• The Entire Criminal Justice System:  The New York Times reported last week that the Unites States Senate Judiciary Committee appointed a Blue-Ribbon commission to decide if our entire criminal justice system is in need of an overhaul.  "A broad consensus has emerged that the system is broken," according to the article.
  
 

 Further, the Innocence Project has exonerated 251 people through post-conviction DNA evidence.  17 of these were on death row. 

• The Entire Banking System  --  The current financial meltdown confirms that the entire United States banking systems are dysfunctional.  Here is what happened.  Five men with outsized egos including President Clinton and Alan Greenspan decided that a lonely, intellectual woman attorney was not as smart as they were. 

• The Entire Political System:  Write to your Congressperson?? Give me a break!!  For the last three years I have literally written hundreds of letters to political representatives near and far, including, at his invitation, President Obama.  The only one to give a personalized specific response was Senator Jeff Merkley. 

What is really disappointing is the current Health Care Reform debate.  What is painfully clear is that both sides are being paid off by the local lobbyist.  Regular citizens do not have a seat at the table. 

• The Entire Legal System:  We are here to address Goal #2 of the state's highest court's four-year plan.  Goal # 2 of that plan is:  "Maintain Public Trust and Confidence"  But first, how do we know the public has confidence in our legal system to maintain.  We don't.   However, the University of Chicago Law School has rated the Oregon appellate courts at the bottom of the barrel in a comprehensive national study in 2008.  Why should we trust a court that is rated at the bottom of the barrel?

THE FIX  --  How do we fix our legal system?  It is a two step process:

STEP #1  --  ENSURE JUDGES ARE ELECTED AND NOT APPOINTED IN CIRCUMVENTION OF THE LAW AND THE STATE CONSTITUTION which requires that our judiciary be elected by the people.

Oregon’s best kept secret:     Oregon’s Constitution requires that judges “shall be elected” by the voters of the state.  (Article VII, Section 1).  However, “Most judicial positions are filled by gubernatorial appointment.”  (Oregon State Bar Committee on the Judiciary 2004) 

When Ted Kulongoski became governor in 2003 one the first things he did was to coordinate how his office could circumvent the Oregon Constitution.  Thus, the Governor’s Office came up with a policy statement “Judicial Appointment Process for Circuit Court Vacancies,” dated March 31, 2004. 

The Oregon State Bar described the process as follows in their May 24, 2004 memo for the Committee on the Judiciary:

“…voters have very little information to assist them in deciding who to vote for between competing judicial candidates.  ***”…sitting judges should be more receptive to feedback from the bar membership as to how well others perceive them to be performing their judicial duties.”

In short, the governor is selecting judges in Oregon instead of the public.  If the fix is in coming from the highest political officer of the state, what chance does a qualified judicial candidate have who is not politically connected? 

If a judge owes their fealty to a politician instead of the people why should they follow the rule of law.  They don’t.

STEP #2  --  STATEWIDE FORMAL EVALUATIONS OF ALL JUDGES.

What is needed is a sophisticated, comprehensive, formal, statewide system of judicial performance evaluations.  Our judge's leaders don’t want to be formally evaluated, yet they are asking you for raises. Our top judge claims that his department is accountable to the people; transparent and fair, but he does not want to be formally evaluated.  Yet he wants you to give him and his brethren/sisteren raises. Only through a statewide formal system of judicial performance evaluations will the people have information upon which to base their vote for judges  --  that are supposed to be elected in Oregon.  But are not. 

IN SUMMARY  --  Oregon’s judiciary believes the public has trust and confidence in the state’s legal system but there is no feedback system to determine if that is true. 

FEEDBACK  --  Write to me, EMAIL me, post a comment here and let me know if you have trust and confidence in your local legal machinery. 

Lauren Paulson

3980 SW 170^th Ave.

Aloha, OR 97007           laurenjpaulson@yahoo.com

This is the third article analyzing the Oregon Supreme Court’s four year strategic plan.  The previous two articles can be found two 'clicks' down. 

The Oregon Supreme Court's Four Year Strategic Plan can be found by clicking here.  Goal #1 of the Court’s five part “Plan” is to: “Protect Public Access to Justice.” 

The Oregon Supreme Court Concept  --  The overall concept of “The Plan”, their four year strategic plan, is to isolate what has to be done now and what can wait until later.  The Oregon Supreme Court decided last year that what must be done now in the field of Access is:

               "Improve the scope and quality of services for self-represented

                 litigants through both staff training to improve customer service

                 and the development of user-friendly, multilingual court forms and guides"(sic)

The Plan also wants to expand court interpreting services. 

What can wait until later, according to the Court, is “…access to and use of no-cost and low-cost legal services.” (Note:  The Oregon State Bar took on this Task over a decade ago and has a myriad of practical, low cost programs for those who cannot afford a downtown lawyer)

So, the questions are; who is going to do this, how is it going to be measured and how do we know when we “get there”?

The Bulletin’s Analysis  --  The Oregon Supreme Court should be applauded for its interest in opening up the court process to our diverse community.  What is missing, (and you will be alerted to this concept from time-to-time) is breakthrough change.  A day in any court facility will reveal thoughtful, helpful customer service.  A day in any court facility will reveal surly, rude customer service. 

The Bulletins Better Idea  --  Simplify!  All court processes should be simplified so the Everyman or Everywoman can use our court systems without the need of extraordinary understanding. 

A Model Legal System #1  --  The law and court procedures should be simply stated on all subjects, predictable and easily available to anyone including ordinary citizens; not just convenient to lawyers.

Think of it from an ordinary citizen’s vantage point.  What is intimidating to the ordinary citizen when they walk in a court house, with or without a lawyer, is that THEY DON’T KNOW THE RULES.

I learned a valuable lesson when I was about five years old, from Keith Taylor, my neighbor.  Our favorite summer pastime was to play monopoly.  He always won.  We protested.  He challenged us.  He would take our rolls of the dice and still beat us because HE KNEW THE RULES better than we did.  Whoever knows the rules wins.  If Court rules are too complicated for a 12 year old, then we should fix them. 

What the Oregon Supreme Court Strategic Plan has wrong, overall, is this:  The legal experience for regular citizens is broken long before anybody gets to the courthouse.  The Court likens the courthouse to the emergency room at a hospital.  A moments reflection pictures the chaos of the emergency room is a lot like the chaos for ordinary citizens at the courthouse.  We need to simplify the rules of the road so the smash-up victims of our legal system don’t have to rely on the court emergency room to get legal solace. 

NEXT  --  Goal #2 for the Oregon Supreme Court is:  “Earn the public’s enduring trust and confidence”.  They raise the question:  Is everyone equal before the law?  It should come as no surprise that Bulletins has a thoughtful rejoinder.

FEEDBACK  --  critiques, criticism, or comments are welcome.  Email me at laurenjpaulson@yahoo.com

Here, in a nutshell are the State Supreme Court’s aspirations for the next four years:

1. Access:   Ensure access to court services for all people

     2. Trust and Confidence:    Earn the public’s enduring trust and confidence.

     3. Dispute Resolution: Help people choose the best way to resolve their disputes.

     4. Partnerships:  Build strong partnerships with local communities to promote public safety and quality of life.

     5. Administration:      Make courts work for people.

OK.  Anything wrong so far?  As one strategic planner (hired, but ignored by the Oregon State Bar Association) stated it, “How do you know when you get there?”  That is, goals must have a measuring device to tell you whether or not you achieved your stated goal.  See any there in 1-5 above?  How will the Chief or the public know if and when the Oregon Supreme Court has successfully fulfilled their goals at the end of 2013?

Here, in a nutshell are Bulletin’s aspirations for the next four years:

1.  SIMPLE LAWS  --  The law should be simply stated on all subjects, predictable and easily available to anyone including ordinary citizens; not just convenient to lawyers.

2.  DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS FREE OF BUREAUCRACY  --  There should be dispute-resolution forums available to the public that are free of bureaucracy and legal trappings.

3.  EFFICIENT COURT SYSTEMS  --  If a dispute cannot be resolved in public dispute-resolution forums then case disposition should be through efficient, objective hearings marked by  common sense and evidentiary rules that allows the truth to emerge through predictable, routine application of the law to the facts.

4.  JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS  --  A judiciary that is competent, fair, free of bias,  regularly publicly evaluated by citizens and lawyers through the Internet or in systems already available in every local area throughout the United States including Oregon (See www.therobingroom).  

5.  TAKE THE PROFIT OUT OF THE LEGAL BUSINESS AND PUT BACK IN FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE  --  Lawyers and paralegals should be motivated by justice and fairness rather than greed, power (never underestimate the motivation for power) and expensive advocacy.  The movie Michael Clayton would be required viewing for all lawyers who aspire to work downtown.  

6.  A PUBLIC FORUM  --  Bar Associations dedicated to serve the general public rather than the legal-power elite.

OK, now let’s make the Bulletin’s game plan measurable, so we know when we get there; to the stated goals!

1. Simple Laws   -- The Oregon Law Commission is in charge of state legal reform of the laws.  I am going to send this to them to see what they think.  I have checked with the Oregon legislature and they are committed to making new laws simpler.  I will follow up with them to see if it is happening.  This is a huge, but worthwhile task.
2. Alternate Dispute Resolution Systems  --   available to everyone free of bureaucracy.  Oregon did away with the state coordinating body for mediations and arbitration systems in 2004.  It is time to get a statewide central coordinating body back in business and get the Oregon Supreme Court committed to expanding alternate dispute resolutions systems rather than expanding court systems.
3. Efficient Court Systems --  The current system tracks quantity.  Now we need to track quality.  This project must be headed by the Chief Court Administrator. 
4. Judicial Performance Evaluations (JPE) --  Recommended by the Oregon State Bar Board of Governors in 2004, by the American Bar Association in 2005, rejected by the Oregon Supreme Court in 2006, it is time to ensure that all judges adhere to The Rule of Law.  A JPE package has been delivered by Bulletins to the State Supreme Court, the Oregon Legislature, to the Oregon State Bar and here in 2009.
5. Take Greed out of the Justice System:  --  There is a powerful organization in Oregon that is perfect to take on this project:  Oregon’s Bench/Bar Professionalism Commission.  This project will be submitted to them.  And we all have to watch the movies Michael Clayton, The Verdict, A Civil Action and Cary Grant in the movie, The Talk of the Town.
6. A Public Forum  --  It is time that the Oregon State Bar Association hold an open house for the public in their new $20 million dollar building located, in all places?, Tigard, Oregon.  May Day should be the focus of opening up our legal systems to everyday people. We should open up our law offices, our court staffs, our local bar associations and put local lawyers on TV to answer the public’s questions.

     Now, we will take the goals as stated by the Oregon Supreme Court  and discuss them one by one.  Next week, Access will be the subject.  Who has the better plan is the challenge?

Each January since he became Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court in 2006, the Honorable Paul J. De Muniz delivers what he calls “The State of the Courts” address to the Salem City Club.  In it he thanks everybody and purportedly charts out what the justice system has planned for state citizens in the next twelve months.  In addition, the State Supreme Court has a larger “plan” yclept 2009-2013Strategic Plan which came out last year.

What does this mean to you, the ordinary citizen seeking fairness and justice in your state legal system?  Howard Zinn in his book Essays on War and Justice reminds us of the problem this way:

     “Under the rule of men, the oppressor was identifiable, and so peasant rebels hunted down the lords, slaves killed plantation owners, and revolutionaries assassinated monarchs.  In the era of the corporate bureaucracies, representative assemblies, and the rule of law, the enemy is elusive and unidentifiable.  In John Steinbeck’s depression-era novel The Grapes of Wrath, a farmer having his land taken away from him confronts the tractor driver who is knocking down his house.  He aims a gun at him but is confused when the driver tells him that he takes his orders from a banker in Oklahoma City, who takes his orders from a banker in New York.  The farmer cries out:  “Then who can I shoot?”

In this state, the Chief Justice is the administrative head of the Judicial Department and he has it all wrong.  Here is his frame of reference:  The whole world looks like a nail to him because all he has in his hand is a hammer.  In his 2009 annual report the Chief states:  “…Oregon’s courts are the legal equivalent of the emergency room.  We do not control what comes through our doors.”  He is wrong.  Our judiciary has preeminent control over what happens at the court house doors. 

Now, let us look at his 2010 Annual Report in juxtaposition to this previous “emergency room” statement.

If the courts are the legal equivalent of hospital emergency rooms, then that is the arena where lawyers and judges do surgery.  But, only 1-3% of all legal disputes end up in ‘surgery’.  What does the Chief Justice have planned for 97% of all the other legal disputes?  Nothing!  Chief Justice Paul J. De Muniz says not one thing in his 2010 annual report about Alternate Dispute Resolution systems --  Arbitration, Mediation, Neighborhood Dispute Resolution systems, Consensus building, etc., etc.  His entire report is centered on all the money (a half billion dollars) the Justice Department spends on bricks, mortar and trial court staff salaries. 

       Arbitration  --  My father came to America after the turn of the century and following a stint at logging became an automobile mechanic.  After awhile he started up his own shop.  In his quest for a successful business he bought the 1911 version of the “New (sic) Standard American Business Guide”, Hertel, Jenkins & Co.  At page 184 there is a chapter on Arbitration with forms underneath a picture of Abraham Lincoln where it says:  “Think twice before you sue your neighbor.”

       So, what has God and Country done for you in the way of resolving disputes through arbitration since 1911?  Quite a lot really.  There is court diverted arbitration.  There is statutory arbitration required, for example, on disputes with contractors.  There are any number of private arbitration companies.  Some cities have public arbitration forums. There are legions of arbitrators willing to work for the good of the order or at much reduced cost than a judge.  Arbitration is a good thing. 

Only, Chief Justice Paul J. De Muniz wants to go backwards.  He is proposing an Expedited Civil Jury Case program where you go directly to a jury, dispensing with all these troublesome discovery and legal motion issues.  While explaining the details of his new program he states that “…cases eligible for the program will not be subject to arbitration…”.  He is doing away with a successful court diverted arbitration program which, as a practical matter, is normally where cases headed for the civil jury sustem are resolved early at minimal cost.

Why is he going backwards?  Because he is shooting from the hip and he did not consult with you or me in the process.  He is going backwards just as surgeons are trained for surgery actually like to do those procedures.  Citizens want the friendly confines of arbitration rather than the intimidating and expensive trappings of a jury/court scenario to resolve cases on the fast track.

THE NEXT FIVE WEEKLY ARTICLES ARE DEVOTED TO ANALYZING THE FIVE GOALS OF THE SUPREME COURT’S 2009-2013 STRATEGIC PLAN mentioned above.   Bulletins has a better plan than the Supreme Court.  These next five articles will point out clearly where and why.  STAY TUNED!



BULLETINS FROM ALOHA


A. Weekly Bulletins (Click on Link)

1. Welcome To A New Blog Site for Oregon Lawyers(2/4/07)
2. Opening Page -- Purpose of This Blog Site (2/4/07)
3. Update -- The Oregon State Bar's Confused Organization( 2/6/07)
4. Feedback and Leadership at the Oregon State Bar(3/28/07)
5. Packing the Court -- The Oregon State Bar is an Oligarchy(4/5/07)
6. A Monumental Failure of Leadership(4/28/07)
7. Our Judicial Emperors Have No Clothes(5/22/07)
8. Oregon's Court of Appeals Has No Clothes(5/29/07)
9. Lawyer Advertising -- Not!(6/4/07)
10. Attorneys With Kind Hearts(6/10/07)
11. To Tell You The Truth(6/19/07)
12. Judicial Emperors With Clothes of Gold(6/23/07)
13. The "F" Word(6/25/07)
14. The Strange Case of Judge Michael McElligott(6/29/07)
15. A Simple Proposal for Judicial Accountability(7/11/07)
16. Legal Malpractice Got Me To Mt. Hood(7/19/07)
17. How Much Would You Spend to Shut Me Up?(7/31/07)
18. Erased -- By the Oregon State Bar(8/13/07)
19. They Rule, But Do Judges Read What You Send Them?(8/22/07)
20. Finally, A Solution to Divorce in America(8/27/07)
21. Silence is an Accomplice to Injustice(9/4/07)
22. Oregon Lawyers and the Oregon Media(9/16/07)
23. The Oregon Federal Court -- Evaluated(9/24/07)
24. The Oregon State Bar House of Delegates Meeting(10/3/07)
25. Oregon State Bar's Member Services--The Black Hole(10/5/07)
26. Whoever Has the Biggest Megaphone Wins(10/5/07)
27. Reality Overcomes Hope at the Oregon State Bar(10/10/07)
28. Common Law Does Not Make Common Sense(1/1/08)
29. Everybody is Looking the Wrong Way for Legal Help(1/9/08)
30. Does the Oregon State Bar Make Common Sense?(1/10/08)
31. You Are Not Entitled to a Jury Trial(1/23/08)
32. Roadmap To Improve Our Legal System(1/28/08)
33. Minority ‘Rites' of Passage in Oregon(2/1/08)
34. Our Legal System Has It Exactly Backwards(2/13/08)
35. In Defense of Your Local Lawyer(2/19/08)
36. One Year Anniversary of This Blog(2/22/08)
37. A ‘Subprime' Odyssey(2/26/08)
38. Rogue's Gallery is Too Good For Some(3/6/08)
39. An Open Letter to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor(3/13/08)
40. So You Want To Be A Blogger(3/19/08)
41. The Death of Ivan Ilych(4/1/08)
42. The New Oregon State Bar Center(4/8/08)
43. Theories for Legal Improvement -- And For Revolution(4/16/08)
44. Judicial Elections -- and Judicial Evaluations(4/23/08)
45. The Real Estate Auction -- The New Kid on The Block(4/30/08)
46. The Good Lawyers Do!(5/7/08)
47. The Power at The Oregon State Bar -- Practical Magic(5/14/08)
48. Report Card on The Oregon Supreme Court(6/10/08)
49. An Open Letter to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.(7/30/08)
50. Structured Settlements(8/7/08)
51. America, The Rule of Law and Torture(8/12/08)
52. Confessions of a Court-Appointed Criminal Defense Attorney(8/29/08)
53. Yes, Virginia The Sky IS Falling(9/19/08)
54. The Master Litigator(9/23/08)
55. A Model Legal System(10/1/08)
56. The Iconoclast(10/4/08)
57. A Model Legal System -- Subpart #1(10/7/08)
58. Legal Reading Lite(10/10/08)
59. A Model Legal System -- (Subpart #2(10/15/08)
60. Legal Reading Lite(10/16/08)
61. Viewer Comments(10/18/08)
62. A Model Legal System -- Subpart #3(10/21/08)
63. Judicial Elections Anyone!(10/27/08)
64. Redistribution Anyone?(10/30/08)

65. A Model Legal System #4 -- The Judiciary

66. A Model Legal System #5 -- The Money

67. So, I Inquired Further

68. A Model Legal System #6 -- Bar Associations

69. Reuben Lenske -- On Attorney Fees

70. Civil Rights -- Before

71. Something's 'Askew' at the Bar

72. Civil Rights -- After

73. A Cry From The Wilderness

74. The Bar's Board of Director's Meeting (2008)

75. Lawyer Discipline in Oregon is Unconstitutional

76. Landlord/Tenant Litigation in Oregon

77. Oregon Courts Close Again (2009)

78. Oregon Secret Law Societies

79. Downtown Law Firms and Money

80. House of Delegates Unite!

81. Money, Minutes and the Oregon State Bar

82. Do Judges Tell the Truth?

83. Health Care Reform and You

84. Oligarchy or Democracy?

85. Impact Women!

86. Those Wonderful Supremes

87. Judicial Performance Evaluations

88. Judicial Accountability

89. Judicial Accountability - Federal

90. Civil Rights at the Street Level

91. May U.S. Presidents Legally Kill?

92. May It Please the U.S. Supreme Court

93. Race Relations Pure and Simple

94. Health Care Reform - Part Deux

95. A Broken Legal System

96. Impact Women and Quality of Life

97. Harry Truman Liked Medicare

98. Judges Pay and You

99.  Police, Power and the Public

100. Chumming the Judiciary

101. The Tort Reform Shibboleth

102. State Judicial Conference

103. Closed Judicial Meetings

104. State Lawyer Leaders Meet

105. An Ode to the Corporate Lawyer

106. Law and Justice at the Movies

107. Why are Lawyers Evil?

108. Impact Women with Courage

109. Merry Holidays from 'Bulletins'

110. An Idle Mind in the New Year



Political squelch button  --  We have to tone down politicians.  Toward that end, several of my friends from the far right to the far left have an idea.  Let’s get together as one voice and tell our politicians near and far to get along.  They have to go at least one month each year without saying a single bad thing about the other.  Let's designate August for that purpose. 

Mogul Bankers  --  We all have to move our money out of the big six banks (Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Chase) into regional banks.  That is known as citizen regulation. 

Schools  --  We all should reconnect  with our schools.  Every citizen should have some connection with their local school other than your kids.

The Truth  --  Nobody, including politicians, should  be allowed to lie.  Truthiness is banned.  Truth is  the first virtue of thought.

Be Decent  --  Remember what your grandmother said; be nice to your family and fellow travelers. 

Eliminate meanness  --  I had a seminal experience several years ago.  I went to a ‘bush’ dance in Sweden; kind of like in a grange hall.  When a man, imbued with too much liquor, tried to dance with someone else’s lady, I expected a fight.  Instead, all the people treated this inebriated meddler with kindness, as though he was disabled. 

Travel to a foreign country.  --  Citizens of the United States are insular and don't know it.  Thus, they think they know it all, but don't.  We must travel further than our own shadows.  As adults we need to get out there to all these countries to see whether we are doing good or ill.  We need to come back from afar, having breathed new air.

Friends  --  Remember old friends that you 'usta' like and simply forgot about them.  Give ‘em a call outa the blue.

Horses  --  Take riding lessons.  You have to lose yourself to find yourself.

Food  --  Eat less.  There are a lot of chunky monkeys out there.  Someone recently suggested that the powerful countries are intentionally keeping the third world hungry to keep control over their resources.  Think The Congo!

If I ruled the world, these are the things I would change.



No lawyer’s office would be complete without a good ‘form’ book.  The Law is the only literary place in the world where plagiarism is a good thing.  While recently perusing a legal form book for other things I ran across the following.  These are actual ‘form’ clauses from the Divorce and Separation chapter of 7 Am Jur Legal Forms 2d 414 (1987).

90:34  Tolerance of friends and relatives

 “(Blank) admits having been intolerant of (Blank’s) relatives and friends, and agrees to accept such persons into the family home in a gracious manner, to carry on normal conversation with them and to treat them with respect consideration, and courtesy.”

90:35  Consideration for the other person’s feelings

 “Husband and wife admit that on occasion they have been inconsiderate of each other’s feelings and have selfishly disregarded each other’s wishes, desires, and needs.  Therefore, they agree to be more understanding and considerate of each other’s feelings, wants, wishes and desires.”

If only I had sent this to Tiger Woods a few snowy afternoons ago................



Bulletins wrote about three impact women awhile back.  One of them was Brooksley Born, an accomplished lawyer who took on the most powerful men in the United States.  Now, a portrait of Amy Goodman, who has real demonstrated courage around the world, is presented for your consideration.

                             Real Courage

Would you risk your life or jailing to record and speak out against injustice?

Several weeks ago, I traveled to a local theater to hear Amy Goodman speak.  Amy is the founder of Democracy Now! and a broadcast journalist.    Being an apparent law-breaker, I ignored the reserved seating sign to sit in the front row to get a good look at this amazing woman.  It is a good thing I did because Amy is a diminutive woman.  Not so, her courage.

                              East Timor

Almost twenty years ago, Amy Goodman was reporting on the rebellion in East Timor with journalist Allan Nairn.  But, the story goes back even further than that.  In reality, Ms. Goodman was a witness to the sequela of one of the many sad chapters in United States Foreign Policy  --  The absence of following The Rule of Law.  Further, she is a witness to the absence of the right of the people of the U.S. to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures.  (The Bill of Rights #4) 

It starts with a visit by President Ford and Henry Kissinger to Indonesia in 1975.  Indonesian President Suharto wanted to know if we would object to his using our weapons to invade East Timor.  East Timor had just achieved independence from Portugal.    The catch was that our weapons could, by treaty, only be used for defensive purposes.  Not to worry, Kissinger and Ford winked an O.K. to President Suharto even though it is documented that Kissinger’s actions were squarely against United States law and he knew it.

Fifteen years and 200,000 killed Timorese later, Amy was there reporting on a massacre at Santa Cruz cemetery in East Timor.  Instead of holding to the side and reporting from a safe distance, Amy and her journalist companion inserted themselves in front of the Timorese and between the Indonesian soldiers hoping they, as foreign journalists could shield the citizens from any fireworks of the Indonesian military.  It didn’t work.  The soldiers bypassed them and did not leave a Timorese citizen standing.  Amy and Allan experienced the damage a rifle butt could do on one’s skull.  By the way, the United States continued to supply Indonesia with weapons, illegally, during the decade and a half while they terrorized the Timorese citizenry. 

                               Back in America

At the 2008 Republican National Convention, some staffers at Democracy Now! were arrested while they were trying to report on an anti-war protest outside the Republican complex.  Amy went there to find out what happened only to be arrested herself on lame, made-up charges.  Video footage shows Ms. Goodman politely and with courtesy attempting to find out what happened to her colleagues.

A week after her personal appearance in my hometown where I had that front row seat, Ms. Goodman was heading towards Vancouver B.C. for another personal appearance when she was again detained, this time, at a border crossing.  Apparently, the Canadian authorities are concerned about dissent and their hosting of the Winter Olympics next year and decided that Ms. Goodman was too active not to be fomenting trouble for that event. 

Violations of The Rule of Law go full circle and were visited on  Ms. Goodman’s head:  --   at a far off country twenty years ago, at the 2008 Republican Convention and through Portland, Oregon to Canada.  If a credentialed reporter cannot be free from unreasonable search and seizure, cannot be secure in her person, house, papers and effects, then what hope does the ordinary citizen have?  Yet Ms. Goodman trucks on…………an impact woman with eminent courage. 

A Reality Tour

If you want to know the quick answer to the question: “Why Are Lawyers Evil”, with no further information; here is the answer:  There is no benign leadership in the entire world of lawyers.

In fact, there is no leadership at all.  Let us start at the top.

• The United States Supreme Court:  --  has no leadership responsibilities over the world of lawyers.  In fact, every year the United States Supreme Court has to go, on bended knee, to the United States Congress just to get money to operate their ship.  Moreover, the United States Supreme Court only handles about 80 cases (there are nine (9) justices  --  do the math) out of the 8,000 citizen submissions to them every year.  Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court is not in touch with mainstream law nor your local lawyer's misprisions.  Unlike Congress, you cannot just drop by for a conference the next time you happen to be in Washington D.C.

The curiosity about the secretive United States Supreme Court is that they have no legal nor administrative responsibilities over your local lawyer at all.  Yet, the United States Supreme Court gets more ink from the media and book writers than any other part of the legal system except the blogosphere.  (Check out SCOTUS if you want some real inside dope on the U.S. Supreme Court).

• American Bar Association (ABA):  --  also is not what it seems.  It doesn't have any legal nor administrative responsibilities over your local lawyer either.  The ABA is nothing more than a large trade association.  Lawyers do not have to belong to it.  Most do not, because as soon as you sign up, a lawyer gets more junk mail than exists in the rest of the United States.

Whenever there is a U.S. Supreme Court nomination, such as our new Justice Sotomayor, the ABA is invited to weigh in on their qualifications.  OK……. just what scientific judicial performance information is out there for the ABA to draw on to pass judgment on these important judicial selections?  None.  There are no objective judicial performance evaluations (JPE) for federal judges even though half of the states have a formal system for evaluating their state judges.  Are you starting to get the drift?

• State Supreme Courts  --  Oddly, they have no actual hands-on authority over your local lawyer.  Sure they have a minor role when new lawyers get sworn in and that is about it.  State Supreme Courts are mainly about the Courts, not lawyers.  State Supreme Courts have no real involvement in the day-to-day activities of your local lawyer.  Our present 'caste' of judges are mainly misanthropes anyway.  It makes one wonder why they got into the profession in the first place instead of, say, playground supervisor?

Can they discipline lawyers?  They shirk their responsibilities here too.  For example, local law requires that the State Supreme Court pick the judges who decide disciplinary matters.  But, State Supreme Courts don’t follow their own law.  In fact, a lonely Bar committee, made up of lawyers, makes the selections of who judges the lawyers with virtually no actual scrutiny. The State Supreme Court simply rubber stamps these lawyers’ selections.  So, what we really have is lawyers judging lawyers.  Anything wrong with that?  How about free enterprise and the natural conflict between those who judge and those judged? 

• State Bar Associations   --  Now, we are getting somewhere.  In their mission statement, the State Bar Association says they are partners with the judiciary in the justice system.  But, what purpose do they serve. really.  They have no administrative or legal responsibilities over lawyers everyday activities except when it comes to discipline. 

So, who gets disciplined?  It is not your legal oligarchy i.e., your downtown law firms.  Now, we are onto something.  Do you see who is really running the show?

• Local (County) Bar Associations  --  Forget it.  These are eating and drinking societies. 

Conclusion  --  There is nobody watching the candy store. 

(THE MEDIA  --  By the way, I even went to visit a local reporter when they didn’t call me back.  What do you think would happen if I called about a lawyer stealing?  Media doesn’t care anything about the legal profession.  They would rather report on pot holes in the highway system than about real lawyers really doing their thing for citizens.)  That is one reason why our media is in eclipse. 

There is nobody at the federal level who has any interest nor responsibility to police local lawyers.  No trade organization cares. 

No State Court Justices have any real involvement in the day-to-day activities of local lawyers.  State Bars are public corporations without portfolio.  State Bars serve the rich and the powerful lawyers of their state and care about very little else.  The local State Bar is worth $20 million yet has no official corporate Treasurer.  The local State Bar couldn’t muster up a quorum to have their 2008 annual mandatory business  meeting, yet did not report it in their official minutes because the Bar has no official corporate Secretary. 

Nobody cares about standards of the legal profession because they all have theirs.  There is no leadership.  That is why lawyers are evil. 

What is Justice?  John Rawls, a noted Harvard philosopher, described Justice as Fairness.

                     Movie Law School

Paul Newman was a down-and-out lawyer fighting professional lying in the 1982 medical malpractice film, The Verdict.  John Travolta portrayed the real life story of Jan Schlictmann fighting corporate misdeeds, corporate pollution and corporate greed in the 1996 film, A Civil Action.  George Clooney exposes the wanton, murderous misdeeds of corporate lawyers in the more recent 2007 film, Michael Clayton.  Are they trying to tell us something?  Are we listening?

The Verdict  --  In the movie, the doctor falsified medical records in order to cover-up his medical malpractice.  Then he suborned to perjury a nurse which ruined her life.  In real life, we requested the medical records from Kaiser to determine when they should have discovered and diagnosed Crohn’s disease, a horrible intestinal disease.  The records we got did not match the memory of the client as to the dates of her visit to Kaiser.  To be on the safe side, we sent a nurse to physically examine the records on site.  She found the missing record which disclosed a visit much earlier than the records initially provided and exposed the failure to diagnose.  An early diagnosis could have prevented her from having to wear a bag, traumatic at any age, but particularly so for this young, unmarried woman in her 20’s.

Paul Newman as Frank Galvin, the lawyer in The Verdict,  summed it up this way:  'You know, so much of the time we're just lost. We say, "Please, God, tell us what is right; tell us what is true." And there is no justice: the rich win, the poor are powerless. We become tired of hearing people lie. And after a time, we become dead...'

A Civil Action  --  In the movie, John Travolta portrays a real life plaintiff’s attorney who takes on a local business polluter.  He eventually gets a settlement at the cost of his practice.  A real life local case disclosed a small business polluter-entrepreneur which was partially financed by the state lottery funds.  Thus, it was no surprise when the state department of environmental quality did not cite this business who was spewing out a sticky dust in the process of making wood pellets.  This sticky dust coated an entire local neighborhood daily.    The real life plaintiff’s attorney got an acknowledgement of the pollution by the DEQ, but nothing else at the cost of his practice.

In Michael Clayton  --  George Clooney is a 'fixer' in a large firm with a large corporate client.  The large corporate client has done bad things and covered-up the signal document of their misdeeds.  Arthur, the chief litigator of the large firm, has had enough of the cheating and lying.  He switches sides to the plaintiff's.  So, the corporate lawyers murder him.  In real life, an intelligent, sophisticated, female member of a large local law firm who is milking the Professional Liability Fund like mother's milk, resigns in protest.  Does any body notice?  No.  Meanwhile, Chrys Martin, a prominent lawyer with a prestigious position in a large, downtown law firm, remarks to me in an unguarded moment, "Don't we all really hate the law, after all!"

The Bonfire of the Vanities  --  Tom Wolfe wrote the classic book, The Bonfire of the Vanities turned into a 1990 Tom Hanks and Bruce Willis movie.  Author Wolfe's aim was to demonstrate that even though you may be the 'master of your universe', the slightest misstep can throw it all asunder.  After our hero has to resort to lying in order to achieve justice, the judge describes justice thusly:

       ‘What is justice?  Justice is the law. The law is man’s feeble attempt to set down principles of decency.  Decency is what your grandmother taught you.  It is in your bones.  It is NOT taking the prime cuts.  Now go home and be decent.'

       The Talk Of The Town  --  Then there is the Cary Grant film from the 1940’s. Cary Grant is in hiding as a suspected arsonist of a fire that killed a local man.  He hides out until a candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court, Ronald Colman, decides to sacrifice that honor to clear Cary Grant of the spurious charges.  Before that supreme act of judicial courage, Cary Grant observes about the law and justice:

“The law is a gun pointed at your head.  It all depends on which end of the gun you are on whether the law is just or not."

Be decent lawyers.  Be decent judges.  Do your duty to truth and justice.  It is not about taking the prime cuts.