Invariably, it seems, the exculpation for the police who may have killed a man or woman, is that cops are “good guys” and the guy or woman killed is a “bad guy.” So it seems to me in light of the rush to exclaim over the Internet that the person killed was not such a good person. There is no logic to this. That a person killed was a bad person is not relevant to the issue of whether the police were acting in violation of the law, good sense, and common humanity.
Today, I delivered a letter to the Washington Attorney General requesting that his office take action to seek a judicial determination as to whether the Washington the Supreme Court violating the Washington State Constitution requiring separation of powers. Letter to Washington State Attorney General dated September 19, 2016.
The tragedies continue in the United States, France, Turkey, Pakistan and elsewhere. I think there is a common denominator.
I have been reading the Einstein-Freud Correspondence, Why War? Reading the correspondence again and again, letting objectivity sink in, avoiding easy explanations. Next, I read Freud’s Civilization and its Discontents. Then I moved on to reflect on what I had learned from reading and studying Ernst Becker’s Denial of Death and his understanding of what Otto Rank had to say. Becker referred to the purpose of individuality as a “sui generis project.”
And today I am reading Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer.
I have concluded at least for now that I think there is a world wide revolution taking place. It is caused by millions of people who are discontented and some of who have turned their discontent into nihilistic judgment of power and death. Whether the discontented person is from America or Syria, the motivation is the same — death, death of others and oneself all at the same time.
Justice Antonin Scalia taught us to understand the concept of originalism. An effort to help us understand why he thought the way he did about the U.S. Constitution. Also, in the application of his way of looking at the constitution, he gave us an idea of how we might make decisions about cases involving constitutional principles. He was a man, mentally refreshing and challenging, who firmly believed in common and good sense. A man among a few who try to instruct how our United States should make decisions about currently significant issues and her future.
A lawyer by the name of Montgomery Blair Sibley has filed suit in federal court in Houston claiming that Ted Cruz is not a citizen of the United States. He says, it is reported,
“It doesn’t matter that he was born in Canada,” Sibley continued, “he would be ineligible to be president if was born on the Washington Monument, as long as he only had one parent who was a citizen.”
The constitution says “natural born” not ‘native born” and it certainly does not say that the “borning” of the birth says that both mother and father had to be the “one” to whom included both the mother and the father.
It is reported that Montgomery Blair Sibley was also the plaintiff in a birther case involving President Obama.
Years ago when I was practicing in Seattle I expressed objection to many of the lawyers I knew in the firm I was with for a time about the practice of probate lawyers charging a percentage against the gross value of the estate or at least (an hourly rate I would suppose). Some of the fees I knew about in probates I knew about were extraordinary. The fee was what it was, all seemed to say. Thankfully, things have changed.
The other day the ABA Journal published a piece about contingent fees in sure thing personal injury actions.
My opening brief can be 30 pages long, 14 point type, double-spaced, margins 1 inch on all sides. Footnotes have to be in 14 point type too. I have been working on the brief for some time. I have tried to keep myself from being rushed, so I have managed my time to be able to spread the work out and devote time to it to the work everyday.
The brief is not like anything I have written before. I would like to say it is more succinct than I am used writing (or so I tell myself). The experience has been rewarding. However, in the next day or so, I will finish it and send it off so that my secretary who is in California for three weeks will get a chance to weigh in on the final product.
About 1950, Supreme Court Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson, give us the image of a lawyer, who existed, and who did his work for his clients in the county jurisdictions of the states across the continent. That knowledge, that idea, was a description of the lawyer’s life as known and aspired to by Robert H. Jackson, A County Seat Lawyer in the Western part of New York State.
I come from Minnesota. The Hennepin County Superior Court was a “county seat court,” but not really. The county seat lawyer does his work in more commonly understood situations, less complicated, more directly connected experiences personally experienced by “relatives, friends and neighbors.”
The WSBA says that it and its members are champions for justice. I like that. If it is true, it is an honor to be a member of the “profession of the bar.” A very pleasing and inspiring notion. I wonder: Is the Washington State Bar Association truly a champion of justice? Is the Washington Lawyer Discipline System an example of a system which is a champion of justice? I think not. For starters, a system of justice which is, in all its aspects, a system whose functions are performed by those selected by the WSBA is not a system which is the champion of justice. It is clearly wrong to allow an interested party to select all the members of the system, and it is clearly wrong to have aspects of the system which advance the interest of the WSBA. No one can honestly say that the system is one those who care about justice is a systemic championing of justice.