Any job can get a little boring, doing the same thing day in and day out—even when you’re a federal judge.I recently wrote an article about a federal judge who issued an order riddled with “Star Trek” references; I guess it was a slow day at the courthouse.Apparently, he’s not the only judge recently to liven up his opinion with amusing wordplay.In April, U.S. District Judge Fred Biery in San Antonio creatively confronted a gentleman’ club’s challenge (on First Amendment grounds) to a San Antonio city ordinance requiring dancers to wear pasties to cover their breasts.Judge Biery had a lot of fun with this opinion, liberally sprinkling it with double-entendres and cheeky references (he also notes that while there were no amicus curiaebriefs filed, “the Court has been blessed with volunteers known in South Texas as “curious amigos” to be inspectors general to perform on sight visits at the locations in question”).
Among other risqué turns of phrase, Judge Biery notes that “Plaintiffs clothe themselves in the First Amendment” seeking to prevent another “naked grab of unconstitutional power.”The Plaintiffs, according to Judge Biery, warned that the ordinance would “strip them of their profits” and impact “their bottom line,” while the city wanted these businesses “to be girdled more tightly.”What the Plaintiffs were seeking, said Judge Biery, was the “erection of a constitutional wall separating themselves from the regulatory power of city government.”In considering the clubs’ argument that they would be negatively impacted by being forced to choose between having dancers wear bikini tops (or pasties) and not be regulated, or go topless and be considered a sexually-oriented business, Judge Biery opined “To bare, or not to bare, that is the question.”While he doubted that “several square inches of fabric will stanch the flow of violence and other secondary effects emanating from these businesses,” Judge Biery nevertheless sided with the city and denied the clubs’ request for an injunction.However, he held out hope for a settlement, saying that if the parties happened to “string” the bikini case out (Judge Biery even entitled his order “The Case of the Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Bikini Top vs. The (More) Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Pastie”), “the court encourages reasonable discovery intercourse as they navigate the peaks and valleys of litigation, perhaps to reach a happy ending.”Time for a cold shower, judge.
From a judge dealing with dancers exposing too much to a judge ordered to show more than she wants, we come to the case of Joan Orie Melvin.Melvin, a former justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, was convicted of using public resources—her staff workers—in her political campaign.The former judge was spared prison time, but has to serve 3 years of house arrest, pay a fine, and work in a soup kitchen 3 times a week.But the most interesting part of her punishment is a public shaming for what Judge Lester Nauhaus called “stunning arrogance.” Melvin will have to write a letter of apology to every judge in the state—on a photograph of herself wearing handcuffs.
And if public humiliation is your thing, consider this recent exchange in a high-profile sex trafficking case in New York.Howard Greenberg was vigorously defending his client, accused pimp Vincent George, maintaining that the women weren’t victims, but instead were happy “hoes” who considered themselves part of George’s “family.”The prosecutor called a “trauma bonding” expert, Chitra Raghavan, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, to testify about why prostitutes might put up with and even defend their pimps.Greenberg suggested that the women’s decision to sell their time was no different from, say, the expert witness herself—bought and paid for by the prosecution.I’ve referred to experts “whoring themselves out” before, but this takes the cake.
Some lawyers or witnesses are valuable because of their insider knowledge of a company; as the expression goes, they “know where the bodies are buried” (in New Jersey, that saying is sometimes meant much more literally).At one British law firm, they really know where the bodies are.In May, the body of a 42 year-old man was discovered in the chimney at Moody and Woolley Solicitors in Derby.Builders called in by the firm to fix a hole on the roof found signs of an attempted break-in and then, in the chimney, the body of 42 year-old Kevin Gough; the body was believed to have been stuck there for several weeks.Not surprisingly, concerns were raised by staff about flies and a smell at the office, leading to the grisly discovery.
Moving from the dead to the walking dead, Jerimiah Hartline must watch a lot of TV—maybe too much.The Tennessee man had a creative defense when he was caught after stealing a big-rig truck in California, causing several accidents and ultimately overturning.He said he had to speed and swerve because of the zombies that were pursuing him.The “zombie defense” ultimately didn’t work, leading Hartline to plead guilty; he faces up to 5 years in prison.
And finally, here’s yet another sign that society feels it is okay to despise lawyers.ColumbiaUniversity recently made the newswires with the report that it was trying to get rid of a longstanding scholarship that many perceive as racist.The Lydia C. Roberts Graduate Fellowship was established at Columbia after its namesake died and left most of her $509,000 estate to the school in 1920.Up until recently, the fellowship was given out to candidates who met its restrictions, including that the recipient must be from Iowa and must be “of the Caucasian race.”While the “whites only” aspect is the only part of the fellowship that Columbia administrators now have a problem with, one other restriction in the fellowship’s restrictions apparently was okay with the university and the media: Roberts Fellows are prohibited from studying law.Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to be lawyers!
"We live in a time where everything is so small that those who believe in nothing are leading those who believe in Something, and the naïveté seems to never end."
I was a very young executive with the Reagan Administration; they were three wise and seasoned men out of the previous generation.
All were American heroes; accomplished writers, investigators, historians, and operatives - and my frequent luncheon buddies for nearly a decade.
Most importantly, they were all three "truth tellers."
DeWitt "Pete" Copp flew cargo planes in WWII over North Africa and Europe. He would return home to write over 30 books, including several influential, formative books on the Cold War and Soviet espionage, important histories on the development of U.S. airpower, and a variety of novels. He authored hundreds of professional screenplays and articles, worked for the CIA, taught, and finally came to rest in the Reagan Administration in time to be my mentor of sorts.
Joe Dwyer was a teenage Polish-American who was trapped in eastern Poland when the Soviets invaded, two weeks after the Germans had steamrolled into western Poland. Transferred to various Soviet prison camps, he eventually escaped and managed to get to Portugal - mostly on foot - where, with Soviet agents hot on his trail, he was hidden in the U.S. Embassy, and finally delivered in the trunk of a car to a departing boat that would bring him back to his American home. He would return to Europe to fight with the US Army, carrying a Soviet "bounty" on his head as a badge of honor. Joe would spend most of his professional life fighting communism in both Europe and America.
Herb Romerstein, who died this past May 7th - joining Pete and Joe as great heroes of yesteryear, their voices stilled on this side of life - was a giant in the battle against totalitarianism.
Herb grew up to be a Brooklyn communist in his late teens, and then began to question the "cause" as a young adult. Serving with the US Army he saw combat in the Korean War, and returned home to become perhaps the foremost expert on the communist movement in the 20th century, and its transitional "identities" moving into this troubled century.
Herb was a first class investigator, author and lecturer. His knowledge on intelligence matters and investigative expertise led to important assignments in Congress and in the government, including being a lead investigator for the House Committee on Un-American Activities, the permanent Committee on Intelligence, and serving in the USIA. (One of several books he wrote, "" written with the late Eric Breindel, remains the gold standard resource for understanding the relationships between Soviet and American communists and their hard left sympathizers.)
Talking to Herb was like taking a walk in an encyclopedia.
These three men and I would meet frequently for long lunches on Capitol Hill, where the intersection of knowledge, history, politics and personalities would be interrupted with thunderous peals of laughter.
I was not so much a student to these wise counselors, but an advocate in training. Looking back at them I realize now just how much they taught me, and I'm grateful for that; but it's what they showed me in their character that leaves me in the deepest debt to them.
These were men who all paid a personal price to sound the alarms of danger over the foreboding presence of totalitarianism - the Soviet menace to liberty in particular, but also to the wider march of Marxism ideology across the world. And they were speaking out in an era starting in the early 1960's and reaching a crescendo in the 1980's where much of the radical left - which is to say almost all of the Democratic party - and the pretend right, didn't want to challenge the communist threat, or worse, wanted to actively collaborate with it. Pete, Joe and Herb were each in their own way regarded as "outliers" and extreme right wingers - they existed professionally on the outer orbit of politics and policy because they told the truth, and they were willing to pay the price for telling the truth.
History, of course, now shows they were exactly correct; the corroding evil of communism had financed, finagled and armed much of the chaos in the post WW11 era, not to mention the long march of cultural Marxism through the political, cultural and religious institutions in the West.
We live in a time of "little" politicians with tiny pedestrian interests of running things for the sake of running things; little minds absorbed with the thoughts of how influential they can be over people who have no way to oppose their influence.
We live in a time of "little" businessmen whose interest seems principally about how to corral markets and governments to do their bidding all at the same time; and "little" businessmen who cringe at nationalism and embrace viewpoints that demand they don't have to have any.
We live in a time of "little" academicians and social professionals, pastors and rabbis, where truth is relative. (Who knew things could be so hard to understand?) We live in a time where everything is so small that those who believe in nothing are leading those who believe in Something, and the naïveté seems to never end.
My three friends, thankfully for all of us, lived big lives and believed in big ideas. They believed in truth telling and paid the price for truth telling. They missed jobs, lost jobs, and had their reputations shredded. They were laughed at, yelled at, and spat at. They simply cared about the truth more than any of that - even more than their own personal comfort.
They were and they are emblematic of everything we are missing the most of in today's world.
Rest in peace friends, you earned it.
Mike Giere has written extensively on politics, foreign policy, and issues of faith. He is a former candidate for the US House; worked for Ronald Reagan in 76 & 80; and served in both the Reagan and Bush (41) Administrations.
In the nearly 24 years that I’ve been practicing law, I’ve been fortunate enough to receive some accolades from my colleagues.A number of these have been for a commitment to legal ethics and improving professionalism.I look at it as giving something back to the profession that’s given so much to me.Many of the most important lessons I learned began at the University of Texas School of Law, where so many of the subjects I took were taught by giants of their respective fields.To name just a few, I learned constitutional law from the great Charles Alan Wright (of Wright & Miller on Federal Courts), and I learned the intricacies of civil procedure from Michael Tigar, one of the preeminent trial lawyers of the last 50 years.And my teacher for professional responsibility—legal ethics—was John F. Sutton, Jr., who literally wrote the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct—the bible of an attorney’s professional duties that have been adopted by virtually every state in the union.
Dean Sutton passed away on April 19, 2013, at the ripe old age of 95.He is survived by his wife of 72 years, Nancy, as well as a son and daughter, four grandchildren, and seven great-grandchildren.But he is also survived by a rich legacy—not only the many students he taught over the years, but the legacy he left as a scholar and as an architect of the very tenets by which the legal profession is governed.John Sutton was raised in San Angelo, the son of a district court judge who was also a rancher.He inherited a love of the law as well as a love of ranching and agriculture. Although he lacked an undergraduate degree (law school standards were different then), John entered the University of Texas School of Law, where he excelled and received his degree with honors in 1941.After briefly practicing law, with the outbreak of World War II he became a Special Agent with the FBI.After the war, and during the Korean War, John served with the U.S. Army Reserve as a judge advocate general.From 1950 to 1957, he was in private practice.
In 1957, legal academia beckoned, and John became a full professor at UT Law School.He would go on to teach there for 46 years, retiring in 2003 at the age of 85.From 1979 to 1985, he also served as dean.He was an accomplished scholar, writing law review articles and co-authoring textbooks on professional responsibility as well as on evidence.However, his greatest gift to the legal profession was working with the American Bar Association in drafting the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility, a task which began in 1965 and lasted until 1970.At the time, the ethical guidelines for lawyers hadn’t been updated since 1908—and the profession had, to put it mildly, changed quite a bit since then.A few years later, his work would culminate in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which replaced the Model Code of Professional Responsibility.A titan among legal ethics scholars, John served for years on the ABA’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility and on the State Bar of Texas Professional Ethics Committee (including several stints as chairman).Even at the age of 90, he was serving on the State Bar’s Standing Committee on Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.
The honors and accolades bestowed upon John Sutton would fill several articles, and they are just a small part of the rich legacy he leaves.His name lives on in the endowed presidential scholarship that bears his name, in the Dean John F. Sutton, Jr. Chair in Lawyering and the Legal Process, and in the law society at UT that was named after him in 2004.His friends and family (including son John E. Sutton and a grandson who are both UT Law School graduates as well) form much more of the lasting legacy of Dean Sutton.His wife, Nancy Ewing Sutton, was his law school classmate and one-time law partner.But the part of Dean Sutton’s legacy that I know best was that of a genuinely caring, dedicated teacher who gave the subject of professional responsibility meaning and resonance.As his son puts it, “What set Dad apart as a teacher was he . . . had some real world life experiences that he loved to share, he made things come alive.He gave the law relevance.”
To this day, whether I am serving clients as an advocate or trying to serve the profession as a writer and teacher, I continue to be guided by what I learned as one of John F. Sutton’s many students.In the classroom, he wasn’t the intellectually intimidating legal scholar whose name was on my textbook.He eschewed abstract theory, instead reminding us, above all else, to do what was right because our actions would impact real people.Thank you, Dean Sutton.
The headline I posted on my piece is sort of stupid isn’t it? Of course, we all (I hope) indeed need to secure our homes at night or when we are away. And that goes for our cars and our garages, where most homeowners and renters store their garden tools, yard equipment and other essential tools (auto repair tools, table saws, routers, etc.) to fix or repair our autos and home. However, even when we secure our property people often fall victims to a burglary, which is indeed unfortunate. I once left my garage door unlocked and fell victim to a burglary. Folks, those sorry thieves took many of my valuable wood working tools. Luckily, and here’s a word to the wise, I had the receipts for all the tools that were stolen in my house safe and my insurance luckily covered my loss. However, I had to pony up a deductible of 200 dollars that I could have put to better use than fallen victim to a burglary had I locked my garage door.
“Well, what are you up to now James?” some might ask. Well my dear conservative friends I have to chuckle at the new attempt to offer amnesty to millions (11 plus) of illegal immigrants and am sadden that Republicans are joining the bandwagon because they think that siding with Democrats to allow illegal immigrants to a free and easy pass to U.S. citizenship they will be liked by Hispanics and hopefully get more Hispanic votes. Man, these guys (Republicans) just don’t get it don’t they? My, how quick they have forgotten that President Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to over 6 millions illegals back in the 80s and they still don’t vote in large numbers for Republicans. Nor will they ever, due that Democrats give those of all stripes who vote for them lots of government freebees such as welfare, rental assistance, now telephones and Lord knows what else all funded by us the hardworking American workers and businessmen who daily bust our rear ends to provide for our families and the lazy Americans and an untold number of illegals on welfare. Let’s be honest, government handouts keep many living off the government dole voting for Democrats. My friends that is the gospel truth! Sadly, those individuals on the government dole will almost always be poor and never reach their full potential to enjoy the fruits of earning a good living and reaping the benefits of being self-reliant on their God given talents. Many will never experience the joy of buying and owning their own home, nice autos and fine clothes for themselves and their loved ones.
Just recently the citizens of Boston went through a traumatic experience when two supposedly innocent good looking recent Muslim immigrants from the Russian region of Dagestan, detonated 2 homemade bombs at the Boston Marathon where several were killed and many innocent people were maimed for life. After one of the terrorists was killed the mother, Zubeidat Tsarnaev, of the two terrorists Tamerlan (who was killed) and Dzhokhar blamed the United States for the hatred her sons had for our country. My God, if the sons of this woman hated the U.S. why in the world didn’t they go back to be with her and their dad? She also stated that she thought America would protect her sons and it would be a safe place for them. However, she never mention that she went back to her country because she was facing shoplifting chargers against her dating 2012. This Muslim woman reminds me so much of so many illegal immigrants who come here, commit crimes of every imaginable offenses and quickly go back to Mexico or elsewhere to evade prosecution for their crimes. Most American criminals don’t have that privilege illegal alien criminals have. They have to own up to their crimes by having to go to jail. And yes, over 27% of criminals in jail are illegal immigrants. But one has to wonder how many are walking around scot-free in their country for crimes they’ve committed here.
When President Reagan gave amnesty to 6 million plus illegal immigrants he did it because there was a part of the new immigration law (Simpson-Mazzoli) that would punish those who hired illegal immigrants with a stiff fine. Sadly, that part of the immigration law has never been implemented and so the flow of illegal immigrants continued as before. Now, 20 plus years later we have another 11 million undocumented illegals and again they are writing up laws to allow them to stay here and supposedly our politicians are going to make a new immigration law so tough that immigrants will not want to come here anymore if they pass this immigration law now in the works in Washington. Tell me, my fellow Americans do any of you believe this political BS? “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me”, is our answer don’t ya’ll agree?
My friends, until they secure our borders I have no desire for amnesty for illegal immigrants from wherever they come from. If others want to come to our country let them do it the correct way as have many other immigrants done and are doing. Don’t break our U.S. immigration laws and expect me or any other law abiding American to support this immigration amnesty nonsense! Some time ago they released thousands of illegal immigrants because supposedly they didn’t pose a threat to Americans. Well, it was discovered that many of these so-called innocent illegal immigrants who were released many had outstanding warrants for criminal activities and others had been in jail before for various crimes. Are these the types of people we want here my fellow Americans? My God, we have lots of our own criminals born and raised here and now our politicians are ready to allow more criminals from other countries come here from wherever just so Hispanics will like them and vote for them. The stupid ness of this whole immigration amnesty mess is that Hispanics have a poor showing at the voting polls. The real reason amnesty is raising its ugly head again is became American businesses need this cheap labor that our own Americans will not do because many are on welfare and don’t want to work!
The recently-released movie “The Company You Keep,” directed by and starring Robert Redford, examines what happens when an investigative journalist reveals the hidden Weather Underground past of a mild-mannered Albany attorney implicated in a botched bank robbery in the 1970s during which a security guard was killed.But if celluloid art were to imitate life, the fugitive radical would be hiding in plain sight, in the world of legal academia.You see, while law school teaching gigs have been increasingly difficult to come by in the traditional manner, being publicly disgraced, disbarred, or even convicted of a felony seems to be the fast track nowadays to the academy.
Forced to resign from high office after a public scandal?No problem.Shortly after achieving public ignominy as “Client No. 9” in a prostitution sting and resigning as governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer was welcomed with open arms to teach “Law and Public Policy” at City College of New York during the fall of 2009.James McGreevey stepped down as New Jersey’s governor in the face of corruption allegations and revelations of an affair with a male aide.That didn’t stop Kean University from inviting the now openly gay former governor to lecture on “ethics, law and leadership” in 2007.Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales also left office with his reputation in tatters after revelations of his controversial role in the firings of nine U.S. attorneys for political reasons.Yet that didn’t deter Texas Tech University from hiring Gonzales as a professor in 2009, nor did it dissuade Belmont University College of Law in Tennessee from installing the former Attorney General in an endowed professorship in the fall of 2011.
Just as resigning in disgrace seems to pose no obstacle to a future in teaching, neither does actual jail time.Bill Lerach achieved national notoriety for his law firm’s aggressive tactics as a “go-to” plaintiffs’ class action boutique.But after it was revealed that members of his firm had paid kickbacks to lead plaintiffs in securities class action litigation, Lerach pleaded guilty to conspiracy in 2007.Upon his release from prison in 2010, Lerach promptly proceeded to find himself in demand for teaching future lawyers.He lectured at the University of San Diego Law School, and the University of California-Irvine School of Law used taxpayer dollars to have Lerach develop and teach a course entitled “Regulation of Free Market Capitalism—Why Have We Failed?”Although the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed applauding his hiring (saying “The felon has lessons to teach lawyers”), much of the public, including other legal academics, were outraged.One commentator summed it up this way: “Law school is supposed to teach, among other things, what it means to play by the rules . . . . What message about the rule of law will Lerach convey to his law students?”
I’ve previously written about Lynne Stewart, the radical activist lawyer (since disbarred) convicted in 2005 of assisting terrorism, being invited to lecture on legal ethics at Hofstra Law School in 2007.But apparently, the real road to a law professor gig that academics would kill for is to, well, kill somebody.If you’re a former militant Sixties Weather Underground radical who’s done jail time, you’re likely to find yourself on the fast track to teaching at a prestigious law school.Just look at former Weather Underground member Eleanor Raskin, who went on the run after being indicted for bomb making in the 1970s.In 1981, Raskin and her husband were arrested in connection with an explosives dump found in 1979 by New Jersey police.The charges against Raskin were dropped (her husband was put on probation), and she is now an associate professor at Albany Law School.Bernadine Dohrn, a notorious Weather Underground radical who graced the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted List and later served 7 months in prison, is now a member of the law faculty at Northwestern.Her faculty bio lists her role as founder of the Children and Family Justice Center and her scholarly interest in “children’s law, juvenile justice, the needs and rights of youths, and international human rights,” but oddly enough makes no mention of her jail time or her bomb making skills.
Perhaps most outrageous is the case of former Weather Underground member Kathy Boudin, who pleaded guilty in 1984 to second-degree murder for her role in the infamous 1981 Brinks armored car robbery in Nyack, New York (in which 3 people were killed, including the first black police officer on the Nyack police force).Boudin was sentenced to 20 years to life, but was paroled in 2003.By 2008, she landed a plum professorship at Columbia, where her bio describes her as “an educator and counselor with experience in program development since 1964, working with communities with limited resources to solve social problems.”Earlier this year, it was announced that Boudin was named the Sheinberg Scholar-in-Residence at NYU Law School, where she will lecture on “the politics of parole and re-entry” (Dohrn is also a former Sheinberg Scholar-in-Residence—anyone see a pattern here?).The coveted appointment has outraged the survivors of Boudin’s victims (9 children grew up fatherless due to the actions of Boudin and her fellow accomplices).Josephine Paige, widow of slain Brinks guard Peter Paige, said “she doesn’t deserve a job at all.She doesn’t deserve anything.”
So, if you want to be a professor, forget about hard work and all that “publish or perish” nonsense.Simply find yourself expelled from public office in disgrace or commit a crime.Of course, if you’re going to make bombs, rob a bank, or shoot innocent people, make sure to say you’re doing so in the name of a leftist cause, and after being caught, call yourself a “political prisoner” rather than a convicted felon.When you get out, you’ll be a professor in no time.