Do Not Write on the Evidence

How many times has a client come in with a great piece of evidence only to find it is ruined because they have indelibly added their testimony to the face of it in blue or black ink. It is as if the intense need to control events blots out any kind of judgment they might have had, or restraint to action until they can get some legal advice.

A letter might have proved their point, but who can say who is the author of all the rest of the commentary?document

I can hear the objection already, the document is not authentic because the author is undetermined.

Or in the case of a bank statement which was certainly produced by the bank, but who wrote “Uncle Charlie told me I was supposed to get this!!!” on the face of it?

 

 

I have vivid memories of a judge examining the offered exhibit then angrily declaring “Some one has written all over it!” knowing that someone was seated at counsel table next to me.

 

Objection Sustained.mean judge

Letters of Marque and Reprisal; Privatize the war on ISIS

It appears the President is hesitant. Obama

Elected on the pledge to return our troops home there seems to be mounting evidence they should have stayed.
ISIS
Back when the United States Constitution was first framed, it was not uncommon for a country to grant a license to a privately owned and armed ship to sail out onto the seas and sink, burn or capture as a prize the vessels of an enemy. Navy’s are expensive, and the entire enterprise is risky. Why not shift that risk, with the associated rewards, to some one else?

So at Article I, Section 8, part 11 it is reserved to Congress to:

Declare war, issues letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;privateer

Sure, Halliburton and Blackwater have given privatizing war a bad name in the present day, but as far back as Francis Drake (d. 1596 ) these men have been considered one piece of paper away from pirates. And that piece of paper made everything all legal. drake

Plenty of prizes await say, Shell Oil, in the region.

The President is hesitant, Congress should act. Let us issue letters of marque and reprisal to tame the beast that has engulfed Mesopotamia.
congress

Family Law Tip: Do Not Bring the Subject Matter to Court

This may sound fairly obvious but if you are litigating over children, the judge does not need to see them. They have a pretty good idea of what children look like, some of them are even parents. They will not be swayed by who is holding the subject matter.

babes in arms

I am just back from the family law motions calendar and found as many babes in arms as there were lawyers and litigants.

One boy was a bit older, and was waiting out in the hall with his aunt presumably. He had a toy gun, which he aimed and fired at everyone.
boy with assault touy
We have security, how did he get that thing into the courthouse? security at the courthouse

War Crimes

Something that has always bothered me, as a lawyer, was the authority or law that allowed one nation or group of nations to charge war crimes against the combatants of another? I mean, where is it written down that it is a crime to mistreat your POW’s, or that civilians should not be killed? prisioner of war

It turns out in many places. The Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, adopted July 27th, 1927, for an example.

But enforcement depends on politics. Take the Japanese treatment of our POW’s during WWII for example. Horrible. Death marches, random executions, poor conditions, little food, little shelter. Those responsible were tried and convicted of several breaches of international law.

How did the Russians treat their captured Germans in the same war? Horrible. Death marches, random executions, poor conditions, little food, little shelter. Those responsible were NOT tried and convicted of several breaches of international law.

Why? Well perhaps it was the 24 million soldiers and citizens that died during the conflict that somehow shifted the moral weight in their favor. More probably it was because the Russians were on the winning side. war crimes

Curtis Lemay, commander of our strategic bomber air forces over Japan late in the war famously said that if America had lost the war he would be tried for war crimes. This is probable. curtis lemay

In 1907 a general protocol referred to as the Hague Convention of the Laws and Customs of War on Land was adopted. Among its provisions bombardment of civilian areas or undefended ports was prohibited by naval forces. Following World War I in an arbitration between Greece and Germany held in 1927, this provision was held to extend to aerial bombardment.

Ten years later the Germans elected to ignore international law for a town called Guernica Spain. guernica

By World War II the bombing of civilian targets was common. To end the war against Japan, we the Americans, dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not before we firebombed the other wooden cities for months, creating firestorms only occasionally seen in the European Theater. Curtis Lemay was the ground officer in charge of the mission.

There were no trials about bombardment of civilian populations following World War II. How could that hypocrisy be heard anywhere?

As a human I know right from wrong. It is wrong to round up a class of persons, say the Jews, and attempt to exterminate them. That is just murder and everyone knows that. You don’t have to go to law school to know this. The War Crimes Tribunals, where they may have lacked authority, asserted this as a crime against humanity, and they were right to do so. nuremberg 2

But there was actually a precedent placing everyone on notice the killing of civilians would be called a crime. The Ottoman Empire had practiced a genocide against the Armenians during the First World War. Several nations later declared this to be a “Crime Against Humanity”.

And this satisfies the lawyer part of me that needs some law, some decision or other authority to point to in order to prosecute and punish these acts. For lawyers anything less is just victors justice.

There is no Substitute for Experienced Advocacy

1. We Are Created Equal. Among the Jeffersonian myths that have survived is the idea that all men are created equal. Perhaps that is true, but after birth their experience differs widely. They may not be that educated gentleman farmer Thomas Jefferson saw us as becoming these generations later. In fact, most are not. Thomas Jefferson

In the last several years the bench and bar have had a buzz word gone into policy called “Access to Justice”. I like to call it “Access to Firearms” but it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

2. Access to Justice. The basic idea is that with some forms and instructions on where to file them and how to confirm a hearing anybody can achieve “access to justice” and state their case like Jefferson’s farmer. So the court system wrote some forms and gave instructions on where to file them.

Unfortunately, as it is often said, Thomas Jefferson was the last man who had a grasp of the entire body of knowledge as it existed at the time. What this means to the pro se litigant he cannot possibly grasp what he is getting himself into.

Well, yes, you can get yourself in front of a judge. You can get yourself behind the stick of an aircraft too after reading the instructions on the internet on how to fly, but it is not a good idea. airplane crash

3. The Results. Often this does work out. Some questions are fairly straight forward. Divorce might be simple, then it might not.

There are a lot of “what if’s”. A child support issue between two Boeing employees can be done pro se as well.They each get issued a W-2 every year from which one can calculate monthly income and feed that data into a child support software to produce a result. Done deal right?

What if one of them doesn’t work for Boeing? What if he is self employed? Things get complex. I can say for sure the pro se litigant will not be able to fashion the court order that will equitably divide the Boeing pension in a way the company will recognize and follow it.

4. Too Close to the Problem. The other thing a lawyer does for a litigant that he cannot do himself is achieve some degree of objectivity about his or her case. Is it really a good idea to rush into court guns blazing? Are you sure the judge is going see things the way you do? courtroom antics

Maybe you can have a lawyer look at what you’re doing and see if it is alright. But then what if you botch the hearing by saying something that erodes the presumption that everyone comes to court in good faith and a bona fide dispute that requires a consumption of that most precious of commodities, judicial time?

How often have I seen the pro se litigant in court with a ton of paper in front of him, obviously served on the other party and the bench earlier, with this idea that his pleadings represent some manifesto that will change the course of human events? courtroom drama

The reality is he comes off instead just as an unhappy man wasting everyone’s time and his relief is denied. There is no substitute for experienced advocacy. courtroom

5. The Outer Limits. I cannot write down here what I have learned from 30 years of practice. It is part of the secret knowledge of lawyers, but even if I had to “tell all” I couldn’t transpose into words for you Jeffersonian gentlemen farmers how to conduct your case. It is in part and art, and otherwise just the nature of experienced advocacy.

Evidence : As Seen on TV

There are no rules of evidence on television but that is where most folks learn to practice law.

On television lawyers can do anything, present anything and say anything and the judge always follows the script. The problem of evidence in real courtrooms is that this is not television and what may be admissible in fiction may not be admissible in a real court.

If you think about it Rules of Evidence are important so the fate of people and their property are not just a question of emotion or prejudice or the right scriptwriter, and instead their fate is based on what is reliable, or authentic, or can withstand a good questioning.

People come to me with their opinions and declare it to be evidence. Bits of paper that may support their position become facts set in stone when handled by them, but go up like so much smoke when marked by the clerk, offered as evidence then objected to on any number of basis; hearsay, authentication, the best evidence rule, the list goes on.

Then they get mad. Well fine, be mad, but what you see on TV is not evidence.

Lawyers as Chesspieces

The other day a client mentioned she was worried her ex-husband would “use his lawyer to block me.”

The perception that the lawyers are chesspieces in some game between parties to a divorce came to mind. Apparently we are mere objects in the war between the men and the women. Let us hope both parties can see the whole board.

For the record, I see myself as a knight, able to move two spaces in any direction, other than diagonal, then one more to either side.