrats and less than half are Christians.

Based on my experience, I’d say 82% is a little light. Substituting “leftist” for “Democrat” would steer the number closer to 99%. As of last year there were six professors in the entire nation who identified as libertarian, anarchist, or adherents of Natural Law – and one died in January. They are statistical outliers.

The 82% or 99% (or virtual 100%) preach never-ending statism. Government, they say, is the end-all, be-all super solution to any and all problems. Given the “triumph” of their adored system in Venezuela, I’d suggest most of them move there. I know they won’t as they also have a fondness for things like electricity, telephones, and food. To think, they shun paradise. Odd.

El Libertador. Google.

**Note: two names in this non-cigar piece are titanic in the cigar world. “Bernie” ain’t one.

Powers Vs. Rights

16 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Powers Vs. Rights

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This post concerns the force and effect of the United States Constitution and similar documents. I’ll stick with the U.S. version for simplicity and because most state and many foreign constitutions are based on the federal version.

The old parchment is divided into several articles and subsequent amendments. Each of these deals with different legal concepts. Article One grants certain powers to Congress. Article Two does the same for the executive. Amendment Three prohibits the government from sheltering soldiers in your house during peacetime. There are seven primary articles and twenty-seven amendments.

Aside from formal division the Constitution may be properly divided into two parts. Good Constitutional Law professors cover this in first year law school. The notice is generally lost amid a mad scramble to interpret Byzantine case-law and make a living as an attorney. The lesson is almost completely unknown outside of law and political theory education.

The first effective feature of the Constitution is that is allows powers for the government. In fact the Constitution created the federal government. In 1789 those seeking strong central political control replaced the Articles of Confederation which had loosely united the several (and wholly independent) states for a very few mutually beneficial purposes. The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, came along two years later as almost an afterthought.

The anti-federalists were concerned that certain fundamental rights needed official recognition and legal protection. Their theory was that a strong government, even of republican nature, could run roughshod over the freedoms of the people – like a dictatorial monarch. The amendments were added without much fuss as it was then concerned the new government, its keepers, and their successors would never seek to abridge such rights as freedom of speech, bearing arms, or freedom from illegal arrest and punishment. No one saw any harm in the additions.

The inclusion of those additional protections proved both prophetic and pointless. Those ten amendments and a few others comprise the other practical function of the Constitution – protection of individual rights.

In an ideal world government would only exist to protect people from those things they would be otherwise vulnerable to. The proper function of law and politics would be a careful balancing of the power of the government and the rights of the people. Powers versus rights. Some legal scholars still wax elegantly about the concept. Their conceptualization is largely just conceptual.

The new federal government lost little time in enacting various laws which curtailed individual liberty. The trend continues to this day in addition to the habit of constantly expanding the realm of federal authority light years beyond what the Constitution allows. The courts, allegedly the arbiters of the balancing test, have largely consented to this gross shift. They too wasted no time in inventing new authority for themselves – “judicial review” for example.

Any review usually ends up empowering the state. They are on the same team after all. The people, now bereft of representation and appellate avenues, are on the outside looking in. Lawyers gleefully await court decisions to tell them what laws really mean. The public, largely fat and ignorant, continues to support this corrupt system with astounding zealous patriotism.

As a result of all this what we are left with is a central government of unlimited power ruling over a nation of peasants who are happy to receive whatever liberty the rulers confer upon them. Every once in a while one or another branch kindly reaffirms some right. These are usually in trivial matters. However, the march to greater control never ceases. It works well as most do not favor freedom. Under the faux two-party system, most go along so long as their side wins on a somewhat regular basis.

In truth, they lose. We all lose. All except for the corrupt politicians and beaurocrats and their corporate crony enablers. The system is wrecked and bears nearly resemblance to even that central authoritarian regimes of the late seventeen Century let along an ideal state.

In modern reality ignorance abounds. Some speak of the right of the government to do some thing or the other. Governments have no rights as they are artificial constructs. Only human individuals have rights. These rights are natural, God-given. Governments can only protect or (more often) abridge those freedoms.

Others decry freedom outright. They declare the people have too many rights. For them, in their simple lives, they may be right. Argument for order and justice is lost on them and a waste of time.

There are those who indulge in the fantasy that a return to the original text and intent of the Constitution would usher in utopia. If this myth was anything but, I could agree with them. The federal government of 1791 would be infinitely better than what we suffer today. That of the Articles would be better yet.

The myth lovers assert the Constitution established a national government of limited scope. Maybe they are correct in theory. In real life no government worth its salt stays limited for long. Geometric growth of government is an iron law of political science.

bbnhyu66667

So it is with freedom and central authority. Mencken.

Lysander Spooner said it best of the lost war of Rights versus Powers: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” He elaborated: “A man’s natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling themselves a government.”

I find my view of anarchy criticized at times as belief in fantasy. It is said that men, by their very nature, cannot be trusted for long to maintain free, peaceful association and mutual respect. This, sadly, may be true. It, then, is also true that an honest man, desiring to remain free, cannot trust a government, any government. Belief in central authority is thus misguided. Tell you what, you have your fantasy and I’ll have mine. The rest of you have a choice to make: support powers or support rights.

Reading The Law: The Ancient Alternative to Law School

07 Monday Dec 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Reading The Law: The Ancient Alternative to Law School

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A few days ago I wrote a column about the trials and tribulations of a beautiful, talented young woman enrolled and embattled at the Moritz College of Law at THE Ohio State University. I’ve also written about my legal education.

Law schools have become a collection of expensive but houses where, if one can tolerate the boredom and foolishness, one is allowed the honor of applying for a state license to practice law. The courses studied in these schools bear little resemblance to the actual law. Graduation does not guarantee admittance to the Bar. Bar test preparation is left to the student once he graduates.

Many determined and intelligent students will succeed on their own merits. A few law schools do a fair job readying students for the profession; most are dismal in their attempts. Alan Watson, of whom I have sung praise before, is the preeminent expert on legal philosophy. He wrote a book, The Shame of American Legal Education, which should be required reading for any American giving serious thought to attending law school.

Watson decries the lack of intellectual rigor and dependence of the case method (religious study of court interpretation of the law) which plague American law colleges. He praises the system of his native Scotland where students attend school for a shorter period of time and actually learn both the letter of and the ideas behind the law. Following graduation the Scots apprentice under established barristers to round out their education and transition into the field.

It’s a far better approach than we Americans use. It is similar to our old system which we adopted from the British. They had adopted it from the Romans and the Greeks.

For ages attorneys were educated men who studied the law under the tutelage of a practicing attorney. A few had a short period of standardized class time at a college. This formal lecturing range from a few weeks to a year. Upon completion of the apprenticeship the budding lawyers were either certified by a local court or eligible to sit for Bar examination (if any) or they just started working on their own.

The institution was known as “reading the law.” Most of the greatest attorneys of history were produced this way. Their ranks include: Solon, Cato, Cicero, St. Thomas More, William Blackstone, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Jay, Lysander Spooner, Abraham Lincoln, James Byrnes, and Robert Jackson. All of these men were accomplished attorneys. Some were titans of the field.

Marco_Porcio_Caton_Major

Cato the Elder.

In America this was the standard of legal instruction from colonial times until the early 20th Century. The College of William and Mary was the first American school with formal law lectures. These were designed to enhance the student’s apprenticeship. Jefferson attended lectures at William and Mary.

Young men were encouraged to read the law, to understand theory and application:

If you are absolutely determined to make a lawyer of yourself the thing is more than half done already. It is a small matter whether you read with any one or not. I did not read with any one. Get the books and read and study them in their every feature, and that is the main thing. It is no consequence to be in a large town while you are reading. I read at New Salem, which never had three hundred people in it. The books and your capacity for understanding them are just the same in all places.

Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any other one thing.

Abraham Lincoln, 1855

Things began to change in the late 1800s. It was then the newly formed American Bar Association began to lobby states to restrict licensing to those who had attended law schools. Later the ABA commenced its practice of certifying the schools. This cartel approach of command and control protected the monopoly of the existing bar members. The results, from a quality viewpoint, were mixed. Blackstones and Jeffersons are hard to come by these days.

The radical expansion of law school power coincided with the massive growth of government. Both resulted in the growth and increased complexity of the laws. As Cicero noted, more laws means less justice. Of course, justice had nothing to do with these trends. They were premised entirely on control and money.

Nonetheless a few states still adhere to the reading tradition although it is frowned upon. Those who stand to lose prestige and tuition frown a lot.

California, Maine, New York, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington still allow reading in place of law schooling. Each has its own standards and in some a period of law school attendance is required. Out of over 80,000 new lawyers minted in 2013, less than 100 read the law.

The surviving process of reading has been lauded of late by Business Insider and the New York Times. Both note the difficulties faced by a reader.

“The A.B.A. takes the position that the most appropriate process for becoming a lawyer should include obtaining a J.D. degree from a law school approved by the A.B.A. and passing a bar examination,” said Barry A. Currier, managing director of accreditation and legal education for the group.

Robert E. Glenn, president of the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, was less circumspect. “It’s a cruel hoax,” he said of apprenticeships. “It’s such a waste of time for someone to spend three years in this program but not have anything at the end.”

NY Times.

Of course, anything but the cartel’s way is a hoax. The frowners frown. Never mind the vast number of students who drop out of law school or graduate but cannot pass the bar. At least they paid tuition.

A few organizations exist to perpetuate the old tradition. Sterling Education Services is one. “What if, instead of a traditional law school degree and six-figure debt, you could take the bar exam and achieve your goal through hands-on legal experience?” – Sterling. These groups offer study aids and seminars. They’re looking to cash in on the alternative. Then again, these are the exact same bar prep services law school graduates turn to immediately after law school.

Though frowned upon this ancient alternative is viable. If a lawyer reads the law in a reading state and passes that state’s bar, he can then apply in other states. It would certainly warrant examination by those considering the legal profession. Those who follow this path follow in the footsteps of giants.

Law Schools: Deans, Dunces, and Degeneracy

28 Saturday Nov 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This week I protested the wholesale stupidity and cowardice of high school administrators in Massachusetts. Sadly, I now have bigger fish to fry. Fry them I shall. Last night I read about the utter demise of the Moritz College of Law at THE (they put emphasis on that word) Ohio State University.

You may recall my reflections on my own Legal “Education” – a process which bears little resemblance to the legal profession and none to the actual law. Law schools obsess over “positive law,” meaning statutes and court decisions (particularly the courts). There the Natural Law is a heresy.

In general law schools are not worth attending. They offer three years of state worship, communism and idiocy in exchange for entry into a failed and depressing career. THE Ohio State law school provides an excellent example.

Until about 40 or 50 years ago American universities were places where ideas were exchanged and cultivated. Law schools were supposedly high bastions of legal theory. I say supposedly because they also served as gatekeepers for the attorneys’ professional monopoly. Many of our best lawyers – Jefferson, Adams, Spooner, etc. – did not attend law schools – they “read” or self studied the law while apprenticed to a practicing attorney. I digress…

Elementary and high schools provided the base education. They made sure graduates could read, write, add and think for themselves. They also instilled a sense of history and scientific wonder and civic appreciation. Colleges were where serious scholars furthered their learning. Graduate schools were reserved for the elite.

Everything has changed now. Grade schools today serve as temporary detention centers where the inmates are indoctrinated as they await entry into either real prisons, menial employment (becoming rarer), or college admissions. The colleges serve as hosts for semi-professional football teams, sex and drug parties, and havens for the mentally defective, otherwise unemployable people known as “academics.”

Colleges, to include law schools, babysit a generation of uneducated, uninterested, uninteresting weaklings. The students demand “safe spaces.” They obsess over trivial or purely imaginary sufferings of which they have no understanding. They are unfamiliar with free thought or the value of a question. The staff and professors, still mourning the loss of the Soviet Union, cater to this legion of wusses in a desperate bid to keep their own irrelevant jobs. They cater and coddle so long as the little snowflakes are politically correct. The free-thinker, the libertarian, the conservative, the proudly Caucasian and the Christian are considered enemies within.

Madison Gesiotto found out about the deplorable intellectual dishonesty and spinelessness of the Moritz College of Law the hard way. The stunning beauty queen (Miss Ohio USA) came to Moritz for the stunning purpose of furthering her education. A pro-life Catholic and an accomplished writer, she penned a story about the devastating effects of the abortion industry on the black community.

This was a triple sin. First, Christians are supposed to be silent should they even be allowed inside the temples of government worship. Second, abortion is a sacrament to the cult and never to be questioned. Third, and a recent development, the black community is not to be mentioned outside of glowing support for the black lives matter bullshit and other small sects of discontent.

A reasonable, thoughtful person would glean from Madison’s article her concern for black children, all children, murdered by the Satanic likes of Planned Parenthood. The American abortion trade was born of racist Nazi origin. One would think liberals and the modern race hustlers would declare war on rather than fully defend such an institution. Those black lives must not matter.

For her sincere concern and honest scholarship Madison received scorn and even a threat. “The government cannot take action against you for your offensive and racist article. But your colleagues can,” wrote some idiot on Madison’s Facebook page. Madison does not know the fool who posted this statement (smart enough not to be criminal but dumb enough for national condemnation) though she knows or suspects he is a student at Moritz.

I wrote to Madison too, informing her that her online stalker is a wuss and not to be feared. I can almost guarantee he sleeps with a nightlight – the kind who flits about in skinny jeans – the kind just brave enough to threaten a girl on the internet – the kind that finds girls “icky.”

We can tell a good bit about our e-vilgilante by his choice of words. He starts: “The government cannot take action against you …” He really wishes it could. He’s a socialist or Nazi at heart. Anything he deems inappropriate should be a crime. The government should take action.

“…for your offensive and racist article.” Up is down and black is white to these itty bitty babys. An article condemning the murder of several hundred thousand black children each year is racist. Does the bedwetter want them killed? Why? Perhaps his cry is a transferring admission of a conscious he is personally afraid of. And “offensive.” Lefties love nothing more than to be offended by something. Rather than threaten Madison they should thank her for giving them something to cry about.

“But your colleagues can.” Can what? Take what action? Whatcha pansies gonna do? They’ve done it. They sent a Facebook message. They have now exhausted their powers. One would hope they are now safely back in the safe room being safe. You can’t help but feel sorry for them. It’s like coming across a terminally injured rabbit (except the bunny thinks a bit more and isn’t afraid of girl bunnies).

Using this dork as a benchmark Madison has no colleagues at Moritz. She must stand out like a tree among weeds. That last line – the threat – was a subtle warning that politically incorrect thought and expression will be punished by the legal community. The sentiment was echoed by the school itself as I will note shortly.

So what? Madison can’t be kicked out for free speech (though that would rid her of all this stupidity). Perhaps the Ohio Bar will frown on her application. Odds are the review personnel are not smart enough or industrious enough to connect these dots. Even if they did, they can be sued just like a law school. Maybe Madison won’t have the luxury of slaving away 16 hours a day, 7 days a week for years at a big “prestigious” law firm. The kind of firm where, if you survive, they come to you one day and tell you you’re not moving up so it’s time to move out.  Horrors!

No, Madison’s future is secure. She was bright enough to make it on her own anyway. Now, as a victim of statist discrimination, she is a national sweetheart. People (most of us) still love real women and real Americans. She’s probably already had job offers. Maybe book offers. She will be on national television this weekend to explain her experience.

Now, let us look at the school itself. Feeling threatened Madison did what she was supposed to. She contacted the school and arranged a meeting with the dean. At the meeting she found herself confronted by three deans. They blew off her concerns for her safety and freedom and immediately attacked her and her article.

“This is a flawed article, it’s not a good legal piece, it’s not a good journalistic piece, either,” snorted her trio of over(tax)paid assailants. Like the Facebook bully these “academics” revealed a bit of their psyche and lack of mental horsepower. Their statement revealed a lack of understanding of journalism, legal or otherwise.

Dean Alan C. Michaels said he “takes any alleged threat against its students very seriously.” The thought bubble over his head continued, “except in this case. We’re going to abuse the victim here.”

Alan, who graduated from Harvard and Columbia, can be reached at (614) 292-0574. He’s a former prosecutor and criminal law specialist. Criminal. You know. Like threatening remarks criminal. Criminal negligence in refusing to investigate threats. Pitiful. If the roles were reversed, Madison would be in a holding cell somewhere. Pathetic.

Dean Kathy Seward Northern ((614) 292- 7750) alerted Madison she had reached out to the Moritz’s Black Law Students Association and found them not a threat to Madison. This was pointless as Northern knew the stalker was white and likely not a member of the BLSA. Her real intent was probably to fan emotions in the BLSA against Madison’s raaaaaaacism (defending black babies and all that). Her specialty is “environmental racism” whatever the hell that is.

The hidden agenda worked. The BLSA said they were OFFENDED by the racist article. Again, she made their day, showering them with glorious offense. Not mine. All this offense taking is beginning to offend me.

Northern told Madison (probably while looking down her nose) “that in her mind this article could be taken various ways and left questions to be answered.” Yeah, idiot, that’s what good journalism does. It provokes questions. Thoughts. Discussion.

The deans did recommend a “facilitated discussion” between Madison and her intellectual and emotional inferiors. She wisely refused. Such a session would have consisted of lowbrow freaks taunting the young woman (while maybe also flinging poo at her) while the deans looked on in smug approval.

A third dean was mentioned but remains unidentified. It’s as likely as not it was a homeless person pulled in off the street by Michaels and Northern. Hobos look and act much like law school deans. He obviously added nothing memorable to the conversation.

The Moritz website touts its faculty: “Brilliant scholars and devoted teachers, our professors are passionate about making lasting contributions in their fields of expertise and in the lives of their students.” I ponder their lasting contributions to Madison. Maybe they did teach her something – personal fortitude in the face of socialism.

Like a champion, Madison remains undeterred. She wrote another excellent article in her own defense. 

I am Catholic, I am conservative, I am an American, I am a woman, I am a millennial, I am a law student and I am proud.

I am not afraid to voice my opinions and refuse to be stifled by the unwillingness of others to accept views, beliefs or behaviors different from their own.

Madison, Washington Times.

You. Go. Girl.

Concerned Women for America and other groups have come to her defense. Not that she needs it. She has single-handedly defeated the fascists of Moritz. She did it by merely standing up to them. They have no power over her and will fear her going forward. They also have nothing to teach her though this incident has given her an education of sorts.

Madison is beautiful, brave, talented and a winner. She can’t be alone in academia. If there remain even a few like her, then the institution is not completely lost.

northern_kathyHobo-Costume1

The dynamic deanery.