Welcome - Justice Network website - NoSue.org

The Justice Network is engaged in advocacy, education, news gathering & dissemination, and helping people fight injustice. This site is also part of my therapy as a survivor of legal injustice. Read more on Scribd


Comment on the Justice Network Blog                 disclaimer


Thank you, Neil Gillespie info@NoSue.org

Attorney and journalist Amy Bach spent eight years investigating the widespread courtroom failures that each day upend lives across America. In the process, she discovered how the professionals who work in the system, however well intentioned, cannot see the harm they are doing to the people they serve. The book is Ordinary Injustice, How America Holds Court


Winner of the 2010 RFK Book Award.

The American Bar Association (ABA) recently added a "Civil Right to Counsel" page, "Law Governing Appointment of Counsel in State Civil Proceedings", with 50 research reports, one for each state detailing existing authority for appointment of counsel in various types of civil proceedings. There is an Appendix: International Law Relating to Appointment of Counsel in Civil Proceedings. United States v. Duarte-Acero, 208 F. 3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2000) is a case about International Law in Florida and the U.S. Eleventh Circuit.

From the Forward: "It is a commonplace for courts throughout the United States to announce, "there is no right to counsel in civil cases in this state." Yet, in truth, in every state there are at least a few categories of civil cases in which indigent litigants have a right to counsel. Indeed in some jurisdictions there are many such rights. It also is not unusual for state law to grant judges a discretionary power to appoint counsel for such litigants in still other kinds of cases, or even for all civil cases."

"The legal community and public often ask, "What does ‘civil Gideon’ mean?" In the landmark United States Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), the Supreme Court decided that indigent defendants have a constitutional right to be represented by an attorney, at no charge, in state criminal cases. The term "civil Gideon" refers to a growing national movement that has developed to explore strategies to provide legal counsel, as a matter of right and at public expense, to low-income persons in civil legal proceedings where basic human needs are at stake, such as those involving shelter and child custody."

Gideon at 50, Civil Gideon, National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel

Talbot "Sandy" D’Alemberte wrote about the right to legal representation in civil cases in his law review Tributaries of Justice: The Search For Full Access, 25 Fla. St. U. L. Rev 631, Section V. Tributary Four: A Civil Gideon Fund From A Service Tax On For-Profit Legal Services.

"Some court opinions hint that access to legal representation in civil cases might be a constitutional entitlement. footnote 58, See In re Amendments to Rules Regulating The Florida Bar—1-3.1(a) and Rules of Judicial Administration—2.065 (Legal Aid), 598 So. 2d 41, 43 (Fla. 1992) (noting that "the right to counsel is no longer limited to criminal cases")."...

In Re Amendments to Rules, 598 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1992)
Pro Bono Primer for Florida Lawyers (PDF), The Florida Bar

The Florida Bar Journal, Pro Bono Services in Florida, April, 1999 Volume LXXIII, No. 4, by Judge William A. VanNortwick, Jr. and Kent R. Spuhler, Jr. and Paul C. Doyle, Jr.

Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution:


"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Wikipedia

U.S. Civil Court System Needs Major Overhaul

U.S. Civil Court System Needs Major Overhaul, New Book Declares
PBS News Hour
October 18, 2011

A new book, "Rebuilding Justice: Civil Courts in Jeopardy and Why You Should Care," argues Americans don't understand how the courts work and that the system itself needs a major overhaul. Ray Suarez talked with the book's co-author on the campus of Georgetown University Law Center's Supreme Court Institute.


RAY SUAREZ: Well, the book reads like a 230-page indictment. What's the problem?

REBECCA LOVE KOURLIS: Well, it's not that complicated -- or it shouldn't be. If you get in a car wreck, and there's an argument about who should be paying damages, your assumption is that you can go to court to have that case resolved. The truth of the matter is that's probably the last place you want to be, because the fees and the costs will ultimately be more than your car is worth, even if you drive a really nice car. PBS News Hour


Publisher: Fulcrum Publishing


Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, IAALS: Authors Rebecca Love Kourlis and Dirk Olin tell the story of a civil justice system that has become alarmingly expensive, politicized, and time-consuming, degrading it to the point that it no longer meets the legitimate needs of the people it was created to serve. IAALS Facebook

Ambassador Samantha Power, U.S. Department of State


Ambassador Samantha Power is the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations and a member of President Obama’s Cabinet.  At the United Nations, Ambassador Power works to advance U.S. interests, promote and defend universal values, and address pressing global challenges to global peace, security, and prosperity. Read more


Wikipedia: Samantha Power (born September 21, 1970) is an Irish-born American academic, author and diplomat who currently serves as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations.

The White House, Syria Foreign Policy

President Obama's letter on Syria


The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)  The Carter Center


Signed by President Carter October 5, 1977
Ratified by the United States June 8, 1992


UN - International Covenant

on Civil and Political Rights


Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (in part)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights - UDHR, 60th Anniversary, President George W. Bush addressed The United Nations General Assembly, September 25, 2007.


PRESIDENT BUSH: Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen: Thank you for the opportunity to address the General Assembly of the United Nations. Sixty years ago, representatives from 16 nations gathered to begin deliberations on a new international bill of rights. The document they produced is called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- and it stands as a landmark achievement in the history of human liberty. It opens by recognizing "the inherent dignity" and the "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family" as "the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world." And as we gather for this 62nd General Assembly, the standards of the Declaration must guide our work in this world....

  • United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC)
  • Signed by President George W. Bush December 9, 2003
  • Ratified by the United States October 30, 2006

UNODC's Action against Corruption and Economic Crime

Corruption is a complex social, political and economic phenomenon that affects all countries. The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) is the only legally binding universal anti-corruption instrument. Signed by the United States December 9, 2003, and ratified by the United States October 30, 2006.


Wikipedia reports "In its 71 Articles divided into 8 Chapters, UNCAC requires that States Parties implement several anti-corruption measures which may affect their laws, institutions and practices."


UNCAC's Forward: "Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish. This evil phenomenon is found in all countries..." (English PDF).


The U.N. Global Compact site anti-corruption resources.



The Holocaust: German and American Law


Once a burial ground for partisan heroes of World War II, Lion Cemetery now contains many victims of the siege of Sarajevo.


What Happened to the Hague Tribunal?
The New York Times
by ERIC GORDY Op-Ed Contributor
June 2, 2013

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia decided on Thursday to acquit two Serbian state security officials, Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic. The acquittal is one of a series of dramatic reversals by the tribunal over the last year, and it fits into the evolution of an institution that came in with a squeak, banged around for a bit, and looks likely to go out with a whimper.

Stanisic and Simatovic had the largest hand in creating, training, arming, financing and directing several of the paramilitary groups responsible for a large number of crimes in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The tormented reasoning of the tribunal’s 800-page verdict offers some fascinating reading: It affirms that crimes were committed and describes them in excruciating detail. It names the victims, names the perpetrators, and in most cases details the connections between the accused parties and the direct perpetrators.

Then it declines to convict, on the ground that the evidence does not show that the support provided to the criminals was "specifically directed towards the commission of the crimes."


International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Wikipedia

Kenya parliament to reconsider ICC membership

Legislators recalled for vote in advance of trials of president and vice president at international court at the Hague.

Kenya parliament to reconsider ICC membership
Aljazeera Africa
September 4, 2013

Legislators recalled for vote in advance of trials of president and vice president at international court at the Hague.

Kenya's parliament has been recalled to debate ending its membership of the International Criminal Court, in advance of a crimes-against-humanity trial of the vice-president starting next week.

Joyce Laboso, parliamentary deputy speaker, issued on Tuesday the order for the "special sitting of the assembly", with parliament to meet on Thursday.

However, even should Kenya choose to leave the ICC - the first country potentially to do so - it would not affect upcoming trials since legal proceedings have already begun.

The ICC trial opened of Vice-President William Ruto, who is facing three counts of crimes against humanity for allegedly organising 2007-2008 post-election unrest that killed at least 1,100 people and displaced more than 600,000.

Ruto's trial comes about two months before that of President Uhuru Kenyatta on November 12, who faces five charges of crimes against humanity, including murder, rape, persecution, deportation and other inhumane acts.

Both Kenyatta and Ruto have said they will cooperate fully with the court but deny the charges against them. Read more

.....The International Criminal Court (ICC), The Hague, The Netherlands

International Criminal Court - ICC website   ICC on - Wikipedia
Crimes against humanity - ICC website        CAH on - Wikipedia
Rome Statute - ICC website                           Rome on Wikipedia


Ratification of the Rome Statute

International Committee of the Red Cross - Rome Statute
Prevent Genocide - Rome Statute - International Criminal Court

Supreme Court Approval Rating Drops to 25-Year Low

Supreme Court Approval Rating Drops to 25-Year Low
ABA Journal Law News Now
By Debra Cassens Weiss
May 2, 2012

Only 52 percent of the public has a favorable view of the U.S. Supreme Court, down from a previous low of 57 percent in 2005 and 2007.

The favorability rating is at its lowest point in 25 years, according to a press release on the survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. The poll was conducted in April after the Supreme Court held oral arguments on the constitutionality of the health care law.

Fifty-six percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats and independents give the court favorable ratings. (Others in the survey identified themselves as having no party preference, members of other parties, or "leaning" toward Democrats or Republicans, according to a questionnaire summary.)

Among supporters of the health-care law, 52 percent have a favorable view of the Supreme Court. Among the bill's opponents, 55 percent view the court favorably. Read more here

Hat tip to How Appealing


Esquire: Half of America Hates the Roberts Court

Petition 13-7280 Writ of Certiorari SCOTUS, Gillespie v RMS, Florida Bar

Petition 13-7280 Writ of Certiorari SCOTUS (closed)
Gillespie vs. Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc., et al.


US Supreme Court docket page - Petition No. 13-7280

Petition denied January 13, 2014
Rehearing denied March 10, 2014

Petition for rehearing Petition No. 13-7280


The Cert Pool Petition No. 13-7280
Affidavit: well-founded fear of political persecution
Urgent Appeal: to Special Rapporteurs, United Nations

Petition 12-7747 Writ of Certiorari SCOTUS, Gillespie v 13th Circuit

Petition 12-7747 Writ of Certiorari SCOTUS (closed)
Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida


US Supreme Court docket page - Petition No. 12-7747

Petition denied February 19, 2013
Rehearing denied April 15, 2013


Fraud or Impairment of 12-7747 discovered May 2013
Index Guide to Petition No. 12-7747
The Cert Pool Petition No. 12-7747
Blog post Petition No. 12-7747
Blog post David Rowland misled Florida AG, SCOTUS Petition

Application 12A215 GRANTED by Justice Thomas, Gillespie v 13th Circuit

Application 12A215 GRANTED by Justice Thomas SCOTUS
Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida


US Supreme Court docket page Application No. 12A215


No. 12A215
Title: Neil J. Gillespie, Applicant
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, et al.

Docketed: August 31, 2012
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Case Nos.: (12-11028, 12-11213)

  • Aug 13 2012 - Application (12A215) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 11, 2012 to December 10, 2012, submitted to Justice Thomas.
  • Sep 13 2012 - Application (12A215) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file
Petition 13-1063 writ of cert SCOTUS, Rodriguez v. Bank of New York Mellon

Petition No. 13-1063 Writ of Certiorari SCOTUS (closed)
Paula Perez-Rodriguez v. The Bank of New York Mellon, et al.


Whether borrowers have the right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to contest residential foreclosures that use the same fraudulent documentation numerous branches of the federal government and 49 state Attorneys General condemned and prohibited through various multibillion dollar settlements?


US Supreme Court docket page - Petition No. 13-1063

Petition denied May 5, 2014; time for rehearing expired


Ginsburg: "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012"

Justice Ginsburg

Ginsburg Appears on Egyptian TV, Talks About Constitution Writing
ABA Journal Law News Now
By Molly McDonough
February 3, 2012

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrapped up a trip to Egypt with an appearance on Egyptian TV, where in a lengthy interview she discussed the U.S. Constitution and whether it should be a model for Egypt.

While urging that the U.S. Constitution be used as inspiration, Ginsburg said Egyptians should look to other countries with newer constitutions for guidance, the Huffington Post reports.

"Let me say first, that a constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom," Ginsburg said in the 18-minute interview with Al Hayat TV, which is posted on YouTube. "If the people don’t care, then the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference."

Ginsburg was in Egypt to meet with judges, legal experts, law faculty and students in Cairo and Alexandria. According to the U.S. Embassy, she was there to "'listen and learn' with her Egyptian counterparts as they begin Egypt's constitutional transition to democracy," the Huffington Post notes.

On the television program, in a response to a question about drafting a constitution in the modern era, Ginsburg said she would not look to the U.S. Constitution when drafting in the year 2012 because it excluded women, slaves and Native Americans.

Rather, those writing constitutions should look at all constitution writing since World War II. She pointed specifically to the South African constitution and Canada's charter of rights and freedoms as good modern examples.

"Why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world? I'm a very strong believer in listening and learning from others," she said.

The Huffington Post reports that no other justice on the current high court has publicly advised another country on the creation of a constitution. Read more

United States Constitution Wikipedia


U.S. Declaration of Independence Wikipedia

Constitution of South Africa Wikipedia

Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms Wikipedia


European Convention on Human Rights Wikipedia

'We the People' Loses Appeal Around the Would

‘We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World
The New York Times
February 6, 2012

WASHINGTON — The Constitution has seen better days.

Sure, it is the nation’s founding document and sacred text. And it is the oldest written national constitution still in force anywhere in the world. But its influence is waning.

In 1987, on the Constitution’s bicentennial, Time magazine calculated that "of the 170 countries that exist today, more than 160 have written charters modeled directly or indirectly on the U.S. version."

A quarter-century later, the picture looks very different. "The U.S. Constitution appears to be losing its appeal as a model for constitutional drafters elsewhere," according to a new study by David S. Law of Washington University in St. Louis and Mila Versteeg of the University of Virginia.

The study, to be published in June in The New York University Law Review, bristles with data. Its authors coded and analyzed the provisions of 729 constitutions adopted by 188 countries from 1946 to 2006, and they considered 237 variables regarding various rights and ways to enforce them.

"Among the world’s democracies," Professors Law and Versteeg concluded, "constitutional similarity to the United States has clearly gone into free fall. Over the 1960s and 1970s, democratic constitutions as a whole became more similar to the U.S. Constitution, only to reverse course in the 1980s and 1990s."

"The turn of the twenty-first century, however, saw the beginning of a steep plunge that continues through the most recent years for which we have data, to the point that the constitutions of the world’s democracies are, on average, less similar to the U.S. Constitution now than they were at the end of World War II."

There are lots of possible reasons. The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights. The commitment of some members of the Supreme Court to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning in the 18th century may send the signal that it is of little current use to, say, a new African nation. And the Constitution’s waning influence may be part of a general decline in American power and prestige.

In an interview, Professor Law identified a central reason for the trend: the availability of newer, sexier and more powerful operating systems in the constitutional marketplace. "Nobody wants to copy Windows 3.1," he said.

In a television interview during a visit to Egypt last week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court seemed to agree. "I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," she said. She recommended, instead, the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the European Convention on Human Rights.

The rights guaranteed by the American Constitution are parsimonious by international standards, and they are frozen in amber. As Sanford Levinson wrote in 2006 in "Our Undemocratic Constitution," "the U.S. Constitution is the most difficult to amend of any constitution currently existing in the world today." (Yugoslavia used to hold that title, but Yugoslavia did not work out.)

Thomas Jefferson

Other nations routinely trade in their constitutions wholesale, replacing them on average every 19 years. By odd coincidence, Thomas Jefferson, in a 1789 letter to James Madison, once said that every constitution "naturally expires at the end of 19 years" because "the earth belongs always to the living generation." These days, the overlap between the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and those most popular around the world is spotty.

Americans recognize rights not widely protected, including ones to a speedy and public trial, and are outliers in prohibiting government establishment of religion. But the Constitution is out of step with the rest of the world in failing to protect, at least in so many words, a right to travel, the presumption of innocence and entitlement to food, education and health care.

It has its idiosyncrasies. Only 2 percent of the world’s constitutions protect, as the Second Amendment does, a right to bear arms. (Its brothers in arms are Guatemala and Mexico.)

The Constitution’s waning global stature is consistent with the diminished influence of the Supreme Court, which "is losing the central role it once had among courts in modern democracies," Aharon Barak, then the president of the Supreme Court of Israel, wrote in The Harvard Law Review in 2002.

Many foreign judges say they have become less likely to cite decisions of the United States Supreme Court, in part because of what they consider its parochialism.

"America is in danger, I think, of becoming something of a legal backwater," Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia said in a 2001 interview. He said that he looked instead to India, South Africa and New Zealand.

Mr. Barak, for his part, identified a new constitutional superpower: "Canadian law," he wrote, "serves as a source of inspiration for many countries around the world." The new study also suggests that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted in 1982, may now be more influential than its American counterpart.

The Canadian Charter is both more expansive and less absolute. It guarantees equal rights for women and disabled people, allows affirmative action and requires that those arrested be informed of their rights. On the other hand, it balances those rights against "such reasonable limits" as "can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

There are, of course, limits to empirical research based on coding and counting, and there is more to a constitution than its words, as Justice Antonin Scalia told the Senate Judiciary Committee in October. "Every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights," he said.

"The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours," he said, adding: "We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!"

"Of course," Justice Scalia continued, "it’s just words on paper, what our framers would have called a ‘parchment guarantee.’ " Read more

Originalism - Back to the Future - September 17, 1787

Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas


In the context of United States constitutional interpretation, originalism is a principle of interpretation that tries to discover the original meaning or intent of the constitution. It is based on the principle that the judiciary is not supposed to create, amend or repeal laws (which is the realm of the legislative branch) but only to uphold them. The term is a neologism, and the concept is a formalist theory of law and a corollary of textualism.

Today, originalism is popular among political conservatives in the U.S., and is most prominently associated with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork. However, some liberals, such as Justice Hugo Black and Akhil Amar, have also subscribed to the theory. Read more

The Originalism Blog Why Originalism Is So Popular

Eric Posner, The New Republic

Legal Theory Lexicon 019: Originalism


The Founder’s Constitution, Kurland & Lerner

Jack Balkin, Bad Originalism


Balkin, Scalia Blowing Smoke Again


Ed Brayton, Balkin on "Bad Originalism"

JustOneMinute, The NY Times Finds A Codebreaker

Booknotes interview with Jack Rakove on Original Meanings:

Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution

Second Constitution of the United States?

Second Constitution of the United States, Wikipedia

The Second Constitution of the United States is a controversial proposal made by a small but increasing group of scholars and activists from both left and right for a substantive effort to reform politics in the United States by means of overhauling the current United States Constitution. The current Constitution in Article V describes several ways in which the current constitution could be altered, but that in any event, thirty eight of the fifty states would be needed to ratify any changes. While in 2011, the number of voices calling for such a Constitutional Convention are small in number, there are reports of state legislatures leaning in the direction of substantive constitutional reform, based in part on widespread dissatisfaction with the American political process at the national level. In contrast, however, analyst David O. Stewart, writing in the Huffington Post, suggested that most Americans would "recoil from the disruption" of a possible second Constitution. Read more

Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We The People Can Correct It)

Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We The People Can Correct It)

Sanford Levinson, Author

The Constitution is one of the most revered documents in American politics. Yet this is a document that regularly places in the White House candidates who did not in fact get a majority of the popular vote. It gives Wyoming the same number of votes as California, which has seventy times the population of the Cowboy State. And it offers the President the power to overrule both houses of Congress on legislation he disagrees with on political grounds. Is this a recipe for a republic that reflects the needs and wants of today's Americans? Read more

Sanford Levinson

Review by Michael Kinsley, The New York Times: Levinson argues that too many of our Constitution's provisions promote either unjust or ineffective government. Under the existing blueprint, we can neither rid ourselves of incompetent presidents nor assure continuity of government following catastrophic attacks. Less important, perhaps, but certainly problematic, is the appointment of Supreme Court judges for life. Adding insult to injury, the United States Constitution is the most difficult to amend or update of any constitution currently existing in the world today. Democratic debate leaves few stones unturned, but we tend to take our basic constitutional structures for granted. Levinson boldly challenges the American people to undertake a long overdue public discussion on how they might best reform this most hallowed document and construct a constitution adequate to our democratic values. Read more



Professor Sanford Levinson talked about his book, Constitutional Faith on BookTV, in which he argues that the U.S. Constitution is worshipped to a degree that it is unhealthy for our democracy.


Constitutional Faith, Princeton University Press

How Democratic is the American Constitution? Second Edition

Robert A. Dahl, Author

Yale political science professor Robert Dahl takes a critical look at our Constitution and why we continue to uphold it, though it is "a document produced more than two centuries ago by a group of fifty-five mortal men, actually signed by only thirty-nine, and adopted in only thirteen states." As an instrument for truly democratic government, Dahl argues, it fails. With insufficient models to guide them and a distrust of unfettered democracy, the Framers allowed several "undemocratic elements" in: slavery was accepted and suffrage effectively limited to white men. But Dahl saves his most potent criticism for two provisions that have remained unchanged: the electoral college and the Senate, both of which tie votes to geography rather than population, thereby skewing political power toward coalitions of smaller states whose interests may not necessarily coincide with the nation's as a whole. And as the 2000 presidential election illustrated, the electoral college can frustrate the will of the majority. Read more

Louis Seidman

Law Prof Who Urged Abandoning the Constitution Gets Abusive and Threatening Emails
ABA Journal Law News Now
By Debra Cassens Weiss
January 3, 2013

The op-ed by Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman was provocative and, apparently, anger-inducing.

Writing in the Sunday New York Times, Seidman said it was time to abandon the U.S. Constitution and its "archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions."

"As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is." he wrote. Imagine the president or Congress decides on a course of action. "Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: A group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?"

The op-ed, written in advance of Seidman’s new book, On Constitutional Disobedience, brought more than 700 emails in Seidman’s in box, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog (sub. req.) reports. "My email box may never recover," Seidman told the blog. "I would say a large percentage of them are seriously abusive. Quite a few are anti-Semitic. Some are actual threats." Read more


Louis Michael Seidman, On Constitutional Disobedience 2012, The Scholarly Commons Georgetown Law paper

What would the Framers of the Constitution make of multinational corporations? Nuclear weapons? Gay marriage? They led a preindustrial country, much of it dependent on slave labor, huddled on the Atlantic seaboard. The Founders saw society as essentially hierarchical, led naturally by landed gentry like themselves. Yet we still obey their commands, two centuries and one civil war later. According to Louis Michael Seidman, it's time to stop.

In On Constitutional Disobedience, Seidman argues that, in order to bring our basic law up to date, it needs benign neglect. This is a highly controversial assertion. The doctrine of "original intent" may be found on the far right, but the entire political spectrum--left and right--shares a deep reverence for the Constitution. And yet, Seidman reminds us, disobedience is the original intent of the Constitution. The Philadelphia convention had gathered to amend the Articles of Confederation, not toss them out and start afresh. The "living Constitution" school tries to bridge the gap between the framers and ourselves by reinterpreting the text in light of modern society's demands. But this attempt is doomed, Seidman argues. One might stretch "due process of law" to protect an act of same-sex sodomy, yet a loyal-but-contemporary reading cannot erase the fact that the Constitution allows a candidate who lost the popular election to be seated as president. And that is only one of the gross violations of popular will enshrined in the document. Seidman systematically addresses and refutes the arguments in favor of Constitutional fealty, proposing instead that it be treated as inspiration, not a set of commands.

The Constitution is, at its best, a piece of poetry to liberty and self-government. If we treat it as such, the author argues, we will make better progress in achieving both.

Stephanie McCurry is a specialist in Nineteenth Century American history, with a focus on the American South and the Civil War era, and the history of women and gender. Read more


Who Won the Civil War? New York Times, July 2, 2013

Book TV: Stephanie McCurry, "Confederate Reckoning"

Professor Stephanie McCurry, Confederate Reckoning

But There Was No Peace: The Aftermath of the Civil War (Stanford)

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow, Public Broadcasting Service

Michelle Alexander, author of "The New Jim Crow" - Kent Lecture


Penn is strongly committed to open learning — a vital part of our mission to increase access, around the world, to the educational resources that can change people’s lives. Read more

An Honest Legal System Matters: Trickle-Up Economics

Hernando de Soto

The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else Hernando de Soto, Author

Published 14 years ago, the information is dated in a way beneficial to understanding current economics, and why we in America are truly in a crisis over the misrule of law.

"It's become clear by now the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism in most places around the globe hasn't ushered in an unequivocal flowering of capitalism in the developing and postcommunist world. Western thinkers have blamed this on everything from these countries' lack of sellable assets to their inherently non-entrepreneurial "mindset." In this book, the renowned Peruvian economist and adviser to presidents and prime ministers Hernando de Soto proposes and argues another reason: it's not that poor, postcommunist countries don't have the assets to make capitalism flourish. As de Soto points out by way of example, in Egypt, the wealth the poor have accumulated is worth 55 times as much as the sum of all direct foreign investment ever recorded there, including that spent on building the Suez Canal and the Aswan Dam."

"No, the real problem is that such countries have yet to establish and normalize the invisible network of laws that turns assets from "dead" into "liquid" capital. In the West, standardized laws allow us to mortgage a house to raise money for a new venture, permit the worth of a company to be broken up into so many publicly tradable stocks, and make it possible to govern and appraise property with agreed-upon rules that hold across neighborhoods, towns, or regions. This invisible infrastructure of "asset management"--so taken for granted in the West, even though it has only fully existed in the United States for the past 100 years--is the missing ingredient to success with capitalism, insists de Soto. But even though that link is primarily a legal one, he argues that the process of making it a normalized component of a society is more a political--or attitude-changing--challenge than anything else." Read more

Hernando de Soto, Wikipedia    ILD, Wikipedia

The Institute for Liberty and Democracy envisions a world where the majority of people can fully participate in a national and global economy by having access to property and business rights.  We seek bottom-up reforms that are derived from understanding and recognition of existing extralegal systems and customs. Read more

The rule of law and property rights came to America in the 18th and 19th century according to DeSoto (at 7:30 in the video). But what about the rule of law and property rights of Native Americans? The Lenape people claim the Walking Purchase of 1737 cheated them of their lands in the Lehigh Valley. The case was adjudicated in U.S. District Court November 30, 2004, see The Delaware Nation v. Commonwealth of Pa., et al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 04-CV-166. The 33 page Memorandum and Order of November 30, 2004 shows quite a story in land title and conveyance.

Elizabeth Warren and Hapless Bank Regulators At First Hearing
Huffington Post
by Ryan Grimm
February 14, 2013

WASHINGTON -- Bank regulators got a sense Thursday of how their lives will be slightly different now that Elizabeth Warren sits on a Senate committee overseeing their agencies.

At her first Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing, Warren questioned top regulators from the alphabet soup that is the nation's financial regulatory structure: the FDIC, SEC, OCC, CFPB, CFTC, Fed and Treasury.

The Democratic senator from Massachusetts had a straightforward question for them: When was the last time you took a Wall Street bank to trial? It was a harder question than it seemed. Read more


My letter to Sen. Warren, as filed in Petition No. 12-7747

Hiroko Masuike/The New York Times Adam Victor, chief executive of TransGas Development Systems, said of his bills from DLA Piper, “I’m going to keep on fighting.”

Suit Offers a Peek at the Practice of Inflating a Legal Bill


New York Times DealBook
March 25, 2013


World’s largest law firm DLA Piper overbilled the wrong client

- Adam H. Victor who fought back.

They were lawyers at the world’s largest law firm, trading casual e-mails about a client’s case. One made a sarcastic joke about how the bill was running way over budget. Another responded by describing a colleague’s approach to the assignment as "churn that bill, baby!"

The e-mails, which emerged in a court filing late last week, provide a window into the thorny issue of law firm billing. The documents are likely to reinforce a perception held by many corporate clients — and the broader public — that law firms inflate bills by performing superfluous tasks and overstaffing assignments.

The internal correspondence of the law firm, DLA Piper, was disclosed in a fee dispute between the law firm and Adam H. Victor, an energy industry entrepreneur. After DLA Piper sued Mr. Victor for $675,000 in unpaid legal bills, Mr. Victor filed a counterclaim, accusing the law firm of a "sweeping practice of overbilling."

Mr. Victor’s feud with DLA Piper began after he retained the firm in April 2010 to prepare a bankruptcy filing for one of his companies. A month after the filing, a lawyer at the firm warned colleagues that the businessman’s bill was mounting.

"I hear we are already 200k over our estimate — that’s Team DLA Piper!" wrote Erich P. Eisenegger, a lawyer at the firm.

Another DLA Piper lawyer, Christopher Thomson, replied, noting that a third colleague, Vincent J. Roldan, had been enlisted to work on the matter.

"Now Vince has random people working full time on random research projects in standard ‘churn that bill, baby!’ mode," Mr. Thomson wrote. "That bill shall know no limits." Read more


Original court documents, DLA Piper v. Victor, 650374/2012

E-Mails Attached to Court Filing on Law Firm Billing

ABA Journal, Law News Now: ‘Churn that bill, baby!’ email surfaces in fee dispute with DLA Piper, Martha Neil, March 25, 2013

New York Law Journal: DLA Piper Emails Reveal Firm Overbilled, Former Client Says, by Christine Simmons, March 26, 2013

Supreme Court Allows Strip-Searches for Any Arrest

Strip-searched twice after being wrongly detained over a fine, SCOTUS okay.

Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip-Searches for Any Arrest
The New York Times
April 2, 2012

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by the court’s conservative wing, wrote that courts are in no position to second-guess the judgments of correctional officials who must consider not only the possibility of smuggled weapons and drugs, but also public health and information about gang affiliations.

"Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed," Justice Kennedy wrote, adding that about 13 million people are admitted each year to the nation’s jails.

The procedures endorsed by the majority are forbidden by statute in at least 10 states and are at odds with the policies of federal authorities. According to a supporting brief filed by the American Bar Association, international human rights treaties also ban the procedures. Read more

Morton, freed after 25 years

Evidence of Innocence: The case of Michael Morton
60 Minutes CBS News
by Lara Logan
March 25, 2012

It's not every day that a convicted murderer clears his name and then returns to court to argue that his prosecutor should be prosecuted. But that's what happened recently in a high-profile case in Texas that raises broader questions about the power prosecutors have and what happens when they're accused of misusing it. At the center of this story is a man named Michael Morton. He was once an ordinary citizen with a wife, a child, a job, and no criminal record whatsoever. But then he was sent to prison for life. Read more



Justice and Prosecutorial Misconduct
The New York Times, Editorial
December 28, 2011

Michael Morton was exonerated by DNA evidence this month after being wrongfully convicted of murdering his wife and serving nearly 25 years in prison in Texas. In seeking to prove Mr. Morton’s innocence, his lawyers found in recently unsealed court records evidence that the prosecutor in the original trial, Ken Anderson, had withheld critical evidence that may have helped Mr. Morton. Read more

More Prosecutorial Misconduct: Sen. Ted Stevens Case

U.S. Sen. Stevens

Justice Department: We won't repeat Ted Stevens mistake
McClatchy Newspapers
by Sean Cockerham
March 28, 2012

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Justice Department said Wednesday that its misconduct in the case against then-Alaska Republican Sen. Ted Stevens was an isolated incident and Congress shouldn't pass a law forcing prosecutors to disclose all evidence they have to the defense.

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski is pushing a bill to require prosecutors to turn over evidence to the defense immediately that could be favorable to the accused. Alaska Democratic Sen. Mark Begich, who beat Stevens in an election just days after his conviction, which later was thrown out, is a co-sponsor. The American Civil Liberties Union, among others, supports the bill, saying that this type of problem happens too often.

But the Justice Department released a statement Wednesday as the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on an investigator's report that concluded the Stevens investigation and prosecution "were permeated by the systematic concealment" of evidence that would have helped Stevens. Read more


Tab For The Ted Stevens Misconduct Report: $981,842

DOJ Threatens to Sue Sheriff Joe Arpaio for Civil Rights Violations
ABA Journal Law News Now
By Debra Cassens Weiss
April 4, 2012

The U.S. Justice Department is threatening to sue a controversial Arizona sheriff for civil rights violations because of his treatment of Hispanics.

The department’s civil rights division revealed a possible lawsuit after settlement talks broke down with Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, according to Reuters and the Washington Post. "We believe that you are wasting time and not negotiating in good faith," the department said in a letter to Arpaio’s lawyer.

A Justice Department report released in December accused the sheriff’s department of using racial profiling against Hispanics in police stops and denying them services in jail.

The DOJ says Arpaio’s lawyers have twice called off settlement negotiations at the last minute, according to the Post account. After cancelation of a March 1 meeting, Arpaio held a news conference to claim President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. Now Arpaio is complaining about the feds’ demand for a court-appointed monitor.

"To the Obama administration, who is attempting to strong arm me into submission only for its political gain, I say: This will not happen, not on my watch!" Arpaio said in a statement published by Reuters. Read more here


U.S. Investigation (PDF) of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

The Lawyer-Judge Bias in the American Legal System

Professor Benjamin H. Barton author of The Lawyer-Judge Bias in the American Legal System, writes that virtually all American judges are former lawyers, a shared background that results in the lawyer-judge bias. Barton argues that these lawyer-judges instinctively favor the legal profession in their decisions and that this bias has far-reaching and deleterious effects on American law. See Overlawyered, Larry Ribstein, Glenn Reynolds, and Cato’s Dan Mitchell. Barton also submitted a brief (PDF) with Darryl Brown in Turner v. Rogers. 

Justice Kennedy

Justices’ Ruling Expands Rights of Accused in Plea Bargains
The New York Times
March 21, 2012

WASHINGTON — Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to effective lawyers during plea negotiations, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in a pair of 5-to-4 decisions that vastly expanded judges’ supervision of the criminal justice system.

The decisions mean that what used to be informal and unregulated deal making is now subject to new constraints when bad legal advice leads defendants to reject favorable plea offers.

"Criminal justice today is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. "The right to adequate assistance of counsel cannot be defined or enforced without taking account of the central role plea bargaining takes in securing convictions and determining sentences." Read more         Related story in the ABA Journal 

Lafler v. Cooper, 10-209
10-209 LAFLER v. COOPER.pdf
Adobe Acrobat document [177.5 KB]

For One Prisoner, Nutriloaf Diet May Violate Eighth Amendment, Posner Opinion Says
ABA Journal Law News Now
By Debra Cassens Weiss
March 28, 2012

A federal appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit filed by a prisoner who claimed the nutriloaf he ate in the Milwaukee County Jail was cruel and unusual punishment.

The opinion (PDF) by Judge Richard Posner of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals suggested appointment of counsel for the inmate, Terrance Prude, who vomited and suffered an anal fissure after eating nutriloaf at the jail during a stay to attend court proceedings. Jail officials gave Prude bread and water as a substitute, and his weight dropped from 168 to 154 after two stays at the facility. Other inmates at the jail also vomited after eating nutriloaf. Read more

Paul F. Campos is an author, blogger, and Professor of Law at the University of Colorado Law School. Campos writes a blog for The Daily Beast, another at Lawyers, Guns and Money, and his own blog, Inside the Law School Scam. Campos on Wikipedia 


In Jurismania, Paul Campos asserts that our legal system is beginning to exhibit symptoms of serious mental illness. Trials and appeals that stretch out for years and cost millions, 100 page appellate court opinions, 1,000 page statutes before which even lawyers tremble with fear, and a public that grows more litigious every day all testify to a judicial overkill that borders on obsessive-compulsive disorder. Campos locates the source of such madness, paradoxically, in our worship of reason and the resulting belief that all problems are amenable to legal solutions. In insightful discussions of a wide range of cases, from NCAA regulations of student-athletes to the Simpson trial, from our most intractable social disputes over abortion and physician-assisted suicide to the war on drugs and the increasingly fastidious attempts to regulate behavior in public spaces, Campos shows that the mania for more law exacerbates the very problems it seeks to remedy. In his final chapter, the author calls instead for a humbling recognition of the limits of reason and a much more modest role for our legal system. Read more

Justice: An Impossible Dream?
by Dr. Margaret Koch-Nabialczyk

Former US Attorney and Harvard Law School grad David W. Marston gave his opinion of the justice system in Malice Aforethought: How Lawyers Use Our Secret Rules to Get Rich, Get Sex, Get Even...and Get Away with It. C-SPAN2


Critique compares the practice of law and the justice system to the Mafia.


"They all have undergone the same tough initiation, and once admitted to membership, all have sworn the same oath. They live by their own rules and have fiercely resisted efforts by outsiders to penetrate their clan. They have a code of silence that makes the Mafia’s dreaded omerta seem gossipy. And while the organization rigidly limits the operations of its members to their assigned turf, their criminal activities within these areas are surprisingly varied." (Page 22, paragraphs 4 & 5)

"It’s not the Mafia. Not the Medellin drug cartel…The members are all lawyers. And the organization is the American legal profession." (Pages 23-24) Link to C-SPAN2 video

Foreclosure defense lawyer Matt Weidner was investigated by the Florida Bar for "exercising free speech in the courtroom" according to a story in the ABA Journal Law News Now. The Matt Weidner blog provides insightful information and social commentary. Matt also blogs about a "quiet and powerful revolution that is slowly and methodically making its way across this country" that is "a direct response to the White Collar Criminal Anarchy that stretches from sea to shining sea". Thanks Matt!

Lawyers investigated for criticizing system, Julie Kay
Daily Business Review.com, May 18, 2011
Lawyers investigated for criticizing sys[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [25.1 KB]

Foreclosure defense lawyer Chip Parker of Jacksonville faced a Florida Bar complaint for comments he made during a CNN interview, according to a story in the ABA Journal Law News Now. He told the network, "Foreclosure courts throughout the state of Florida have adopted a system of ramming foreclosure cases through the final judgments and sale—with very little regard to the rule of law." He also complained of "an attack upon the citizens of the state of Florida by retired judges."

"Our legal system has frankly broken down"

Lawyer and author Larry Klayman spoke to Book TV about his book "Whores, Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment" and claims


"Our legal system has frankly broken down, it has become a cesspool"

"Judges not making decisions on the merits, but on the basis of feathering the nests of those who got them their jobs"

"Lawyers who don’t tell the truth"


Larry Klayman, Esq., founder and former chairman of the successful non-profit foundations Judicial Watch and of Freedom Watch, has dedicated his career to fighting against injustice and restoring ethics to the legal profession and government.


Klayman has brought lawsuits against Hugo Chavez and OPEC, among others. Klayman details his legal battles with President and First Lady Bill and Hillary Clinton (Chinagate and Filegate), Vice President Dick Cheney (secret energy commission meetings), and the Bush administration over illegal wiretapping of American citizens. His portraits of the likes of Janet Reno, Fred Thompson, Arlen Spector, Judge Denny Chin (who recently presided over the Madoff trial) and other Clinton insiders Klayman considers unethical, and who have come back to power in the Obama administration, reveal not always flattering sides of their well-cultivated images. Klayman also has choice words to say about media figures such as Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Paula Zahn, and he accuses media mogul Rupert Murdoch of sandbagging the original publication of WHORES by HarperCollins because of the book's negative portrait of Roger Ailes and Fox News. Above all, WHORES is an impassioned plea for reform of our judicial system with a number of provocative suggestions. more


Larry Elliot Klayman is a member of the Florida Bar, ID number 246220, admitted December 7, 1977. Klayman was reprimanded by the Supreme Court of Florida, case SC11-247 on August 29, 2011.

Famed trial lawyer Gerry Spence says judges should be drafted:


"Our judges should be drafted in the same manner that jurors are drafted-to act as judges for a limited calendar of cases after which they would be released to return to their practices. Every trial lawyer should be required to support the system in this fashion the same as every citizen is required to serve as a juror. If judges were drafted from the trial bar we would soon clear our dockets, because we could call up as many judges as were necessary to bring our dockets current. If judges were drafted, we would no longer be saddled for life with the political cronies of those in power, or be faced with judges who have received campaign contributions from our opponents. To be sure, we would experience some bad judges. But, Lord knows, we have them now - and often for life! On the other hand, we would benefit from the best minds in the legal business, who, under our present system, rarely seek the judiciary." - Gerry Spence, page 57, From Freedom to Slavery, The Rebirth of Tyranny in America.