Category Archives: Lawyers and Representation

A Choice of Words

Posted in Abuse of Power, Important things, Lawyers and Representation, Politcal Opinion, Presidential Encarceration by

A rose is a rose.  In essence, Shakespeare, those centuries ago, told us so.  If that is true, can we also say that a spy is a spy, even if he is called an informant?

It is a problem with our modern society, lawyer speak. We are told that the man or men that infiltrated the Trump campaign was a not a spy, but an informant.  Pardon me.  I am not a lawyer so I call someone spying a spy.  I think most us do, or at least should.

The fact of the matter is, the Obama administration used spies to spy on the opponent and that is wrong, legal or not.  If it is legal, the law should be altered, though I’m not going to hold my breath, if you’ll excuse the overused phrase.

Those who made the decision to use a spy (or informant, if you prefer) should be ashamed of themselves.  If they still work for the government, they should resign immediately.

The Wisdom of The Electoral College

Posted in Compromise, Important things, Lawyers and Representation, Politcal Opinion by

During the birth of our nation, our forefathers didn’t agree on everything. Certainly the one thing that caused the most grief was slavery. The south wanted it and the north didn’t. Actually, it was a little more complex than that, but that is the summery.

The final result was a compromise. Though it was a horrible one, it did allow the nation to be formed and eventually the matter was settled a number of years later. By the way, many white men gave their lives to free the slaves and many black men gave their lives to preserve the south.

I could go on, but it is not my purpose at this time. Instead, I want to write about another compromise, a good one. It seems all the big states, such as New York wanted representation to be totally by population. The result would be that the big states would control the country. The little states, such as Rhode Island, wanted the states to be represented by one vote, which would allow the small states to have an unfair control of the country.

(Oddly, I learned this in the eighth grade and I wonder why everyone else didn’t. It seems to me that every one ought to know it before entering high school, certainly by the time they finish it.)

The compromise was simple. Each state would be represented by two senators and one representative for every 30 thousand people. (Bear in mind, this is where the previous compromise comes in. Slaves were not counted as whole people.)

Since that time, two changes were made. The Senators were originally selected by the state assemblies, now by popular vote. For practical purposes, the number of representatives is limited to 435. Though every state has at least one, they are distributed by state population.

Hence, the logic was that the Senate represents the state (but no longer) and the House represents the people.

Also, when determining how the president is elected, they decide to use the same numbers. Therefore the populous states could not utterly rule over the less populous states. If they had not used this formula, a person seeking the office of president would never visit the smaller states and just a few big states would determine who our president would be.

At the time I was going to school, it seemed an odd thing to me. It seemed that the one who got the most votes ought to win. However, now I see the wisdom in the ways. Mrs. Clinton complains that she won the popular vote and that she should be president. If we did things that way, a few states on the east coast and west coast would determine who went to The White House.

The way it is, Clinton should have visited some of the states she skipped. Now she’s complaining that they won’t change the rules for her. If I may use an example. If football team complains that they gained more yardage, should they be given the win. Of course not! The rules were plain and set in advance. Clinton knew she needed more electors when she started her campaign. Why should the rules be changed for her after the election?

The fact is, she was just outsmarted and she knew it, though she still does not want to admit it. The fact is that the time to change the rules is before the game, not after. Any card player can tell you that.

More than that, the rule are fair. If it were by popular vote, all the votes of all the flyover country would count for nothing. Those of us in such states just may as well stay home. Also, those running for president would be wasting time going to any but the biggest fifteen cities.

The fact is, The Electoral College was perhaps one of the best compromises this country ever made. If it is ever altered, it will likely result in disaster, maybe in a revolution.

Humans Acting Like Animals

Posted in Christian values, Communism, Important things, Lawyers and Representation, Politcal Opinion, School Shootings by

In 1925, it became legal to teach evolution.  According to certain scientist, it became official, man descended from apes.  Darwin was right and God was wrong.  Henceforth, the schools no longer taught that man was a distinct creation of God.  It became laughable that man was created separate from the other animals.  It was no longer believable that God formed him from the dirt and breathed into him life.

So now, after many decades, we have learned that we are simply animals, as with the other creations that were made on the fifth day.  There is nothing that sets us apart, other than a few more brain cells and apposing thumbs.  …and, oh yes.  We have the ability to talk, write and, of course, read.

Why should we wonder why, when a high school student kills a bunch of students.  After all, as he has been taught, they are just a bunch of descendants from monkeys.  It is true that the young boys and girls had their lives cut short, but what harm has it done?  They are simply a higher form of animal life.  They have hardly any value.

Then too, why should anyone be expected to act morally, especially when there is no reward.  Indeed, why should a person do good when he seems to be punished for it?  If we are animals, why not act like animals?

I would suspect that a chimp would feel little remorse if he were to kill another animal, or even a human.  What makes us any different?

Maybe the scientist can tell us.  Then, of course there are those people that study the human mind and our emotions and behavior.  Maybe they can tell us why we shouldn’t just up and kill someone for stepping on our toe.  Such an act at least deserves a good punch or two, right in the nose.

Humans are said to be civilized and we don’t do that sort of thing.  Yet, in a way, even ants are civilized.  Moreover, they get along much better than we do.  I guess they aren’t smart enough to realize when they have been wronged.

Well, now the scientists have their way.  I have but two questions.  Is Darwinism better than Christianity?  Is the belief in evolution better than what Jesus taught us:  to love God and to love each other?  If the scientist ideas are so much better, than I guess we have taken some big leaps forward in our civilization.

So now we have humans acting like animals killing humans as if they are animals.

Fear

Posted in Christian values, Communism, Communist Takover, Important things, Lawyers and Representation, Obama Care, Politcal Opinion, Uncategorized by

Fear can be a good thing, or not so good.  It can keep us from doing stupid things and it can cause us to do stupid things.  Sometimes when we face fear, we become heroes, sometimes cowards.

I don’t mind telling you, I faced my times of fear.  In 1968, I got off a bus in San Diego and put my feet on some yellow foot prints painted on the asphalt.  …and I was afraid.  I spent a year in Vietnam.  While there, I had my moments in fear, even before the plane landed in Da Nang.  I don’t guess I need to tell you, I was not alone in my fear.

Recently, we all saw what happens when two parents fear for the life of their child and a government fears for a revelation of a substandard health care.  It would appear to me that the English government had but one reason for not allowing a child to go outside the islands for possible care; Italy’s doctors might have succeeded where British doctors didn’t.  They feared that it would uncover that they might have done something wrong.

…and so it was that an innocent three-year-old child died at the hands of substandard health system that is being run by a substandard government.  Though the Prime Minister had nothing to do with the death, she must share the guilt.  There is no doubt in my mind that she could have done something, but, instead she ignored the situation, as if she never read or heard about it.

My guess is that she was acting, or perhaps more accurately, not acting out of fear.  After all, she might lose votes in Parliament if her government were to be exposed for their fear.  Certainly, the last thing Parliament wants is to have the world find out that their wonderful health care system isn’t all it is supposed to be.

I don’t know if anything could have been done for the child.  I do know that it shows a pattern.  It is not the first time it has happened and I am sure it won’t be the last.  To me, it sounds like a good reason to avoid going to London on holiday, especially if you have children.  If your 2 year-old gets sick while there, you just might not be able to get him out of the country.

More-than-that, we will never know what was wrong with the last child.  No one outside of the country will be able to look at the body.  No one will be able to tell the world that some mistake was made during his diagnosis or his treatment.

It is but one small reason that a nation’s government should never manage healthcare.  Just think, if we had national healthcare, that poor child might be yours one day.  He will lie at death’s door.  Even if you know a way to bring him back to good health, even if you know a doctor who can heal your child, there will not be one thing you will be able to do.  The healthcare system will be afraid that you just might prove them wrong and they can’t afford something like that.

If your child does die because of some blunder by a state doctor, who is there to find out?  Certainly not the state.  They have too much to fear to do something like that.

I once heard someone say, “If you think healthcare is bad now, just wait until it is free.”  It is one one of my greatest fears.  You see, I lived under single provider healthcare while I was in the Corps.  My oldest son almost died of tonsillitis though he was treated by Navy doctors for a week.

Finally, I went to a civilian doctor who said he was barely able to breath because his tonsils were so swollen.  I really hate to think of what might have happened if I didn’t have that option.  Just remembering how close I was to losing him makes me more afraid than I ever was in Vietnam.

 

A Little Privacy

Posted in Communism, Important things, Lawyers and Representation, Mistakes, Politcal Opinion, President Trump by

When I was selected for grand jury duty decades ago, I learned a great deal.  I would suggest that one and all, if you are given the chance, take it.  It is a very enlightening experience.

First, it will open your eyes to the sort of people that are in this world.  Believe me, they are not all good.  Second, it will help you to realize that what you read in the paper is not always as it appears.

Indeed, there are many things it will teach you.  However, the one thing I learned on the first day is something they should teach in school, but don’t.  To the best of my knowledge, no one ever taught me one thing about grand juries or their purpose in all my twelve years of going to school.

Fortunately, the district attorney told us about them.  They actually serve three purposes.  They can perform investigations.  Indeed the grand jury I was on did perform a small investigation.  Primarily, the district attorney presents evidence and on the basis of that evidence, they vote, true bill or no true bill.

The interesting part about this is that if a true bill is returned, no one knows but the district attorney (and his team) and those on the grand jury.  The one being charged does not get a chance to pack his bags and head for Mexico, which he could do if he was forewarned.

Also, if a no true bill is returned, nothing happens.  Not only does the suspect not find out about it, but none of his friends, neighbors or family find out about it either.  It is one of the great parts about our justice system.  If the DA can’t get a true bill, he can’t ruin your reputation.  This is especially good, because if the DA can’t get a true bill against you, your boss will never know you were under investigation.  Neither will your girlfriend or boyfriend.

Moreover, it has been commonly held that any investigating body should keep things private for that reason.  In general, police do not go around telling the world that they are investigating John Doe until they have sufficient evidence to charge him with something.  I think everyone can see that this is a good practice and should be carefully followed.

Knowing this, I was surprised that when the southern US district court judge gave out the name of person “number three” when the demand was made by the an attorney representing The New York Times and some news channel.  She should have refused.  The man was not being charged and wasn’t even being investigated.  He wasn’t even a suspect.  Apparently, what he was guilty of was holding a few conversations with a friend, an attorney who also represents President Trump.

So, the Judge ordered the name be made public and we all now know he is Sean Hannity.  In this case, it did no harm.  However, it could have.  As it was, Mr. Hannity had to defend himself before Fox News, though he did nothing wrong.  Had it been something that he wanted kept quiet, too late now.

One of the things our justice system is supposed to do is protect the innocent people from being railroaded by over zealous investigators.  The judge, at the least, should be censured.  Yet, we have not heard one peep from the Bar association.  We have not heard a complaint from any official.

This of course means, if you are conservative, the justice system will not protect you.  Indeed, you need to be careful who you talk to.  You will need to be wary of what you say.  You will need to take care at hiring a lawyer.  Else, if you don’t, your name might appear on the front page of one of the best known newspapers in the world.

On the other hand, if you are a liberal, don’t worry about it.  It will never happen to you, that is, unless all the newspapers and media suddenly become conservative.  Then where will you be?  No need to worry.  That will not happen in our lifetime.

Compromise

Posted in Communism, Communist Takover, Important things, Lawyers and Representation, Politcal Opinion by

I seldom want to quote Bernie Sanders, but I just heard him say something undeniably true.  “What was once considered radical is now mainstream.”

Sounds like a good reason not to compromise to me.  If he has his way, we will compromise all the way to communism.  As he said, we are already over half way there.  On the other hand, liberals never want to compromise when it means moving toward being more conservative.

As Lady Margaret Thatcher once said, (No matter how slow it is going, why get on the train if it’s going the wrong way?)  Notice I used parenthesis instead of quotes because it is a paraphrase.  I heard her on TV one day and I am not sure of the precise words.

I agree with what she said, but I think I would have said that doing such a thing is, “Crazy Nuts,” if I may quote the title of one of my own books.

Should you like to see any of my other titles, you might check my authors page at

http://www.amazon.com/author/story_teller

Or you can simply log onto Amazon.com and enter my name in the search box.  Please do not confuse me with that other Ben Rhodes, the one that worked for Obama.

A Few Words About Self-Driving Cars

Posted in Alcoholism, Computers, Customer complaints, Driver-less cars, Important things, Lawyers and Representation, New Cars, Politcal Opinion, Uncategorized by

I am sure there is much to be said about this subject, but let me start with the obvious.  I would suspect there are hundreds, maybe thousands of lawyers that are salivating at the prospect of taking some big company to court over an accident piloted by a computer.

First, there is the possibility of suing the car manufacturer.  Then they might sue the company that built the computer, or one of the sensors.  Then there is the software company or person who wrote the programming of the computer.  Then again, why discriminate.  They can sue all of them and let the jurors sort it out.

Each time they level a lawsuit, it means 40% of something they would be able to put in their pocket.  My guess is, few if any of the suits would go to court.  The defendants would not want to set any kind of precedent, so they would likely settle out of court.  They would admit no guilt and the plaintiffs would agree to drop the suit.

It would mean, after an accident, the lawyer would raise his hand and say “Suit,” and the defendants would ask how much.  Then, the nation would have two more instant millionaires,  The lawyer and his client.

Then again, I’m not sure.  It might be four more millionaires.  It is entirely plausible that the parties from both cars might sue to to get a piece of the pie.  On the other hand, what if there are more than two cars involved.  The little glitch in the software just might cause a ten car pileup.  I don’t want to even think about that.

The point is, the lawsuits are no longer limited to the tens of thousands of dollars that an individual driver can cough up.  We are talking megabucks now, millions of dollars over what we now call a fender-bender.  Every dent is a possible lawsuit.

It is all ironic.  Eventually, the driver-less cars will be safer than those driven by humans.  It is quite possible that the computer just might reduce crashes and deaths on the highway.  The computers, after all, have three advantages over humans.

Computers are not distracted.  That little instant that a man takes his eyes off the road to look at that barely dressed woman will no longer be a problem.  That misbehaving child in the back seat will not keep you from seeing that car pull out in front of you.  Moreover, should you nod off from staring at that endless ribbon of highway, it’s no problem.  The robot has it all in control.

It takes us humans about 1/4 of a second to react to an emergency.  From the time we see some child dart out in front of us to the time we put our foot on the brake, it takes at least two tenths of a second.  On the other hand, the computer would apply the brake in millionths of a second.  Even at thirty miles an hour, a car can travel quite a distance in a quarter of a second.

It has often been asked, what if the computer fails.  What if a component goes bad.  Today’s computers are incredibly reliable and will likely become far more reliable in the future.  On the other hand, we humans can and do fail from time to time.  I have known of many accidents that were the result of someone pressing on the throttle instead of the brake.  Then too, there are a few of us that are old.  If a heart goes out while we are driving, it can cause people to die… besides the heart attack victim.  Besides, even young people can have heart attacks, or black out from other ailments.

In the long run, computers will be far more reliable, though I would still be hesitant to put my life in the hands of one.

However, until something is done with the legal aspects, autonomous cars will continue to be the exception rather than the rule.  It means that women will not be able to put their makeup on at seventy mph and men will have to ignore that good-looking woman walking by.  As usual, it will be the lawyers that will impede the progress.  Even when it makes the roads safer, the driver-less cars are going to have to wait.  There is no way that our legal system will be able to handle it.  Our courts will be so backed up that they won’t be able to deal with the less important things… such as rape, robbery and murder.

Besides the legal problems, there are the recalls.  One accident, and it would likely result in the recall of millions of autos.  Talk about a nightmare.

Then again, there is one thing that I am really looking forward to… keeping all those alcoholics from driving.  That in itself would save uncountable lives, pain and suffering.  The problem is, as long as lawyers make the laws, driver-less autos will remain quite rare.

A Suggested Amendment

Posted in Lawyers and Representation, Politcal Opinion by

I have two ideas for amendments to The Constitution.  In fact, they are so basic that I don’t know why they were left out of the original writing.  I believe in requiring all bills to be read aloud before any vote on it. Maybe an exception can be made if 3/4 of the members vote to bypass the reading.  It has two advantages.  First, all the bills would be read and the bills would be much smaller.

Second, we should require a person to be able to read and comprehend at a sixth grade level before they would be eligible to vote in any election.  It just might make a difference in the outcome of the vote, but it sure would improve our schools.

I would like to require a high school diploma, but coming up with objective national standards for diplomas would be difficult.  Besides, there might be a tendency to fudge on the grades some.

Thou Shalt Not Steal

Posted in Christian values, Hillery's E-mails, Important things, Lawyers and Representation, Politcal Opinion by

I know there are all kinds of illegal robbery going around.  I even had a would be thief walk into my house one night with a .45.  Fortunately,  he decided to leave when our two big dogs confronted him.

However, I would suspect, maybe, a bigger problem might be legal robbery.  It happens all the time.  We read about it in the papers and we hear about it on the radio.  From time to time, a story is even on the TV.  Someone robs someone and no one can do a thing.  The theft is completely within the law.

I can’t prove it, but I have heard that legal theft is not new.  In the day that our Savior walked this earth, there were lawyers who accepted fees from widows in the hope they would receive help.  The lawyer provided very little help and abandoned her the moment her money ran out.

The priests refused to accept a sheep for sacrifices because of defects.  However, they did accept the lamb and money in exchange for a lamb that was acceptable.  Of course, everyone knew that the acceptable sheep was acquired from a man, maybe the day before, and the sheep the priest received in payment would be sold to a man in a day or two.

Only Temple currency was permitted for offering at the Temple.  Naturally, there were money changers at the Temple that could take in any form of currency, in exchange for Temple currency.  Naturally, for this, they took exorbitant fees.

The only time I know of where Jesus became somewhat violent was when he chased the thieves from His Temple, as he said, “You have made My Father’s House a den of thieves.”  Because of this, regardless of anything else, we know that there were thieves in the Temple.  We also know that it was likely legal thievery.  Otherwise, they would have been tossed in prison.  Instead they stole right out in open sight.

In the story of The Good Samaritan, Jesus also spoke of thieves that used force.  However, I get the impression he hated the legal thieves more than those who used force.  This is especially true for those who stole in His Father’s Name.

In the operetta by Gilbert and Sullivan, “The Pirates of Penzance,” the pirate king says he is more honest than the businessman.  When he hoists The Jolly Roger, everyone knows what he is about.  The businessman hides behind his nice suit and respectability and steals even more than the pirate.

Indeed, history is full of those who have used their offices or businesses to steal.  Unfortunately, most of these have succeeded.  They never went to prison.  To this day, some are still respected.  I am not going to go through all I know.  It would take a book.

Let me just mention a few.  Jackson stole land from the Indians.  His picture is on the twenty-dollar bill.  Many, after The Civil War, went down into the south to plunder.  Lincoln tried to stop this but was assassinated.  The pole tax and literacy laws grew from this.  The KKK was not formed to kill the Blacks, but to stop the carpetbaggers.  Eventually, the ransacking resulted in the “Solid South.”

Speaker of the House Hastert made a really great land deal because of inside info.  Most of us would have gone to jail for that, or at least paid a big fine.  There is no telling how much thievery the Clintons were involved in.  Many congressional members made millions off of books that were never read.  It is a left-handed method of bribery.  The Bible has much to say about that (bribery) as well.  Maybe, a few of you remember the house post office and banking system.  (Eventually, that did end in the incarceration of one man, though hundreds were guilty.)

Perhaps the most prevalent form of legal thievery is welfare.  This is where perfectly healthy man or woman draws money under the guise of inability to earn money.  In truth they steal, not only from the feds, but, in truth, from people who really need welfare.  This they with clear conscience because, by George, it’s legal.  Moreover, there are some in the federal government that encourage such activity.  Indeed, the bureaucracy depends on the welfare system; so they encourage the robbery, knowing it is dishonest.  They are all members of a den of thieves and they know it.

May I use my imagination for just a moment?  What would happen if all of a sudden the Lord took all those who actually work for living from this country.  I think, possibly, we are talking major panic.  However, if one day, people in this country get tired of working so that others can sit on their tails doing nothing, they, those who do the work, just might stop working.  The effect would be the same.

The fact is thievery is thievery no matter what euphemisms you put on it.  Those that steal are thieves and those that encourage them are just as guilty.  Whether it is done at the point of a knife or as the result of some land grab, the thieves will answer for their sins.  After all, the Lord did say, “Thou shalt not steal.”  I don’t think he made any exceptions for those who hide behind the law.  Those of you who practice law should take note of this.  (I wonder how many have become multimillionaires because of the tobacco judgement.  I wonder how many are now living in mansions because of asbestos… or baby powder.  What percentage of our doctor bills are for paying lawyer’s fees?  How many useful products will never make it to the marketplace because someone is afraid of the lawyers?

By the way, Jesus’ story of The Good Samaritan was a reply to a Lawyer’s question, “Who is our neighbor?”  Even back then, they were looking for loopholes.  The fact is that sometimes the law gets in the way of doing things that are good.  Sometimes the law encourages those who do things that are bad.

The question is, what do we do about it?  Let’s start by electing good honest people to public office.  Personally, I think it would be a good idea to make sure they are Christian.  Personally, I think it would be a good idea to elect people who have the courage and conviction to be publicly pro-life.  I think maybe it would be a good idea if our representatives are not thieves or encourage thievery, regardless of the form it takes.  If we would occasionally throw thieves in public office in jail, it would help.  If we don’t, this nation is headed for a train wreck.

The Lord has blessed this nation from its birth.  Why should He continue His blessings on a nation that treats Him and his people so badly?  He doesn’t need to pronounce judgement on a crooked nation.  It is a natural result.  No nation can survive when its citizens look the other way while legal murder and robbery abound.  This is true even for atheist nations.  Why should we be better?

I have an Idea (2)

Posted in Border wall, Christian values, Communist Takover, Gas tax, Immigration, Important things, Lawyers and Representation, Politcal Opinion by

No need to build a wall.

Winston Churchill said that socialists need walls to hold people in. (my words, such as East Berlin)  Capitalists need walls to keep people out.  (my words, such as the US)

Solution: turn Mexico from socialism to capitalism.  The US is already going from capitalism to socialism.  At some point, people will stop coming north and start going south.  (oddly, beach front property in southern California will again be affordable.  Property in Baha California will be outrageous.)

To be sure, there is one problem with this approach.  Getting the US to become socialist seems to be simple.  Getting Mexico to become capitalist is likely a tad bit more difficult than impossible.  It just might be easier to build the wall, though I’m not sure.