Over 300,000 Unique Views Since 2009! From A New York Corporate Lawyer, Investigative Consultant And World-Class Fixer. Also A Co-Inventor of Two Blockchain Technologies Soon To Be Granted United States Patents. Original research and analysis. Credit me for material you use. Site not intended for Non-American or European Union audiences; visit http://www.NYBusinessCounsel.com instead. All inquiries CONFIDENTIAL. COPYRIGHT 2009-2017 ERIC DIXON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
More From Eric Dixon at http://www.NYBusinessCounsel.com
Top 50 Twitter Rank of Worldwide Startup Advisors For Much of 2014. Go to my professional site for solutions to your legal, business and strategic problems. The only lawyer who is a co-inventor of multiple, allowed-for-grant patents on blockchain technology!!! Blockchain and Digital Currency Protocol Development --
An overly aggressive New York female lawyer attacked a male opponent from behind in a co-ed ice hockey game, and is now suing the referee after she allegedly suffered a concussion and broken nose when the referee intervened to stop the attack.
The news report (link above) glosses over the fact that the female player instigated the attack, and "allegedly attacked a male player from behind."
Longtime observers of pro hockey -- and plenty of people with common sense -- know that attacks by one player on another player, particularly from behind, carry a high risk of serious injury.
It is that risk, and likely the referee's awareness of that, which should be cited by the defense in this case to explain the referee's actions (assuming this case gets to the point of depositions or trial).
The preeminent professional hockey league, the National Hockey League, has suspended players for such actions.
And now here's some context -- with video:
The career of star New York Rangers defenseman (and 1994 Stanley Cup winner) Jeff Beukeboom never resumed after he was attacked from behind by Matt Johnson of the Los Angeles Kings in a 1998 game. Here's the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pS_D3FP4Zs
In another reprehensible attack, Todd Bertuzzi followed and then punched from behind Steve Moore, who fell right to the ice (again, basically ending his career). Here's a video clip showing Bertuzzi chasing down Moore in that 2004 game.
The severity of the attacker's actions must be considered, irrespective of the actual injury of the original victim, because the risk to that victim provides the necessary context with which to explain the propriety of the referee's actions. You win cases by explaining the context, whether historical or medical. In this case, the focus should be on the instigator. Eric Dixon is a corporate and investigative lawyer who consults with clients in New York and New Jersey.
And, apparently, so many absolutely mediocre ones!
Recent data shows that applications to the most competitive law schools in America have generally declined nearly 20 percent since the recession
-- which was nearly a decade ago! These schools (measured using the U.S. News annual rankings) report having reduced their entering classes by about five percent.
So fewer lawyers from the top schools, right? And maybe, fewer brilliant lawyers if you assume a brain drain from law school to other fields?
What about the rest of the law schools pumping out new graduates into the workforce? Other data reports a nationwide decline in applicants of between 40-45 percent post-recession. One prominent Northeastern law school reports a 60 percent decline.
Despite this significant applicant decline, the American legal profession continues to mint new lawyers at a consistent rate. The profession's leading industry organization, the American Bar Association, reports the number of active resident lawyers has never been higher! The ABA's latest data for 2016 shows approximately 1.315 million "resident active attorneys" nationwide, a number which has consistently been growing at over one percent annually, and which is currently an all time high!
When new graduates keep flowing unabated while the incoming pipeline has been drying up markedly for nearly one decade, you can draw the inference that law schools dependent on tuition revenue for survival have had to accept lesser quality students to keep up their enrollment.
This, in the face of declining student demand. It's also in the face of the persistent anecdotal evidence throughout the industry (including from big law firm partners) that demand for legal services has been flat to down now for over ten years. (That roughly corresponds with the deflation of the mortgage credit bubble.)
The results? Great judgment remains rare and in demand by a discreet set of users. However, most other legal services are a commodity. Many consumers believe contracts and even court complaints are boilerplate and that legal advice is now a "DIY" commodity. Furthermore, new demand areas like compliance are at risk of obsolescence (and offshoring) if the Trump Administration declares its War on Regulation, as promised.
The glut of mediocrity -- or worse -- threatens to create new headwinds for an American economy that has been under siege from government overreach for the better part of the last quarter century.
The Boy Scouts of America recently announced it will allow transgender children (i.e., biological girls) into the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts.
The policy change comes days after reports that a New Jersey mother of an eight year old girl, identifying as male and recently kicked out of a Cub Scout pack, planned a civil rights complaint with New Jersey authorities. Not even a civil lawsuit, although there's no telling what has happened away from the glare of media cameras.
I counsel clients on avoiding risk and weighing risk in various situations. Part of that process involves asking questions, like: "How do you act, to minimize the risk of a false accusation?"
You cannot control the conduct or intent of others, but you can control your own conduct, your intent, and the situations you put yourself in. I believe that, and it's unfortunate in this world, but innocence is not enough.
With that in mind, here is how I see the Boy Scouts' situation.
When a girl joins and participates with the Boy Scout pack, the boys, the scoutmasters (often parents of the boys in the pack) and the organization are all at risk of a false accusation -- from a female.
In the current politically charged climate, for practical purposes, female accusations are accorded greater weight, at least in the court of public affairs. Allegations may not hold water and false accusers may even be prosecuted, but targets of accusations don't have a ready remedy to restore their reputations. (Note the qualifications and phrases set off by commas, before you misinterpret my writing.)
The Boy Scouts' new policy -- call it appeasement, call it compromise -- may endanger all of its participants in a misguided strategy prioritizing the seeking of the approval of opponents, over duties to its members. The effect is to give no resistance to outside challenges which represent a crude, if not depraved, indifference to the risk assumed to any Scout participant, a risk assumed by the mere act of being involved with the Scouts. Sadly, making participation in the Scouts a risky proposition, one in which participants (even, and especially, chidren) risk legal and reputational consequences, might be the unstated but intended consequence.
The organization could have elected to show a spine, to prepare for and engage in litigation. Now, by trying to avoid confrontation, it may well weaken its standing and support among its members. That in turn will almost assuredly weaken its ability to withstand the next legal threat, which its appeasement today will only invite.
The chief executive officer of Starbucks said Monday morning he will have his coffee chain hire 10,000 "refugees" in response to the Trump Administration executive order on certain majority-Moslem-nation refugees and visa holders.
I guess Americans will be wondering just where those unfilled jobs were all these years.
These are borderline discriminatory policies. The motives are clear. These companies either want to avoid the backlash from a Leftist-Marxist pro-open borders crowd, or they are catering to this growing and substantial segment of the consumer market. Thus, "virtue signaling" to this portion of consumers is seen as the way to grow -- more likely, to retain -- consumer sales.
Yet such blatant preferences -- for which the flip side is equally blatant discrimination -- violate a host of federal and state civil rights laws.
If one baker can be sued by a state attorney general for refusing to bake wedding cakes for a gay couple, surely Starbucks would be a clear target of an ideologically blind Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, or state attorney general, would it not?
I would think Starbucks and companies following its lead would become prime targets for shareholder lawsuits as well. That's because essentially declaring war on much of the rest of your native "American" consumer population is eventually going to harm the bottom line. Implicitly criticizing a segment of the consumer base puts other revenue at risk. These political decisions are not guaranteed to be revenue net-neutral and may well become net negative. The risks are substantial enough to throw doubt on whether any cognizable "business judgment" argument can or will be made to justify such strategies.
As of this writing, most digital currencies of consequence are soaring with double digit percentage gains over the past week if not the past day!
Renewed interest in all things "blockchain" has followed. That interest is flowing towards the omnipresent commentary about how "The Blockchain" will solve all manner of human problems large and small.
Want to have immediate transaction clearing? The blockchain will handle that. Sure. Someday. Just trust us.
Want to end world wars and terrorism? The blockchain will have an app for that!
Want to stop food from spoiling? Yeah, the blockchain can do that too.
These are the fantasies of the utopians, the tech lovers and science fiction geeks whose faith in human intelligence to ultimately provide these solutions is both unbounded by and, too often, ungrounded in reality.
Blockchain technology can be a platform for great innovations, advancements and improvements in commerce, science, education and recordkeeping. It can be a main pillar of the next wave of human civilization in which the information economy is not merely a feature but rather a core element.
Yet the dreamers are too often followed by the schemers. The people saying that blockchain technology will solve your problems -- and get you rich quick in the process -- are confident only that it will solve THEIR financial problem, and your capital is the solution.
Any real solution starts with an understanding of the gravity of the problem.
We are rapidly moving into a post-fact era where impulsivity replaces intelligence and bravado replaces mature judgment. In this new world, we need a renewed appreciation for and value of the sanctity of information.
There's something else here as well. The value of information is only as good as the information itself. Throw bad content into the blockchain and, absent a strong external
Quality Control mechanism which may contradict the very nature of blockchain, the content remains. Because it is valid -- even though in its valid state it may have impure data.
The blockchain can be a great preservative. But it cannot guarantee a great crop yield and it cannot guarantee the food will get from field to table in one piece or in edible condition. As with perishable food, no amount of refrigeration will restore food which has already gone bad before it gets to the blockchain.
A mature view of this technology will accept its current limitations and identify the real present day problems that can be solved today. Focusing on stuff that sounds like it came out of a "Star Trek" movie is great for showing off. For the rest of us, we need to solve real world, real life problems and we need all the focus we can summon to accomplish what's real.
Without that appreciation, the blockchain is worthless.
A developing controversy, about an alleged transgender "boy" kicked out by a New Jersey Cub Scout pack, has serious, serious implications for the basic core constitutional right of privacy and the related rights of association most Americans take for granted.
On one level, my cynicism tells me this emerging discrimination claim -- a lawsuit is where this is headed, for sure, count on it -- may just be one big scam.
The objectives are unclear (that's by design) and there could be several. This could be designed to pressure the Boy Scouts of America, perhaps the most renowned boys' organization in the nation for generations, into "progressive change." (To support that theory, check out this petition drive to force the Boy Scouts to change its policy.) Or drive it out of existence altogether. Or extract a high penalty, maybe civil fines or a settlement to pay off the family. Or all of the above -- and maybe the greater the damage, the better (as that is the point of all this, I suspect).
On the basic level, Monday's Gannett-owned Record of Hackensack reported on an eight year old Secaucus, NJ child, biologically female but identifying as male (so the story goes) and who was allegedly just kicked out of a Secaucus, NJ Cub Scout group because of objections from other parents. The Record's story shockingly identified both child and parent as eight year old "Joey" Maldonado and the mother as Kristie Maldonado.
The story's identification of the principals alarmed me. Naming family members in sensitive stories is, to me, a practice which is unnecessary and of no news value to the audience. Sometimes, I feel it is done as an overtly innocuous but secretly vindictive act to shame or pressure the person named. Here, it is clear the parties wanted to be named; this means the mother wanted to "out" her own child. That decision is reckless, if not depraved, for it creates the risk of damage to an eight year old child. It also indicates the child is just a pawn in this adult powerplay. UPDATE 12/29/16: As if on cue, the morning after this article was published, both mother and child appeared live in studio on CNN. The video is embedded in this NJ.com article.
Now, the story makes no mention of gender reassignment surgery or hormonal treatment. Those absences support the inference that the child was born female and is still anatomically female.
The worst thing about the Record's salacious, click-bait-pursuing story, is that it names the child by the "male" name, Joey. The child is exposed publicly. But as my ongoing investigation reveals, the mother hasn't been shy about revealing details about her child, not in social media and not in the conventional media. Quite the opposite. In fact, the child's identity has been publicized widely, almost as if the intent were to cause even greater harm. To the child. To her child.
The mother claims her "son" started identifying as male several years ago. Yet social media tells a different tale. On the mother's Facebook page an August 5, 2015 post shows a photo of the child, who looks just like the same child pictured in the Record story. That post refers to the family members starting with "Jodi," then "Kristie" and "Jorge."
(And if the page has been taken down, an archived version of the page is available through GotNews.com at this link.)
There's more evidence that the mother was parading around her child in the press. In May 2015, the same woman and her child were quoted in a different local publication. That story referred to the child as a seven year old named "Jodi" Maldonado.
It is pretty clear that "Joey" is really "Jodi," and this seems to be quite the sudden transformation, no? So what's motivating this change?
Maybe the mother is trying to set up a big lawsuit, a big payday. Because she was just recently on the other end of a lawsuit, as a defendant in an automobile accident personal injury case which settled before trial. The case was titled Leyva v. Morris, NJ-HUD-L-Civ. 5857-13.And when did the case settle? Mid 2015. (Settlement details are confidential.)
Just about the same time it seems the compliant or gullible news media organization wants you to believe this child started identifying as a boy.
And perhaps the same time that a perhaps-financially-strapped family needed money and could have fallen prey to political activists with cash to burn and scruples to abandon.
As for the Cub Scouts, what about them? Maybe they're the perfect politically correct target, being all-male and traditional values and such, and better yet, one with deep pockets. A juicy target, a "get" is what the Boy Scouts are.
But the larger constitutional issues revolve around attacks on a private organization. It is possible the Boy Scouts may be forced, under threat of either ruinous litigation or even state regulatory or prosecutorial action, to abandon any membership criteria.
But then, you have the issue of who can join, and who can select members.
When every organization is open to all, when there are no standards, when everyone can be a member, then in reality, no one is a member.
I am afraid that the larger, hidden agenda here is an assault on the right of association, the right of groups to privately associate, and thus an implicit attack on every cultural institution. The message: No institution is safe from assault, no group may enjoy a right to associate as it wishes.
The case of this one child in New Jersey is merely the sympathy-inducing deception, to distract observers from recognizing the deeper principles at risk.
Eric Dixon is a New York City based corporate and investigative lawyer.
A five year old in Trenton, NJ brought heroin and crack cocaine to his preschool on two occasions earlier this year, prompting his placement in foster care.
But when newspaper reporters from The Trentonian got their hands on the court complaint, which in family court matters is normally sealed, New Jersey's Governor Chris Christie sprang to action.
The State Attorney General, appointed by Christie, got a temporary injunction preventing the newspaper from publishing more articles on the story, and offered to agree not to oppose the newspaper's argument against a permanent injunction.
But there's a catch: The Attorney General's Office gets to approve the next article! And if they don't like it, they said they would seek a permanent injunction.
This case, set to be heard Wednesday down in Trenton at the Mercer County Courthouse, shows state government is willing to use its power to restrict press freedom. After Bridgegate, this is just the latest abuse of power.
When a right is conditioned on the permission, the judgment or the abusable discretion of the government, your right no longer exists. It becomes a license, to be granted by and withheld by the State for any reason or no reason.
Many in Hudson County just celebrated the passing of the Cuban Maximum Leader, the despot Fidel Castro. Yet this Christie Administration move on the press evokes the playbook of the totalitarian regimes that once comprised the Soviet Evil Empire.
Even worse, Christie is simultaneously pursuing a change in state law for the benefit of one person - himself. That's because he wants to write and profit from a book deal (assuming people would actually pay to read it), while remaining nominally in office for the last year of his term and collecting a full salary for writing his book on our dime.
Is this Chris Christie's First Amendment? Where he gets to change the law (with the Legislature's help) to benefit himself, while using his power to restrict press freedoms essential for the public's right to know?
A county court hearing on the injunction is scheduled for Wednesday. But this hearing should not even be necessary.
The First Amendment is clear that the people are to be free from any abridgment of the press, and our Supreme Court has reaffirmed this right. Freedom of the press is, in fact, not just a constitutional right, but a "core" constitutional right.
There are over 40,000 lawyers living and working in New Jersey (many others live there but practice in New York or Pennsylvania). Where are the principled men and women in the Attorney General's Office who would and should resign in protest, rather than violate the spirit, or letter, of our Bill of Rights?
Why aren't Christie appointees throughout our judicial system doing the same?
Chris Christie is a lame duck governor who still wields the power of our State Executive Branch. If Bridgegate wasn't enough of a warning, this case of legal intimidation of the press is a warning to us to beware of a man who is no longer accountable to voters and who just might think he can get away with Fidel Castro style repression.
The federal government might have a new tool to discourage Bitcoin investment and acceptance by retail merchants.
That's because a federal judge recently authorized an Internal Revenue Service summons on the digital currency exchange and wallet provider Coinbase for its transaction history for the three years prior to December 31, 2015.
This means that the granular information of those transactions, all investment purchases and sales as well as each merchant transaction, will be accessible to the IRS.
The summons itself does not change any tax liability or responsibility of American taxpayers, because digital currencies have been ruled to be currency since an early 2014 agency ruling.
But without Coinbase issuing detailed records of transactions to its customers, the granular information to the IRS means the agency may obtain the aggregate sale proceeds to customers and force the customers to rebut the agency position that those gross proceed amounts are not income. Unfortunately, that means customers and merchants would be compelled to go through the trouble of documenting (i.e., proving) their purchase price (their "basis" for tax purposes) in the digital assets, lest the IRS assume a zero basis and that the entire sale price is taxable gain! This is patently unfair.
Imagine a supermarket (to take a low-margin industry as an example) buying milk wholesale for $2.50 per gallon, selling it at retail for $3.29, but being taxed as if the entire sale price were profit? Well, if you're a bitcoin investor or merchant who takes bitcoin as payment, that could be the unstated, de facto policy of the IRS. And that would be a hidden, unofficial, unspoken way for some government officials to discourage the use of digital currencies.
Yet all is not lost. Any smart merchant or investor should keep meticulous records. All customers will need their records of the purchases. This will establish the basis of the taxpayer.
Now I will explain why that is not necessarily bad. Indeed, with the long period of Bitcoin's price decline from its $1200-plus peak in late 2013 to its trough below $200 in late 2014, many sales in the covered three year period (Jan. 1, 2013 to Dec. 31, 2015) may have been at a loss, where taxpayers bought at a higher price than the sale. Bitcoin still is several hundred dollars below its peak. Many Coinbase users may have taxable losses on Bitcoin, and can use $3,000 of losses to offset other income, and losses over that amount to offset any capital gains.
The uncertainty about the IRS implementation of its enforcement powers, and whether Coinbase will issue the tax statements customary for securities broker dealers or mutual funds, means that taxpayers may have significant tax reporting burdens for which they are unprepared.
If Coinbase starts -- or is required -- to issue tax statements to customers like other financial institutions, Coinbase will need to be prepared for a new level of compliance and the resulting costs. Those costs naturally get passed down to customers. You could see annual account charges or higher transaction fees, and plenty of business moving to extraterritorial (outside the United States) exchanges.
Taxpayers with Coinbase accounts face a documentation problem and should strongly consider hiring a legal or tax professional knowledgeable in digital currency to help establish the evidence needed to prove their tax basis in Bitcoin and other digital assets.
But the possibility and opportunity for fraud remains largely unexplored and uninvestigated, curious circumstances indeed. At a minimum, the overeager dismissal of voter fraud claims suggests those doing the dismissing, are aware of systemic mischief and uneager to do anything to force its disclosure and their obligation to do something about it.
Election-related fraud can take two forms. Both have the potential for major mischief.
The first involves the misreporting of valid votes anywhere in the election process between the time the voter interacts with a polling machine, and the final tabulation of vote results.
The trend of replacing old mechanical-lever machines with electronic touch-screen or scanners has not eliminated the basic problem of trust nor the opportunity for hyper-partisan poll workers to misreport numbers or otherwise make mistakes. (Some poll workers pull a 16-hour day which ends with the reporting of machine tallies, surely a common sense element to introduce at least the potential for mistakes, never mind much worse.)
One potential solution is presented by a blockchain-reliant electronic voting system (which is subject to a patent now in allowance and pending grant) using an electronic interface to report votes onto a decentralized, consensus-based public ledger (called the blockchain) which also allows for paper reports and an audit trail.
When you consider all the individuals involved at the ground level of any election, it requires suspension of disbelief to be asked to believe (or assume) that everyone gets the numbers right. On a wide scale, the possibility for error only grows. Whether it is really possible to distort the outcome of any election is a different story, since both sides tend to be equally overzealous and opportunistic and one might credibly think the error or fudging the results may be roughly equal on both sides. (Or not.)
Certainly, organized, clandestine efforts to rig the results would require the involvement of many people and the silence or complicity of yet another large set of people, and the continued silence of all of these people (which is unlikely). Effective result-rigging would require misreporting and the absence of an audit trail or other verification mechanism, to permit the misreport from eventually being discovered, but this is the problem with electronic machines which do not print out a paper record.
Now, to the second form of election fraud. This can distort (or throw) an election outcome as a result of the dilution of the legal voter pool by illegal or otherwise ineligible voters. Now this may be what Trump -- and others -- have in mind, but are not effectively communicating. (Amazingly, Trump & Co. also botched their explanation of the I-didn't-pay-taxes-one-year controversy.) While many non-citizens dutifully and eagerly report their ineligibility to vote when they are asked to "come out and vote on Election Day," anecdotal reports persist about plenty of other non-citizens who are clueless and sign whatever they are told to sign. They are signing voter registration forms, and have no idea what they are doing, but they are registered. (This can impact small races where a handful of votes does represent the margin of victory. Think your local party county committee races or local school board district, that type of thing, more than larger races like Congressional races.)
The potential for abuse exists, because observers know that our voter registration system operates on the honor system: We trust people to be truthful when asked if they are citizens.
But in a time where the hysteria was about possible deportations of legal immigrants, must the reasonable observer be forced to ignore at least the real possibility that there were scared-of-deportation immigrant non-citizens who signed up to vote?
Should we have a level of educated discourse on this topic that requires unanimity that, no, never, it is impossible that this could have happened, so impossible in fact, that we should not even explore the question?
Across the country, these ineligible registered voters do add up. It may not be a big amount, may not be statistically significant, may not have any bearing on any election, but isn't it funny that this is a topic just about everyone is eager to cover up with a bulldozer so it never sees the light of day?
The recent Hamilton controversy raises several issues that range far beyond the stated content of the post-show monologue directed at the Vice President Elect.
One of the issues is the wisdom of entertainers, in any field, opining on political or social matters of the day.
The classic entertainment rule was that public declarations on anything in politics or culture was not merely considered unwise; in fact, many talent agents, producers and other "gatekeepers" for performers made it clear (officially or unofficially, in written contracts or with the stern talking-to) that such comments were forbidden, off limits, verboten.
Back then (and still true in a large regard today), the reason was pretty clear: Such opinions rarely, if ever, helped the bottom line. It's pure good business, pure good show business.
Why is that the case? Wouldn't affinity with a star, agreement or sympathy with his or her positions, help drive ticket sales, record sales, licensing revenue and so on?
Yes, potentially -- but the opposite is true too.
The best example is demonstrated by the relatively new trend towards identifying the sexual identities of comic book heroes. (Full disclosure: I am not a comic book fan, never was, so the field is rather alien to me; the advantage is that I can discuss this issue unemotionally.)
Prior to the last twenty years or so, comic books and their derivative cartoons, movies, etc., rarely delved into the personal lives of their characters. Even with characters whose superhero identity and storylines often involved their "mortal" alter ego and attempts to hide their "real" identity (think: Peter Parker and Spider-Man), the personal lives and intimate exploits were typically rarely or never explored in plot lines. (The more recent cinematic iterations of characters are a sharp departure from this classic treatment.)
I contend that part of the mystique and allure of superheroes, or many fictional characters, is the mystery of the unknown. Since the fans don't know much about a certain character, they can imagine those traits, those realities, and project their own values onto their character. This type of fan identification, the projection, the daydreaming if you will, might seem juvenile to some, but it is the fuel behind a lot of the fan interest behind certain stars and shows. It is the kindling wood underneath a lot of the chatter, the water cooler talk, that in turn spurs audience interest in existing fans and drives new interest. (Because ratings, book sales, etc., matter; it's all about metrics, and revenues.)
Answer these questions, and I'd argue you are sucking the oxygen out of the room. Out goes the fire. Isn't that what the new comic book writers are doing, when they declare that a certain superhero has a particular sexual identity, or religion, or whatever?
While such decisions are currently trendy, I contend they play to the affinity of one group -- typically a small group -- but do so at the expense of diminishing or destroying the imagination of the rest of the audience, and as a result experience a net loss.
In show business, folks, numbers matter. See above: it's all about metrics, and revenues.
For additional fuel to this fire, consider the now-iconic ending in 2007 of the final episode of the HBO mob/family drama "The Sopranos," best characterized by a series of answered questions in the last episode (i.e., shootings of various characters) and some totally unanswered hanging questions regarding the main family characters (e.g., everyone in the Soprano nuclear family). While the show was undoubtedly wildly popular and even considered a cult classic during its run, the series' ending likely enhanced its stature above its prior heights.
Returning to the original topic of stars interjecting politics or social commentary into their show business characters, their performances or even just interviews with the entertainment media, I would argue it simply is not good business. I believe the most successful entertainers know that.
Before you conclude I am wrong, ask yourself this: When was the last time you ever heard anyone in the Kardashian daughters -- the offspring of a famous Hollywood lawyer -- discuss politics?
That's exactly the point. Those daughters know better, have been taught to know better. For once, follow the Kardashians' example!
Eric Dixon is a New York lawyer who runs his own independent law practice as well as a consulting practice on blockchain technology, media and political / policy matters.
Many misconceptions about the weekend controversy involving the Broadway show "Hamilton"'s cast's shoutout and shaming of audience member, Vice President Elect Mike Pence.
This does not involve the First Amendment. The First Amendment restricts government interference with speech. It has nothing to do with personal or corporate restrictions on speech. The Hamilton cast was perfectly within its rights to do the monologue. The Hamilton producers, owners, sponsors, etc. are within their respective rights to respond, as are prospective audience members entitled to boycott the show (which has been suggested in some corners).
Now, here is a link to a Canadian telecast story (Canadian Broadcasting Company), including video of the actor Brandon Dixon's monologue:
The issue here is not one of rights. It is one of culture.
Is it appropriate -- not whether it is legal -- for an audience member to become "the show" by design of the cast?
Do we -- as patrons, as customers, as the audience -- want our entertainers to possibly call us out, in public, for whatever views we might hold, or even the views we might be presumed to hold?
Finally, the reality may be that the intent of the end-of-show monologue was to deliver not the "stated" message, but this alternate, thinly veiled message: Since we disagree with you (and impute the worst attributes to your character),you will be a target anytime you step out into public, you will never be safe, and you will be made to suffer until and unless you repent.
The "legal" views of this controversy should be instructed by this important, and universally overlooked, distinction.
The political climate and low level of discourse among most protestors, regardless of whom they're supporting and whom they're opposing, is leading to "disinformation" and widely-held misconceptions (no, flat out errors) about Americans' First Amendment.
The First Amendment, the beginning of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution, binds and restricts government power. It, just like the rest of the Constitution, restricts what the government can do to the people.
People can protest other people. That is not a First Amendment violation. In fact, private employers can restrict political speech by employees while in the workplace; that is not a government restriction nor is it a restriction on the "freedom" of the employee. The employee has a right to freedom from interference by the government regarding his or her speech -- but the employer has the right to its freedom of association, plus any de facto requirement to accept the speech of others is compulsion by any other name. That is antithetical to freedom. So we have freedom of speech (meaning, again, freedom from government restriction). We just don't have the freedom to compel others to allow us to speak, to dominate or to have a monopoly on speech, on opinions, or on reactions to speech.
There are reports that Anthony Weiner, the still-married husband of Hillary Clinton adviser Huma Abedin, has produced to the Federal Bureau of Investigation a laptop (and who knows what else) containing a lot of emails.
There are a lot of known unknowns and even unknown unknowns here. We don't know what's on the laptop or even what's the focus of the particular investigation (there could be more than one) which prompts interest in whatever's on the computer, laptop or other computing device. We don't know the subject or target (that is, any particular person) of the investigation.
[PRIOR ANALYSIS: What are the Justice Department guidelines regarding investigations of active candidates for public office? Read more here.]
But I surmise that Huma Abedin, if interested in helping Hillary Clinton, would have opportunities to at least delay the process. I am not saying the run-out-the-clock strategy would work, and I am taking a politically agnostic view of this topic (so all of you can share an anger at me!). But politics is causing one heck of a rush to judgment. If we were back in colonial times, the chickens would be squawking and the tar would be boiling.
First, there are spousal privileges that can bar both testimony by one spouse against another, and the introduction through testimony of marital communications during the marriage. (For what it's worth, here's a Justice Department memorandum, mostly pertaining to immigration matters such as sham marriages, which discusses the issue and at the very end, lists five ways the privilege can be waived or challenged by the government.) There is no ironclad privilege, and I am sure plenty of people will want (for political reasons) the privileges to be defeated, but my point here is that an objection could be raised and there might be some interesting issues.
Second, I would be wondering whether Weiner was properly authorized to turn over anything as to which his ownership or control cannot be undisputed. Were these objects really his? Were these objects shared possessions? All of these possible hurdles must be overcome.
I believe that even if the facts are overwhelmingly in support of production, each obstacle presents several questions of law and of fact. That means there are hearings, briefs, more briefs and rearguments. All of that can delay the ultimate resolution. That's because we have due process and Huma will be entitled to her day(s) in court to fight as hard as she wants, whether on her own behalf or as proxy for Hillary Clinton.
The only thing you can be assured of? There will be no quick resolution on this and definitely not before Election Day.
Eric Dixon is a veteran corporate and investigative lawyer whose analysis and keen judgment is relied upon by business and political leaders in sensitive situations. Mr. Dixon is also a co-inventor of blockchain technology improvements which are covered by two allowed and soon-to-be-granted patents. For inquiries, reach out to him at EDixon@NYBusinessCounsel.com.
Certain workplace protections typical for employees will be extended to independent contractors and "freelance" workers for New York City businesses, under a new bill passed by the New York City Council today and expected to be signed into law by the Mayor, Bill deBlasio, soon. But oppressed and exploited workers shouldn't rejoice too much, and may need to get a lawyer anyway to protect them.
Here's why. The bill could be onerous on businesses, which risks the unintended consequence of discouraging businesses from using independent contractors and instead (perhaps) prompt them to "hire" them as "employees."
On the other hand, the bill requires written contracts for any "gig" with a value of $800 or more, and provides for damages and legal fees to be paid to the prevailing plaintiff. Court actions can be brought in state court (Supreme Court of each borough).
The intended beneficiaries? Anyone -- everyone -- who is an independent contractor or freelancer.
Who's not covered? Lawyers, doctors, nurses (the bill refers to "medical professionals") and salespeople. (That, by the way, is to the benefit of those professionals, because the burdens of the bill potentially could discourage New York employers from using freelancers in those professions. Keep reading.)
Who's required to comply? Any non-governmental entity. This doesn't just mean all businesses. It means religious institutions, educational institutions, nonprofits, political campaigns, just about anyone and everyone who pays $800 or more to anyone without making them an employee.
What the bill does*:
(* - Assuming the present version is signed by Mayor DeBlasio)
It establishes and enhances protections for freelance workers (independent contractors / not employees) including the right to written contract, the right to be paid timely and in full, the right to be free of retaliation.
It provides penalties for violations of these rights, including statutory damages, double damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees.
If you want to bring a court action, you do it in state court in the Supreme Court of each borough.
The government (NYC) can get involved when it discovers or suspects there is evidence of a pattern or practice of violations, and go to court to seek penalties of up to $25,000.
Complaints from the public would go to the Office of Labor Standards (OLS) which will have to set up a system to adjudicate these complaints.
I am fielding inquiries from affected businesses, nonprofits and churches and may be reached at either 917-696-2442 or via email at EDixon@NYBusinessCounsel.com.
This seems like an over eager officer trying to overload a file, and overcharge a young woman, by throwing every conceivable charge.
Whether the charges are ultimately prosecuted by a municipal prosecutor is a different story, and municipal (town) judges also can dismiss the charge. However, prosecutors have government power and government resources behind them and the average private citizen facing even a minor criminal charge (misdemeanor) can be wiped out by the cost of hiring a competent lawyer.
One would hope that the imbalance in fighting ability is not encouraging police officers to meet quotas by overloading charges in order to overwhelm a hapless defendant and coerce, through the imbalance in resources, a guilty plea to at least one charge, regardless of the merits of any charge or whether any charge is furthering the protection of the public or deterrence of actual crime.
Here, we have a case of a woman basically arrested for charges including the possession of a baseball bat. So what objects these days risk being considered weapons?
In a day of the pressure cooker bomb, many everyday objects are conceivably dangerous -- if used for purposes clearly not intended by their manufacturers, wholesalers or retail sellers. But our authorities are entrusted with great power. It seems more discretion -- and basic common sense -- is in order.
Otherwise, such cases will weaken the legitimacy of the authorities and weaken the overall sense of justice. That would not further law and order; in fact, such cases risk justifying the meme that the authorities are out of control, that many prosecutions are illegitimate ab initio and that many people in government are crooked, corrupt or bent on violating basic civil rights.
It all starts with the discretion to use government power. Most of the time a scalpel will do, not a chain saw.
The rule of law is fundamental to our culture, and the bedrock of our society. It is the reason why people felt comfortable buying farmland and starting businesses. The rule of law gives people the sense of security, the comfort, that their property won't be seized by mobs or the government and that there is "legal redress" against such abuses.
The rule of law was -- perhaps inadvertently -- compromised and attacked by Republican Donald Trump in the Sunday night debate. The vow to investigate Democrat Hillary Clinton for various alleged misdeeds (crimes?) has a chilling undertone.
When Trump declared, "you'd be in jail!" he signaled that his "investigation" would already have the conclusion picked out. This just isn't how credible investigations are done. This isn't how justice is done, nor is it the way to get (or retain) the perception of legitimacy among the general population.
Our governments have awesome power. Whether it's the small stuff like a permit to install an appliance, a license to cut hair or a food inspection permit, governments can exercise quite a bit of control over our lives. When governments have the power to regulate, to investigate and then jail criminals, the power is obviously much greater.
Our rule of law and economic system is based on the premise that our "system" is sound and fair. Our Constitution (see the 14th Amendment) calls for the "equal protection under the laws" as a bedrock principle.
Once our property, security and liberty become more dependent on the goodwill of men, we move from being a nation of laws and a nation where an economy can flourish, to a nation of men whose favor we must seek and receive in order to achieve, build and keep anything.
The more politically active users of social media websites tend to complain that those sites censor their views, postings and other communications and do so in violation of their rights.
I will tell you that is nonsense, but there's plenty you can do about it anyway.
First, stop blaming the sites. While they may have biases as a result of having to trust the judgment of their employees tasked with content monitoring, the facts remain that the sites are privately owned and have the right to police content. These are also sites for which almost every complainant pays nothing! I've yet to hear a credible account of censorship from anyone who is paying for ads or preferred placement. Isn't that interesting?
The phrase "First Amendment" gets thrown around a lot as well. The First Amendment prohibits government interference with free speech. Facebook, etc., is not the government. Private entities have their own rights of free expression. Notably, that right includes the right to police and control content. If private entities or citizens did not have the right, they would then be effectively obligated to allow and be associated with certain speech they found objectionable.
Remember this: there is a difference between the right to speak, and the "right" to compel someone else to hear you.
All Americans have a right to free speech. But none of us have a right to force others to be our audience, to clap when we want applause and to agree with whatever drivel we imagine to be wisdom.
If you don't like the content control policies of social media websites, join a different one. Take your business and eyeball metrics elsewhere. It's that simple.
I do quite a bit of investigative work and there are similarities between investigative attorneys (of which I am one of the few), actual government investigators and the declining number of investigative journalists.
Perhaps lost in the breaking news about New York City (#ChelseaNYC) bomb suspect Ahmad Khan Rahami being apprehended in central New Jersey...
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie knew about the lane closures leading to the George Washington Bridge in September 2013 as they were occurring, according to federal prosecutors making their opening statements in the trial of two former Christie aides which began this morning. The source, according to prosecutors, will be David Wildstein, Christie's former appointee to the Port Authority.
Wildstein's charge is not a surprise, given his claims (through counsel) virtually since the scandal broke and once New Jersey legislative committees began investigating and holding hearings in late 2013. Those investigations likely begat the federal prosecutors' investigation which led to the indictments of Bill Baroni and Bridget Kelly (who are the ones on trial) and to Wildstein's guilty plea, entered in court on the same day as Baroni and Kelly were arraigned in May 2015.
If the prosecutors' statements are proven, it raises the question of whether the statements will confirm or debunk Christie's possible statements to federal investigators who reportedly interviewed him about two years ago. It raises the thorny issue of what Christie said in that meeting. It is possible Christie took the Fifth Amendment on some questions, and that this information was not released. (That theory might explain why Christie may not be called as a witness, but we have to wait for the trial to unfold further.)
Christie has not been charged, but he may be on the list of unindicted co-conspirators which was kept sealed by a federal appellate court (Third Circuit) last month.
The legal reason for deeming someone to be a co-conspirator may have little (or nothing) to do with that person's actual culpability. It goes to a method for prosecutors to expand their ability to use statements which otherwise might be excluded as hearsay. There is an exception to the hearsay rule when the alleged speaker is a co-conspirator, unindicted or indicted.
There is one other question to be raised, and it is less a legal question than a judgment and temperament question. Should the allegations be confirmed, they will make Christie look extraordinarily vindictive and prone to the abuse of power. These qualities will likely impair his attractiveness to an appointed position in a Republican presidential administration. However, they should also raise questions as to his fitness to serve as the United States Attorney, the position he held from 2002 to 2008 (appointed by President George W. Bush).
A New Jersey appellate division last week reversed and vacated the felony conviction of a Rutgers University student in connection with cyber bullying alleged to have caused the suicide of another Rutgers student, Tyler Clementi.
I wrote about this travesty of justice several times over the past several years. The suicide itself is a tragedy. However, that tragedy did not justify the three acts of appallingly poor judgment which followed.
First, the Clementi family jumped on the victim bandwagon. Grief is understandable. Trying to ruin another's reputation to atone for one's guilt at fear of somehow missing the signals of a suicidal or self-harming mind is not acceptable.
Second, Middlesex County prosecutors used this case to demonstrate their virtue. This is an inappropriate use of prosecutorial resources and smacks of a political or social justice vendetta. The proper aim of prosecutors is to exercise the power of the state to deter and punish crime. Yet here, the crime was hardly discernible and indeed there is no ruled to be no crime. But even if there were a crime, prosecutors failed to exercise good judgment in blatantly overlooking the following core facts:
1. dorm mate Dharun Ravi recorded acts occurring within his own room,
2. The reasonable person understandably might have been upset or even revolted from an epidemological point of view, that being the reasonable point of view to anyone having to live in a shared space, and
3. In a shared space, the concept of privacy must adapt to the concept best described by the plural pronoun "our," not the singular pronoun "my."
This prosecution either ignored the concept of a shared space, or worse, it struck a chord for a preferential right for one student based upon his apparent sexual preference (demonstrated on only one occasion), and a disfavoring or subordination of the privacy and other rights of another student who, apparently, did not share the same preference.
It is hard to square this prosecution with a fundamental respect for equal rights under the law.
Finally, these same critiques must be laid at the feet of New Jersey legislators. They enacted a law but failed to consider (or counted on the liberal courts to uphold) the flawed constitutionality and legality of the statute. The legislative function when properly exercised, does not invite or encourage the abdication of its own judgment and "kick the can down the road" to the judiciary.
Here, it seems politics reigned supreme. Dharun Ravi spent some time in jail and got his reputation severely harmed, as he is collateral cannon fodder in this sordid social justice debate.
One of the in-vogue new tech phrases of the last year or two has been "smart contract."
This generally refers to some computer code effecting a self-executing contract that is supposed to dispense with the need for lawyers or the risk of lawsuits.
In other words, this is a tech unicorn.
Outside the United States, and in the fantasy utopia land between the ears of too many Americans, lawsuits and lawyers are considered a uniquely American hindrance interfering with commerce.
Inside the United States, lawyers and lawsuits are considered a vital and necessary deterrent to bad behavior. Sure, bad actors exploit their use as well, but litigation and access to your day in court provides a useful protection to those who believe they've been robbed, swindled or bamboozled. Plus, it's peace of mind.
Outside the United States, it's really tough being the victim of a predatory business practice. That's why many foreign entrepreneurs come to the United States. And when they go to other countries, guess what? They pick countries which have American-style legal protections and recognize American-style property rights and due process.
The smart contract as envisioned commonly today does not recognize or properly account for these rights. Circumstances change and disputes can arise during the course of performance. A smart contract may not be the best tool in those situations.
In short, today's smart contracts are often fatally flawed. They exchange the prospective and feared contingency (for example, someone trying to welch on a deal) for an actual and quantifiable loss (such as an inflexibility in seeking redress for a dispute arising during performance).
In any other situation, exchanging a possible harm for a second harm much more likely to occur, is sheer madness. So it is here.
If you are comfortable restricting the rights of parties to seek a neutral hearing in court over what they think are legitimate disputes, then the current brand of autocratic, rights-restricting smart contracts are for you.
However, that goes against the grain of the entire trend of foreign capital and innovation moving into the United States. Intellectual capital is the most protected in the United States. So why would our smart contracts pattern themselves after the autocratic solutions of less-free, less-hospitable countries?
Smart contracts have great potential. However, your smart contract must meet several requirements to work for you. It has to be written in conjunction and consultation with seasoned American corporate lawyers. This means someone who understand how contracts are supposed to work, how contracts are enforced in the American legal system and how litigation works. It also means the ideal smart contract lawyer understands how business and commerce works. Business and economic realities are critical to making any deal work.
Unless you have this smart living lawyer involved fully in the process, your smart contract will be nothing more than a lot of brilliant and expensive code, which will be even more expensive to fix the problem it fails to prevent in the first place.
Middle class professionals have been getting hammered by multiple economic headwinds over the last two decades.
Some blame technology. This is misguided. The world always changes and technology reflects changes. The assumptions of the past must continually be updated, revisited, challenged and where appropriate, discarded.
Lawyers are among those professionals, and as this is a legal-oriented blog, let's look at some of the basic trends affecting the legal profession from a consumer point of view. The first installment in a series follows, at the link below.
Lost in the consternation about the immigration debate -- which comes from all sides, it seems, with some saying there's too much, others too little and too restrictive -- is a core reason for the immigration.
When spending much time in immigrant-heavy or newcomer-heavy areas and speaking with first-generation people, I am quickly struck by an industriousness and earnestness to learn and adapt our culture and become immersed in our values.
Particularly striking amongst those stated values is a respect for our institutions, especially the rule of law.
Many newcomers arrive from countries where authority is dreaded and where institutions are suspect. American institutions are considered the best in the world, for various reasons. Our legal system gets a surprising mention.
Our legal system, while flawed (and it's flawed because it's comprised of people who have flaws), nonetheless is considered a big improvement over countries abroad. People who feel victimized have a confidence that they will have their day in court here, even if the outcome is not ultimately favorable.
Chalk one up for due process.
Those victimized also believe that our legal system is at least supposed to be impartial, and that this extends beyond the lip service (or outright doublespeak) so commonly expected abroad.
Chalk one up for fairness.
Finally, newcomers have a virtually unshakeable confidence that our legal system, from our laws which set forth property rights to our courts which adjudicate all sorts of disputes, protects assets, protects achievement, protects wealth. In too many other countries, institutions are considered to exist to expropriate and then redistribute wealth. Newcomers believe (as a virtual article of faith) that in the United States, one can get rewarded for hard work and then be pretty secure it won't be stolen through what in other countries passes for legal means, i.e., legal plunder by means of manipulation of an unjust legal system.
The confidence that one's home, one's factory or one's intellectual property not only won't be seized and looted, but that there's a system in place to guard against such harms, is a big attraction to the immigrant merchant class which comes to America not just to "have a job," but to create wealth.
Native-born Americans should ask themselves: What other country has a legal system where you say, wow, I wish we had courts like theirs? Or, I wish we had their laws?
Foreigners ask those questions and universally answer - America.
It's why capital flows here, why rich foreigners buy American real estate, and why immigrants seek to come here to build businesses. They feel secure with the lack of civic unrest, overt political upheaval and unofficial government corruption.
Americans seeking opportunities abroad hesitate most often because of their uncertainty over the local legal climate in their destination. Foreigners don't hesitate at all. They know America's legal system and respect for property rights is second to none.
This article outlines a theory. It is only a theory. As such, however, it helps train the reader on how to analyze the various complex motives which may be at work in the public arena (lawsuits, business, etc.)
The word "campaign" has two common connotations, both somewhat negative.
One is the political type of campaign. If those 30-second ads have made you tempted to throw a brick at the tv screen, you know what I'm talking about. The second is a military campaign, one which conjures up images of a protracted, destructive march through the countryside. Think of the legendary (or infamous, depending on your perspective) campaign of Union General William Tecumseh Sherman, whose march exacted purposeful devastation through the Georgia countryside to the Atlantic Ocean in order to demoralize the South's civilian population and destroy as much of the Confederacy's economic strength (and by extension, its ability to sustain a long war).
But when you need an advocate, you are engaging in a campaign. Your lawyer is your advocate, your general.
There are similar processes in other fields. Salesmanship and marketing are, in essence, nothing but campaigns. So is government lobbying.
In the advocacy sense, a campaign is about communicating your position with the goal of persuading your audience.
The essentials of a campaign are its weapons. The better weapons you have, the better your chances. And if your weapons are being used by a skilled communicator, that's just as good as having the shiniest new toy.
The weapons in the advocacy campaign are basic facts, the situation (do you need help? Are you looking to buy a car?) and, sometimes, the law (because persuading you to do one thing may involve convincing you that doing something different might be illegal).
The best campaigners assess a situation and amass as much information as possible. Information is the best currency.
But deploying that information, that knowledge, is a skill set of its own. This is where the experienced negotiator and advocate can make a difference for you.
Any legal encounter has uncertainty, but there's one surefire way to increase your odds of fighting to a successful conclusion.
No matter what.
It's virtually free, too.
What is it?
Here's one clue. It helps you win the fact battle, the contest on the facts of the case or the negotiation.
It isn't enough to have the right facts. Even if the law, both statutes and court rulings confirming their meaning, is on your side.
You must be able to prove your facts. This almost always means you need documents or similar evidence, such as video or audio records or computer evidence (what is generally called electronic data).
The more information you have at the start, the less you will depend on discovery -- and the cooperation and honesty of the other side's lawyers -- to get the documents you need.
The biggest advantage is that you will know you have a strong case, well before the other side does. This can only help in negotiations. Some great court case victories are won this way, when you can spring favorable facts on your opponent and back them up with documents.
Your lawyer can help you go through your paperwork to pull out helpful or crucial information. But the real start is with yourself.
With the right discipline and organization, you may have a built in advantage in any legal situation.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey announced earlier today the agency will recommend no indictment of Hillary Clinton be sought in connection with the apparently major lapses in judgment in handling certain classified information and the technology hosting it.
This is the legally sound -- and politically conservative -- position.
The handling of sensitive information is a serious matter, in an understatement. If it isn't a serious matter, perhaps the government ought not to be handling it.
If you have been alarmed by the decades long march towards overcriminalization and overregulation along with the gradual erosion of the mens rea (criminal intent) requirement for criminal culpability, today's statements reflect a reaffirmation of several positive core values in the classic American jurisprudence as it pertains to criminal law. It is a victory for due process, for the liberty-protecting and government-power-restraining principle that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and a victory for erring on the side of letting a guilty person go free over risking the liberty of the innocent. It is a victory for reason, over the passions of the street mob.
First, we see restraint in the use of government power. Haven't we seen far too many politically-driven or politically-suspect investigations and prosecutions in recent years? We should be thankful that we have a recognition of the value of restraint, whether you agree with the outcome and its political (for the moment) impacts. We should appreciate any time when the government acknowledges the ferocity of its fearsome prosecutorial powers and yet steps back -- and particularly when such power could rightfully be accused by a significant portion of the populace to either be politically driven or risking tipping the balance of a presidential election. (Note: It is useful to note that while the FBI and Justice Department work hand in hand and often effectively in tandem, the FBI's function is investigative and the Justice Department's function is prosecutorial, although one can be sure the FBI's recommendations carry great weight.)
Second, bad judgment is not a crime and neither is negligence. Director Comey criticized Clinton for being "extremely careless" but that is not a crime. The risks to the liberty of average Americans will be immense once we dispense with the criminal intent requirement. We don't prosecute people for mistakes -- not like Italy which started prosecuting geologists for failing to predict an earthquake in the last decade. That is a crucial point. Reasonable people can and do disagree on what is sound judgment, sound policy and so on.
We risk a great deal by rushing to criminalize policy differences and particularly when they are embodied by political opponents. This is most true, in a day when anti-intellectualism is on the march, when ignorance is celebrated and achievement often considered something that makes its holder suspect, when the Internet has emboldened the uninformed to delude themselves into believing and asserting that they are experts instead of fools.
Realize one point: these people, unaware of their foolishness, serve on juries!
But the prosecution of political enemies for subjective decisions should be the province of banana republics which pay lip service to sue process. Not of America.
Director Comey's remarks acknowledged bad judgment. And the judgment may even rise to egregious levels. You could even question whether such judgment warrants a candidate's disqualification (in the minds of voters), but that is a matter to be decided by voters and not by bureaucrats. Again, this is the federalist, restrained-government-power position.
The third and final point derives from the second. There are in some quarters the demand for a prosecution of Hillary based on who she is, what her role was. Again, this runs counter to the American legal tradition. We prosecute the act, not the man, nor the title.
When we start prosecuting people because of what they are, because they are business owners or elected officials and not really because of what they have allegedly done, we are again in despot territory where power exists to be abused and where men live at the mercy of the State.
Prosecuting Hillary because of her status, her achievements, is thusly wrong. Similarly, going after her in order to prove that "no one is above the law" also acts as a powerful and dangerous precedent, one which would surely embolden future reprisals and even more venal abuses of power.
Finally, the approaching election is and should be decided by the voters with as little government interference as possible. This again is the classic federalist position arising from the Bill of Rights and the enumerated powers of our Constitution, a document which stands for the limits of government power and the principle that the people must be protected from government overreach.
Yesterday we celebrated our independence. Lest we forget, the War for Independence began as the culmination of years if not decades of colonists' frustration with arbitrary and abusive government acts committed in the name of the Crown (the Kings of England).
So today's FBI decision should be hailed. Detractors may decry the perceived absolution of Hillary Clinton. But future Americans will be freer with this important Executive Branch decision affirming the value of the restraint of the State's prosecutorial power.