Welcome to BOOK READERS HEAVEN! Books, Reviews, Short Stories, Authors, Publicity, a little poetry, music to complement...and other stuff including politics, about life... "Books, Cats: Life is Sweet..."
No Donald, Chicago is not your war zone (Instagram)
I'm still somewhat amazed that, since 2015, I would become a student of history--the history now being made by a delusional leader who is being used by power thirty billionaires and others to change our world!
It was in 1944 when my father was killed in a coalmine accident--he was kicked by a horse which was being used to relocate coal from the mine where he worked. I was born in the next year to a widowed mother of 4 children... It is extremely hard for me to consider, and ruminate on the fact that 80 years after the last World War was ended, that it very much appears that a Third War, in many ways, instigated by the Unites State president is pushing forward in destroying America and any other location where he sees potential wealth!
And, that, in a supposed Christian nation which once opened its arms to the "tired and poor--your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..." we are in the midst of such hate, violence, prejudice and more, that the majority of individuals across the world are shocked, unable to speak, unable to comprehend just how we got here in the year 2025. What a prosperous time for LAWYERS!!! Especially those who work for republicans...
We were a poor family, as each of the siblings got older, we helped provide financial support to the family. It seemed my mother was working 24/7 and I've shared her various jobs on another page somewhere... One thing about Mom... she always had us in Church, The New Geneva (PA) Baptist Church, where she also worked... I gather my family was republican. As far as I know it was never discussed at any point during my youth. I have no idea even whether my mother voted... Was that because we were of German descent? I'll never really know. Like my mother, I was a quiet child and didn't initiate many conversations, sad to say, today...
During those early years, Mom and her two sisters, were also members. And we all started calling them after the Andrew Sisters who had become popular during the War years... To be a little prejudice, all three of these sisters were excellent cooks and were always in church to help prepare for dinners or other special events... Fortunately, for me, I never got that interest in wifely skills, but always got invited to benefit from their expertise... LOL Perhaps, God's plan, which I had questioned the possibility of being married as a goal in my teens, God's plan began to take form even then... Certainly I had been a reader from the time I had first learned to read in Sunday and grade school.
From early years to now, all of my mother's children were working from early years...helping to clean house, delivering newspapers... handling chores for senior neighbors... In fact, off and on through the years I have quoted of my love for Work from Gibran:
And he answered, saying:
You work that you may keep pace with the earth and the soul of the earth.
For to be idle is to become a stranger unto the seasons, and to step out of life’s procession, that marches in majesty and proud submission towards the infinite.
When you work you are a flute through whose heart the whispering of the hours turns to music.
Which of you would be a reed, dumb and silent, when all else sings together in unison?
Always you have been told that work is a curse and labour a misfortune.
But I say to you that when you work you fulfil a part of earth’s furthest dream, assigned to you when the dream was born,
And in keeping yourself with labour you are in truth loving life,
And to love life through labour is to be intimate with life’s inmost secret.
But if you in your pain call birth an affliction and the support of the flesh a curse written upon your brow, then I answer that naught but the sweat of your brow shall wash away that which is written.
You have been told also that life is darkness, and in your weariness you echo what was said by the weary.
And I say that life is indeed darkness save when there is urge,
And all urge is blind save when there is knowledge,
And all knowledge is vain save when there is work,
And all work is empty save when there is love;
And when you work with love you bind yourself to yourself, and to one another, and to God.
And what is it to work with love?
It is to weave the cloth with threads drawn from your heart, even as if your beloved were to wear that cloth.
It is to build a house with affection, even as if your beloved were to dwell in that house.
It is to sow seeds with tenderness and reap the harvest with joy, even as if your beloved were to eat the fruit.
It is to charge all things you fashion with a breath of your own spirit,
And to know that all the blessed dead are standing about you and watching.
Often have I heard you say, as if speaking in sleep, “He who works in marble, and finds the shape of his own soul in the stone, is nobler than he who ploughs the soil.
And he who seizes the rainbow to lay it on a cloth in the likeness of man, is more than he who makes the sandals for our feet.”
But I say, not in sleep but in the over-wakefulness of noontide, that the wind speaks not more sweetly to the giant oaks than to the least of all the blades of grass;
And he alone is great who turns the voice of the wind into a song made sweeter by his own loving.
Work is love made visible.
And if you cannot work with love but only with distaste, it is better that you should leave your work and sit at the gate of the temple and take alms of those who work with joy.
For if you bake bread with indifference, you bake a bitter bread that feeds but half man’s hunger.
And if you grudge the crushing of the grapes, your grudge distils a poison in the wine.
And if you sing though as angels, and love not the singing, you muffle man’s ears to the voices of the day and the voices of the night.
From The Prophet (Knopf, 1923). This poem is in the public domain.
It certainly wasn't because of any average citizen who has lived their lives in relative peace, working to better their lives in any way they were able... I'm an average citizen, with only one advantage. I've been a constant reader for over 20 years... And, I've supported the rights of women both during my career at West Virginia University, as well as the day I heard a man named Donald J. Trump say, on tape, that he could grab the pussy of any woman and they let him... because he was a celebrity... along with other startling thoughts on beautiful women...
I vowed to myself that first time in 2015 I heard the tape that I would be watching and learning about exactly who this man was. My opinion has been formed through many books including two by his niece and one by his nephew. I know this man... and have written much about what he has already done and is doing right now to destroy America...
Consider if you would that Trump has attacked, most importantly, our personal health... He has given away secrets for our personal financial information and initiated attempts to take away those funds... Thousands have lost their jobs without reason or as described under law... Money has been pulled back to universities and other cultural programs without authorization, and which funds were correctly allocated in earlier years. NOTHING is routing going through Congress. Individuals in the cabinet are unqualified, yet placed. The Supreme Court gave immunity - although they seem to be beginning to regret what happened when they chose to break the law in doing so...
I could go on, but it is clear that there is NO LAW that is functioning in America EXCEPT the judges in the lower courts which, in turn, are being abused, accused, attempted to be replaced...or fired when possible... Cities are being invaded by the federal officials rather than local authorities overriding city leader's authority... If it can be thought of, Trump is doing it, no matter what laws are being broken... I thank God that many judges are being firm in their commitment to the laws they enforce....
I KNOW one thing at this point. This catastrophe must never be permitted to happen again. Political Parties, The Supreme Court, Members of Congress can no longer be able to be in control. They do not support the Will of the People, which is what makes our Democracy work. In my opinion, we must start at the top. The Supreme Court must be either eliminated, or reconstituted to provide an even membership from political parties so that a majority must never be allowed again. Those on the Court who have been found of partisan prejudice must be relieved of duty based upon those facts. If necessary, the Court may need to be created by an outside organization to affirm no political partisanship is permitted. The Heritage Foundation must be banned from participating in our government ever again. All individuals in the present administration must be removed/impeached. A separate court should be established to evaluate/interview/determine which members of Congress may be permitted to remain in office, based upon a regurgitation of their loyalty to the Constitution and the Laws, as they were in the year 2000 (not as changed during the administrations of Donald J. Trump).
Once the Supreme Court is recreated. Then a national referendum of some sort must be held to rewrite and document the laws, rights, and confirm the duties and responsibilities of the President, as NEVER being able to be above the law! This should be done by national elections. If the national election does not result in ensuring the president must Never be above the law, Then a National election must be held to determine which political party is voting against the constitution. That political party(ies) must be declared illegal and convicted for Sedition!
If we must start over again, let's make sure we KNOW the credentials of ALL people involved...Credentials which will be evaluated before an individual is even able to run for state and federal office.
Finally, We were told by God to support our Constitution. Let's be sure that God is never again used as a cudgel for violence, anger, greed, power! Separation of Church and State MUST be clearly written and made into law with a provision that a national election must override any change...
This should also be done for any law, such as Roe, and others related to Civil Rights, Personal Freedom, which is being questioned... National Voting MUST be the only way to allow overthrow of any individual rights as defined by law as of 2000. This will be time to allow any questions to be placed before the nation that were overridden by questionable means by government.
Further, all information related to the use of government funds outside of America must be known to all citizens--an online site shall be established to do so. Once a group has been established such as NATO and confirmed and approved, NO president can pull out of such groups without national support through voting!
By National special election, all fired employees and deleted program must be reinstated and funded immediately... At that time--once Trump is out of Office and we are our of the chaos, an ongoing program evaluation shall begin where each program must work each year to justify program continuation and funding. I did this every year for a state-wide university. There should be no problem in doing it at the state and federal level either!
The next presidential election shall begin immediately by allowing interested parties to apply for the position. Each application shall be shared on the site, which, in my opinion, should be outside of th government at this time...perhaps a university? known for technology expertise could volunteer. Carnegie calls to mind in my state... Since Harvard won their appeal, they probably would be glad to participate? The public will begin participating by allowing all interested citizens to provide concerns about the applicants before anything else happens. This could be a simple/year/no...which allows for comment if desired...Narratives could be reviewed at the university level, conduct research to verify the concerns one way or another. ONLY then, would the applicants be able to proceed into the FBI routine applicant evaluation... 2 years before the national election of a new president, a vice-president must be named and begin the same process as the president. By the final year before election, the nation shall be provided with a possible slate for the president and vice-president. The nation as a whole must accept all applicants for both positions...before the political party begins to publicize and debate... There MUST be a maximum amount for publicity, free advertising, and equal news coverage...for the final year. No early announcements shall be permitted. One year is sufficient to acquire a president and vice-president because it will be based upon early review, decisions, and qualifications as well. Considerations should be also reviewed for all positions in government.
Presidents cannot be permitted to appoint anybody without outside involvement either through a university as above, or as defined by Law... No exceptions to legal review are permitted. For instance, there was a question about Judge Kavanaugh by an outside reviewers. Instead of permitting a full review of those accusations, it was stopped. This cannot happen again. Full disclosure of anything NOT following law, shall be documented and shared on national info site. Of course, other than classified... I do not consider elections classified.
Yeah, let's get serious about a government by the people, of the people and for the people. Further, all such gameplaying such as gerrymanding, filibuster, etc., must be immediately eliminated as practices, even if long termed. A special nonpartisan group, created immediately after the national update of the census will, if necessary, redraw maps in each state. They shall be reviewed and approved by each state, as is now allowed, but with full awareness that it can never be used to affect voting based upon racial segregation! This should be approved by appropriate levels of jurisdiction.
Imagine this, everybody, it took me about an hour or two to write the above suggestions/directions... Please ensure that an outside group such as Heritage never be permitted to write a "mandate" for America again! Use the brilliance of universities and their professors who are known as experts in political science and government activities, be chosen to DRAFT proposals... It's a beginning... It took over 200 years to find what a man like Trump can do to America. Let's take the rest of this term to ensure it never happens again... And that means... yes, I call on anybody who is in the same situation as I am right now--we cannot believe or understand what has happened... Then, start doing your research, read... and vote out the party that is NOW in control and creating the very real possibility of both a civil war and a world war...
Now is the Time to Act - WE CANNOT TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT IN THE PRESENT SITUATION!
And by the way, Let's start screaming loudly to change the Second Amendment so that there is NO Way that Our Children Can be Murdered Ever Again by citizens!
Someone’s life is at stake, Armen had said. Get involved. I put the note back in my pocket and slip my car key in the door. There’s going to be an investigation, but it’ll have to be my own. Because I’m involved, starting now.
Sarah wants to represent the downtrodden, not mingle with them.
“When we talk about justice,” Ben says, “we shirk thinking in legal terms.” “I’m impressed, Ben. Did you make that up all by yourself?” “No. Oliver Wendell Holmes said it.”
“Didn’t you know, Grace? Ben is waiting for a phone call from Justice Scalia. He’s this close to a Supreme Court clerkship.” Artie squints at his forefinger and thumb, held a half-inch apart. “Maybe even this close, am I right, Ben? This close?” He makes his fingers touch.
Empty coffee cups dot the surface of Armen’s conference table, along with sheaves of curly faxes, photocopied cases, and trial transcripts from the Hightower record. We worked straight through dinner and into the night, reading cases and talking through the opinion. Then Armen began to tap out an outline on his laptop and I picked up the habeas petition to check our facts. It says that Thomas Hightower was seventeen when he cut school to go drinking with a fast crowd, which got him drunk and dared him to kiss the prettiest girl in school. Hightower went to her farm, where he found Sherri Gilpin in the shed. He asked her out, and she laughed at him.,, Allegedly. In a drunken rage, Hightower slapped her and she fell off balance, cracking her skull against a tractor. He tried to give her CPR, at which point her little sister Sally came in and began to cry. Hightower says he panicked. He couldn’t leave witnesses; it would have killed his mother. So he throttled the child, then, full of shame, he got back into his car and drove himself into a tree.
Enter the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which saved his life, reserving for itself the honor of putting him on trial. For death. Hightower couldn’t afford a lawyer, not that one in the small coal-mining town would represent him anyway. The county judge appointed a kid barely out of night law school to the case, and the jury convicted Hightower of capital murder. During the sentencing hearing, where the jury decides life or death, Hightower’s lawyer argued from the wrong death penalty statute, one that had been ruled unconstitutional three years earlier by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Somehow he had missed that. The obsolete death statute, the only one presented to this predominantly white jury, said nothing about the fact that a jury could consider Hightower’s youth, his diminished capacity because of alcohol, his lack of a prior criminal record, and the remorse that he demonstrated by his suicide attempt as “mitigating circumstances” in deciding whether to impose the death penalty. The jury took only fifteen minutes to reach its decision. Death. I set the papers down and look out the huge windows that make up the fourth wall of the office. It’s the dead of night. Orangey streetlamps stretch toward the Delaware River in ribbons. White lights dot the suspension cables on the Ben Franklin Bridge. Traffic signals blink on and off: red, yellow, green. The lights remind me of jewels, twinkling in the black night. I watch them shimmer outside the window and turn the legal issues over in my mind. The question is whether Hightower’s lawyer was so ineffective that the trial was unfair. Strictly as a legal matter, Hightower probably deserves a new trial; what he deserves as a matter of justice is another matter. This is why I practiced commercial litigation. It has nothing to do with life or death; the questions are black and white, and the right answer is always green. “Well,” Armen says to himself. “Well, well, well.” He stops typing and reads the last page of his draft. The office is quiet now that Bernice has stopped snoring. I feel like we’re the only people awake, high in the night sky over the twinkly city. “Well what?”
“I think we’re going to save this kid’s life. What do you think?” The question takes me aback. “I don’t know. I don’t think of it that way.” “I do.” He smiles wearily, wrinkling the crows’ feet that make him look older than he is. “I wouldn’t stop if I didn’t think so.” “Was that your goal?” “It had to be. His lawyer was incompetent. Anybody else would have gotten him life in prison, instead he’s scheduled to die. They set him up.” He leans back in the chair. Fatigue has stripped something from him: his defenses, maybe, or the professional distance between us. He seems open to me in a way he hasn’t before. “I didn’t think of it as saving his life. I thought of it as a legal issue.” “I know that, Grace. That’s why I wanted you on this case. You narrowed your focus to the legalities, divorced yourself from the morality of the thing.” It stings. “Do you fault me? It’s a legal question, not a moral one.” “Really? Who said?” “Holmes.” “Fxxx Holmes,” he says, stretching luxuriously in a blue oxford shirt. His shirtsleeves are bunched at his elbows; his tie is loose. He’s so close I can pick up a trace of his aftershave.
“It’s both those things, Grace, law and morality. You can’t separate law from justice. You shouldn’t want to.” “But then it’s your view of justice, and that varies from judge to judge.” “I can live with that, it’s in my job description. Judges are supposed to judge. When I read the Eighth Amendment, I think the framers were telling us that government should not torture and kill. That’s the ultimate evil, isn’t it, and it’s impossible to check.” His face darkens. “I don’t understand,” I say, but I do in part. Armen’s culture is written all over his olive-skinned features, as well as his chambers: the framed documents in a squiggly alphabet on the walls, the picture of Mount Ararat over his desk chair, the oddly ornate lamp bases and brocaded pillows.
“It started piecemeal with the Armenians,” he says, leaning forward. “Our right to speak our own language was taken away. Then our right to worship as Christians. By 1915, they had taken our lives. We were starved, hanged, tortured. Beaten to death, most of us, with that.” He points at a rough-hewn wooden cudgel mounted over the bookshelf. “I didn’t know.” “Not many do. Half my people were killed. Half a million of us, wiped out by the Turkish government. All my family, except for my mother.” A flicker of pain furrows his brow. “I’m sorry.” He shakes it off. “The point is, government cannot kill its own citizens, not with my help.
I know Hightower did a terrible thing. He killed, but I won’t kill him to prove it’s wrong. He should be locked up forever so he never hurts another child. He will be, if I have any say in it.” He seems to catch himself in mid-lecture; then his expression softens. “So thank you, for getting involved.” “Did I have a choice?” “No.” He relaxes in the leather chair. “You are involved, you know,” he says quietly. I see the city lights glowing softly behind him and feel, more than I can understand, that we aren’t talking about the case anymore. “I don’t know—” “Yes, you do. I’m involved too, Grace. Very involved, as a matter of fact.” I can’t believe what I’m hearing. I feel my heart start to pound softly. “We can’t do anything about it.” “Yes, we can. Give me your hand.” He holds out his hand to me. I look at it, suspended between us, at once a question and an answer. This situation is supposed to be black and white, but it doesn’t feel that way inside. “Stop thinking. Take it.” So I do, and it feels strong and warm. He pulls me in to him, as naturally as if we’ve done this a million times before, and in a second I feel myself in his arms and his kiss, gentle on my mouth.
Suddenly I hear a noise outside the office and push myself away from his chest. “Did you hear that?” “What?” “There was a noise. Maybe the door?” ...
~~~
I'm certainly happy I kept on reading... You see, Lisa Scottoline has taken readers much further into the entire Justice System than most legal fiction books do. I even checked and the first 10% of this book introduces us to a group that we rarely even learn about other than as a very minor character. In this book, you see, it is the clerks of the judges who are leading much of the action--along with a certain undercover FBI agent... In fact, the POV is from Grace, who becomes the "amateur detective" since... well... because... Let me just tell you what happened...
Grace, has just come back to her law career, after a divorce. She is older than those who are just out of Law School, thrilled to be selected as a clerk, but, often, are lacking, shall we say, in the decorum, or, even more so, the maturity of what we normally see within legal communities--in books or television. Hey, I've been a Law and Order Fan for uncountable years!
The support of Judge Gregorian, Chief, is presently working on The Hightower (name of accused) case and discussion is moving throughout all levels as the political component moves into the forefront for affecting the decision... Yes, and readers will see much of the action of the opinions based upon each of the judges... Now, one totally irrelevant legal point is that there are several of the females supporting this apparently very striking judge becomes relevant very soon...
And that actually begins the investigation... It was Grace, who was not in criminal law, who was chosen to assist the Judge in preparing his final opinion... She was one of those who was attracted to her boss... So she was scared to have been chosen because she wouldn't know relevant laws, but at least she thought she could deal with her own issues...
At least until they were finally closing the all-night work session in the early AM hours and it was the Judge who initiated the seduction, ultimately telling her that he loved her... You'll have to read the details of those last few hours, however...
Because the important thing was that Judge Gregorian was dead by the next morning... Supposedly by suicide...
And of course Grace doesn't believe it... And through some strange and funny scenes, she is ultimately asked to assist the undercover FBI agent to be his informant...
I think about Hightower, who had no suburban soccer field, no fancy jersey or hundred-dollar cleats. One will go to Harvard; the other will be put to death. No justice, no peace.
“Let’s do it,” Eletha says grimly as we encounter the first wave of reporters along the wall of the outer lobby to the courthouse. “Grace! Grace Rossi!” one of them shouts. Shocked, I turn toward the voice. It’s the reporter from the day before, Sandy Faber. He’s wearing the same sport jacket and more stubble. “Remember what I said, Ms. Rossi?” “Which judge does she work for?” one of the women reporters asks. He ignores her, so she shouts at me. “Who do you work for, Ms. Rossi? Do you have any comment on Hightower? Why did it take so long to get the transcripts of the oral argument?” “Holy shit,” I hear Eletha mutter beside me. I push forward away from the reporters, but the lunchtime crowd is barely trickling out the narrow courthouse doors. “Come on, Ms. Rossi!” Faber shouts. “You gonna talk to me? Come on. Gimme a break here.” The heads of three other reporters snap in my direction. I feel Eletha’s hand on my forearm. “Who do you work for, Judge Meyerson? Judge Redd?” the woman shouts at me. “I can find out, you know.” “No comment,” I say. “Aw,” the woman says, “just tell me who you work for. It’s Simmons, right? That’s who? Simmons?” I feel Eletha’s talons dig into my arm; she seems shaken. I press ahead, pushing in line for the first time in my life as a good girl. It works. The crowd surges forward, and Eletha and I squeeze out the door and into the crowd outside the courthouse. “You all right?” I say to Eletha, but she can’t hear me over the Hightower supporters to our left.
“No justice, no peace!” they chant.
Their signs read: DEATH PENALTY=GENOCIDE OF AFRICAN AMERICANS! ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY! SUPREME COURT ADMITS “DISCREPANCY CORRELATES WITH RACE!”
“Let’s just get out of here,” Eletha says. “I’m trying, El.”
One of the signs is a picture of a young black teenager with smooth clear skin and a shy smile. He wears a red varsity football jacket. Hightower. The sound of the chanting resounds in my head. At the front line of the swelling Hightower contingent is a prominent black city councilman and members of the black clergy. An older black woman standing next to one of the clergymen catches my eye; she’s heavyset but dignified in an old-fashioned cotton dress, a calm eye at the center of a media hurricane. I recognize her from TV: Hightower’s mother, Mrs. Stevens. “Are you surprised by the amount of support that’s being shown for your son?” a TV reporter says to her, thrusting a bubble-headed microphone in front of her face. Mrs. Stevens looks startled, then the black councilman steps closer to the microphone, obstructing her from view. “We are going to hold a round-the-clock vigil to protest the death penalty, to show that it has always been racist in this country,” the councilman says. “The Baldus study shows that African Americans are more likely to receive the death penalty than whites.”
“Push, Grace,” Eletha says. “Okay, okay,” I say. I force my way past the man in front of me, but find myself face-to-face with Mr. Gilpin, who’s standing in my path. Even in the midst of the hubbub, his face relaxes into a smile. “Hello there, my friend,” he says, loud enough to be heard over the din. “Is this pretty lady a friend of yours?” A tall black man in an X baseball cap chants over his shoulder, and behind him is the TV reporter and the black councilman. Gilpin acts like none of this is happening, as if it’s a squabble over a suburban fence, not an incipient race war. “Mr. Gilpin, this is Eletha Staples,” I say. Eletha extends a hand reluctantly. “Hello, Mr. Gilpin.” “Call me Bill, Eletha. You girls goin’ out to lunch?”
“No justice, no peace!” booms a clear voice behind him, and the crowd begins to shove me aside. “We’d better go, we’re blocking the way,” I say. I edge forward, but Eletha gets jammed between one of the Hightower supporters and a TV technician. Gilpin grabs her arm and pulls her lightly to her feet. “Are you all right?” he says. “Get me out of here, please. I hate crowds.” She places a hand to her chest and starts breathing in and out. I’m worried she’s going to hyperventilate and Gilpin must see it too, because in one swift movement he scoops us up by the elbows and drives through the mob. He deposits us at the curb and brushes back a pomaded hank of hair. “I played football in high school,” he says. Eletha tugs a handkerchief from the sleeve of her sweater and dabs at her forehead. “Thanks a lot.” Gilpin’s eyes skim the crowd unhappily. “We started this, I know. But it’ll be over soon.”
Which is when it occurs to me. The politics of the new Hightower panel is all over the newspapers; Galanter and Foudy aren’t closet conservatives. Gilpin must realize that Hightower’s going to lose, and he’s about to see his daughters’ murder avenged. I wonder if Gilpin is happy that Armen was killed. Suddenly I like him less. “We’d better be going,” I say. He nods. “Sure enough.” “Thanks again,” Eletha says, recovering. We cross Market Street and the chanting trails off into the noontime traffic, making me suddenly aware of Eletha’s stone silence. She chugs along the sidewalk like a locomotive and I tense up, feeling like a curtain has fallen between us: white on one side, black on the other. We come to the corner of Sixth and Chestnut and she squints up at the light.
An executive takes a second look at her, then stares right at my breasts.
My tension, pent up, bubbles over. “They’re a B-cup, okay?” I spit at him. “Any other questions?” The man hurries past us, and Eletha bursts into startled laughter. “I can’t believe you said that!” she says. “Neither can I. It felt great. Absolutely great.” I laugh, suddenly lighthearted. “I’ve been wanting to do that all my life.” “So have I.” I meet her eye. “Are you mad at me, girlfriend?” She shakes her head, still smiling. “I’m getting over it.” The traffic light turns green and we cross Chestnut. “It’s not my fault I’m white.” She laughs again. “It’s not that. It’s that I can’t believe you’re messin’ with Gilpin. You know better than that.” “I’m not messin’ with him. He talked to me the first day.” “You shoulda walked away.” “I couldn’t walk away, he’s a person.”
She holds up a hand. “I don’t want to know he’s a person, and I don’t want to know Hightower’s a person. These are names on a caption, not people. If you start thinkin’ they’re people, you won’t be able to do your job. Look what happened to Armen.” “What?” We stop in front of Meyer’s Deli, the only place she’ll eat; Eletha’s not Jewish, but she practically keeps kosher. “What do you mean by that, about Armen?” She looks warily at the lunchtime crowd. “Let’s talk inside, okay?” We head into the noisy deli, with its old-time octagonal tile floor and embossed tin roof. Meyer’s is always mobbed, but the line moves quickly because everybody inhales their food; the clientele consists almost exclusively of hyperactive trial lawyers. The hostess accosts us at the door and hustles us to an orange plastic booth against the wall. Our waitress, Marlene, appears at our table from nowhere. “You havin’ the tuna fish?” she says to me, already writing down #12 on her pad. “Only if you call me ‘honey,’” I tell her. “I want someone to call me ‘honey,’ and not just for my body.” Eletha smiles. “Do what she says, Mar. She just attacked a man on the street.” “Okay, honey,” Marlene says mirthlessly. She tears off the check and puts it face down, like we’re at the Ritz-Carlton. “You havin’ the whitefish on bagel, Eletha?” she says, scribbling on the order pad. “Yes,” Eletha says. “What’s goin’ on at the courthouse, girls?” Marlene says. She rips Eletha’s check off the pad and slaps it face down on the table.
“They gonna kill that kid?” Jesus. “We have no comment,” I say. Marlene scowls as she slips the ballpoint into her apron pocket. “I’m sick of the whole thing anyway,” she says and vanishes. Eletha leans forward. “So. I’ve been thinkin’ about what you said, about Armen. About him being murdered.” “What?” “Just accept that he’s gone, Grace. That’s hard enough. Anything else is a waste of time.” “I don’t understand. You don’t think he was murdered?” “I’m not so sure.” Now I really don’t understand. “Since when? That’s not what you said yesterday.” “I know what I said. But last night I tried to quit school, and they told me Armen paid already, in advance.” “What are you talking about? You go to school?” “Night school, at the community college. I got two more years left, and I’ve had it up to here.” She draws a line across her throat. Marlene materializes with our food. “Enjoy,” she barks and takes off again. “Eletha, I didn’t know you went to school.” “I thought Armen might’ve told you.” She picks up a bagel half and spackles it with whitefish salad. “He didn’t, but why didn’t you?”
“It’s a secret.” She bites into her sandwich, but I’m still too surprised to start mine. “In case I flunk out.” “You won’t flunk out.” “You never know. The whole damn thing was Armen’s idea. Now he’s gone.” “But I think it’s wonderful, Eletha.” “You don’t have to do it, girl. Three nights a week I get home at eleven o’clock. I gotta take two buses, then transfer to the subway. Malcolm’s in bed, I don’t even get to see him. If I’m lucky, I got an hour left to fight with Leon. I figured if I got an associate’s degree, maybe I could transfer the credits and go on to college, then who knows.” “Maybe to law school?” She smiles. “Maybe.” “That sounds great. I think it’s great.” She puts down her sandwich. “Nah, it was a pipe dream. The only reason I didn’t quit was Armen. He’d have been on my case forever, like he was till I quit smoking. That man was too much. He paid my tuition for me, clear through to graduation.” “But why does he pay it at all, if I can ask?” “I couldn’t afford to, so we had an agreement. He lent me the money and I paid him back in installments. When they told me it was all paid off, I started thinkin’. Maybe it was a suicide. Maybe he was fixing it so I couldn’t quit after he was gone.” It can’t be. “Maybe he just wanted you not to worry about it.” She shakes her head. “I feel like quitting anyway.” “Don’t. He wouldn’t want you to.” “I know that.” She bites into her sandwich. “El, can I ask you a question?” She nods, her mouth full. “How much money are we talking about for your tuition?” “Couple thousand a semester.” “Where would Armen get that kind of money?” “He makes a fine livin’, hundred thirty thousand a year, and he saved like a fiend. He never spent a dime, that man.” It doesn’t make sense. Why would Armen save if he had over half a million dollars? “He was a saver?” “Always. But he was cheap, they all are.” “Who’s they? Judges?” “Armenians. You should see, when they’d have a dinner, I’d be countin’ dimes on my desk. Who had the iced tea, who had the wine. I’m serious.” “That’s racist, El.” “I know. But it’s true.” She laughs. “Did his family have money?” “No. Susan’s did, but he didn’t.” “So how much did he have saved, do you think?” “Maybe fifty–sixty thousand. He told me not to worry about it, he’d take care of Malcolm’s college. I worried plenty, but I don’t make enough to save shit. Why?” I look down at a half-eaten pickle. “Just curious.”
We split up after lunch because Eletha has to run an errand; she promises me she’ll take the back entrance into the building, because there’s no demonstration there. As I reach the courthouse, I consider doing the same myself. The mob has grown. People spill out past the curb and into the street, filling the gaps between the TV vans and squad cars. The police ring the crowd, trying vainly to keep it out of Market Street. I cross against the traffic light, which turns out to be advisory anyway. A gaper block stalls traffic up and down the street. As I get closer to the courthouse, I see that something seems to be happening. The chanting stops suddenly; the crowd noise surges. Reporters and TV cameras rush to the door. I pick up my pace. It looks like breaking news, maybe the panel decision. My pulse quickens as I reach the edge of the crowd. I look for the hot orange cones that mark the walkway into the courthouse, but they’ve been scattered. “What’s going on?” I say, but am shoved into a woman in front of me. I turn around to see who’s pushing. A cameraman stands there, and a lawyer with a trial bag. “Sorry,” says the lawyer, sweating profusely behind horn-rimmed glasses. “It’s this person behind me.” “No!” someone screams at the head of the crowd, and then there’s more shouting and pushing. The mob’s moving out of control. I feel a sharp elbow in my back. It knocks me off balance. “There’s a decision!” someone shouts up front; then there’s more yelling, even screaming. I feel panic rising in my throat as the crowd swells toward the door, carrying me with it, almost off my feet. Suddenly there’s a painful whack at the back of my head. I feel faint, dizzy. Everything gets fuzzy. My arms flutter, groping for anything to stay upright. Gunshots ring out like distant firecrackers, and there’s screaming and shouting, also far away. Strong hands catch me from behind. Someone says in my ear, “This is a warning. Let the judge rest in peace.” The words and the pain melt together. And then slip beyond me.
~~~
One will go to Harvard; the other will be put to death. No justice, no peace.
It reminds me of Armen, and our talk that night, over Hightower. Law and morality. You can’t separate them, why would you want to? Then I think of his broad back slumped over his desk. Armen was murdered, and murder is wrong. Illegal and immoral. Nothing I’ve learned tonight changes that, and I’m still the only one who has a chance of getting to Galanter. I rise, unsteadily. “Maybe I’m not out, Rain Man.”
If you have questions of exactly how and why we've begun to be greatly concerned about Justice in America, this is an excellent book from which you can learn about the inside of the system... We've seen the introduction of bias against non-white citizens and, the implementation of DEI, the override of established laws by The Supreme Court, in this case, resulting in the death of one judge and subsequent criminal actions which were discovered...by those in the legal staff... Yes, this is fiction, but there was too much that ran parallel to things happening today. By the way, the Judge's wife was a Senator and they were heading for divorce, but she asked that the judge stay with her until "after the election..." Manipulation, seeking personal power, and yet, learning of how it is the single individuals who work to investigation who in the end do...find...justice...
GABixlerReviews
Sometimes free will is not freeing. “I just don’t know. Whatever you think, Miss Rossi."
Thomas Jefferson had it right when he rejected the recommendation to give special privileges, in the form of pardons, to the clergy and to the nobility. He believed that no special distinction should be established and no special privileges granted by the legislature to individuals of the clergy and those of the nobility—that no distinction should be allowed between and among the citizens at large.
All citizens were to be considered citizens at large, each to have the same standing in the eyes of the law. Jefferson was loath to distinguish between individuals of one grouping from named individuals from the general population. “…when laws are made as mild as they should be, both those pardons are absurd… Let the legislators be merciful, but the executors of the laws inexorable.” In addition, Jefferson reiterates that the role of the legislators is to make laws; and, the role of the executive is to uphold those laws.
According to Jefferson, the clergy and the nobility have to be responsive to the laws as any other citizen. America’s society, therefore, could not be based on Europe’s society whose people were automatically under the leadership if not the ownership of the King or Queen. Whatever the Europeans’ social classes—nobles and plebeians belonged to a given monarch for the duration of their lives.
Jefferson and Adams, on the other hand, rejected that entrenched practice and turned the political world upside down when they proclaimed that government officials had to fulfill three main responsibilities:
1) They had to exist for the people.
2) They had to serve the people.
3) They had to guide (not restrict) the people to achieve maximum (not minimum) happiness for each individual citizen—male or female, rich or poor, heterosexual or homosexual, no matter one’s racial, or ethnic background, and regardless of groupings, or sexual orientations.
The new American government was going to be achieved by its citizens in the voting booth where each named individual was to have the same level of power as his other fellow citizens. But Jefferson also knew that any system, no matter how well regulated, could be vitiated to the benefit/detriment of one group over another. Maintaining the integrity of a democratic governmental infrastructure, therefore, would remain the biggest challenge for all elected and appointed individuals as well as for each citizen at large. If the citizen is corrupt, so will his representative, and not necessarily the other way around.
The inspirational rationale behind, We the people…, came from Cesare
Beccaria, especially through John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Paraphrase:
If society were based on associations of unions of families, there would be 20,000 men and 80,000 slaves. If the associations were based on unions of men, there would be 100,000 citizens and not one slave.
This became the guiding principle of Jefferson and Adams in establishing their American society in which every individual would be free to enhance his/her right to live in a socio-political environment based on freedom made possible mainly through local self-government. Jefferson projected that Americans would not live by terms dictated by those in government; rather, that government officials were to be entrusted to fulfill the terms dictated by the citizenry at large.
Literally, therefore, We the people represents a consent-agreement in the new American society wherein all named individuals agree to assume for themselves, through their conditional consent, to be governed and to be represented accordingly:
a) With direct responsibility and accountability for their personal actions, and,
b) With indirect responsibility and accountability for the actions of their representatives.
The reality was and continues to be that the specific responsibility and accountability of each member can neither be transferred to other named entities, nor to corporate-type organizations, nor to other representative individuals.
When individuals have a direct and indirect role of representing themselves and their constituent entities at the same time, they run the risk of committing reverse double jeopardy. Worse, when foreign entities maintain addresses within the US, their executors (foreign or American citizens), in acting on behalf of their entities, they enjoy the benefits of reverse double jeopardy, especially in civic situations related to voting.
The vote of the citizen is diluted through powerful campaigns mounted by entities having uncontested abilities to sway the voters one way or another to gain an upper hand.
Individuals cannot, nor should not be able to act--at the same time--on their own behalf and on behalf of entities or corporations.
In civic life, named individuals should not have the power to act in two roles because in acting in two roles they would only act for their own benefits, against the benefits of fellow citizens. Un-named individuals belonging to entities would act on behalf of their entities, and/or on behalf of foreign interests--and not on behalf of the private citizen. Individuals within those entities that are allowed to receive subsidies, have undue degrees of power over the voter at large that does not receive such subsidies. They would enjoy an edge much as the nobility in monarchies..
Regulations have to be clear in maintaining that distinction in roles. Unfortunately, that distinction becomes blurred when laws, the likes of McCain and Feingold, allow corporations to donate huge sums to specific political parties. There’s no way that, in executing their civic duties, private individuals can compete with un-named individuals operating within entities having the financial clout of their treasuries. The best example is seen in the recent decision wherein the Supreme Court further diminished the power of named individuals having civic values by shifting it to named entities having commercial and political values. The question to be asked is whether McCain and Feingold enhances the two-party system that has served America for so many decades or diminishes the balance between them to the point that each party becomes a means for its own sake--with one goal in mind: to destroy the members of the other party.
When commercial-type entities make large-size donations to specific politicians or to parties: Are the recipients beholden to those entities or to the people at large?
It is doubtful that the Founding Fathers would have wanted a government for corporations. If they had wanted a government for corporations (nobility), they would not have established a government for the people!
The issue above has nothing to do with the First Amendment in that this Amendment does not grant the people the right to exercise their religions; rather, it says that the government cannot take away that right. Likewise, the government cannot take away from the people the right to reveal their opinions--in private or in public, through a free press; nor can the government reduce that right, or transfer it away from the people to incorporated private or public entities. In view of the power wielded by today’s press, one has to admit that the press functions as a vehicle on behalf of corporations and political parties to facilitate the attainment of political and commercial goals, and to limit, at the same time, the individual citizen from expressing his or her opinions and ideas.
Literally, it is the people who have the right to speak, and not the entities!
In exercising their civic responsibilities, the citizens have one voice each; and, the same citizen, belonging to entities, also has one voice, except that the latter has clout. The former is limited in receiving the stimulus while the latter is empowered in imposing that stimulus under the guise of a free press and protected by the judiciary. When the rights of certain individuals are more confirmed than those of others, voters should see that their America may practically be coming full circle--to a situation tantamount to when only white wealthy males--incorporated into groupings, could vote. Thus, those rights inherent in We the people, in our modern environment, if not dashed--those rights are at the very least vitiated.
In recent times, California citizens voted on, and the Legislature passed a law relating to the status of same sex marriages. Whether one is in favor or against it, the sexual preference of any individual should not be the concern of lawmakers; otherwise, there would be laws for all other kinds of private groupings—like the clergy or the nobility in Europe, whose social structures were rejected by Jefferson and others.
With Proposition 8, Californians voted into law a prohibition forbidding individuals of the same sex from marrying one another: Men could not marry other men; likewise, women could not marry other women. Only men and women could marry each other--a tradition based on ancient customs with a relevancy to the well being of societies going back across the ages.
The institution of marriage is long-standing and sacrosanct in many if not all surviving cultures. In the United States, however, if two, three, or more individuals want to live in their private lives fulfilling their personal sexual predispositions, laws cannot and must not interfere with those preferences unless the activity be criminal.
Having the freedom to practice our sexual preferences in an open society, individually, or as individuals of a distinct group, when we join a group, do we do so to gain more government benefits at the expense of those individuals who adhere to traditional marriages? The overriding question is the following: What is the end goal of two men marrying each other as opposed to a man and a woman marrying one another, other than to gain additional but un-earned benefits?
Without procreation, society would already have gone the way of the Shakers. If the former were to gain the same benefits as the latter, would both groupings fulfill the goal of procreation? It is a legitimate question because of the implications in the form of responsibility and accountability prescribed for the individuals in both groupings. With no dependent children to provide for in one grouping and similar benefits provided for in the other groupings, which grouping would gain more advantages and benefits? Here we need to assess the ratio of responsibility and accountability between the two groupings? One has children; the other does not. In addition, the mother, in becoming pregnant, becomes indisposed for three or more months in bearing the child. These mothers are also unable to work and to earn wages. But, males or females that marry in the same gender are neither indisposed nor lose their wages.
The responsibility and accountability of raising one child is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The only consideration given to parents with children is in the form of exemptions averaging about 2,000 (or whatever) in deductions per child, per year, possibly over 26 years, totaling about 52,000 dollars. The media has been reporting that an average middle class family spends about 300,000 dollars to raise one offspring (food, clothing, health care, lodging, education, recreation, etc). On the other hand, couples (male/female, male/male, female/female) without children do not have such expenses. Who has the advantage, therefore, is obvious. But, how did the individuals of two groupings get such advantages over those in the traditional grouping?
The fact is that the named individuals (from marriages between males/males or females/females) continue to amass all kinds of wealth, which translates into increase in power for that grouping, not to mention their massive lobbying capabilities. Individuals from traditional marriages, on the other hand, who are forced to pay for raising children, continue to lose wealth and power. In the short and the long run, the government grants more benefits to those who are passive--who do not produce, and penalizes those who are active--who do produce. If the role of government is to engineer society according to the wishes and designs of the elected or appointed officials, by all accounts, they have succeeded. The government, unconstitutionally, is also granting equal benefits to children born within the continental boundaries of the United States of mothers who were neither born nor naturalized in America. As it stands today, any non-US citizen mother, coming to America via water, air, or land, on delivering her baby—the baby automatically becomes a US citizen. Contrarily, if a similar woman, be a refugee in a boat from Africa, or an outlaw in her native land, or simply one visiting Greece, Italy, or Germany, if she delivers a baby, that baby is not bestowed that country’s citizenship. But, the American government (despite its 14th Amendment, which clearly states who is or can become a citizen) grants citizenship to any woman’s baby, whether she comes into America illegally or as a visitor for the purpose of gaining citizenship for her child. In these situations: What Wall would be high or low enough to keep these people away? By facilitating the entry in a single incident into America of more than 60,000 illegal non-Americans: How can any other obstacle be erected to keep those people from coming in? Is the government providing Trojan Horses as well? Why does the Judiciary enhance the role of another set of Human traffickers? Here’s the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…” The Amendment grew out of the need to clarify the status of emancipated slaves, previously classified as property, and now needing to gain citizenship on equal par with his/her fellow citizens. The Amendment has nothing to do with either immigrants or migrants. Case in point: An immigrant from Europe, around 1900, having gained admission to the US, remained a citizen of his native country. Having traveled back and forth from the US to his native country, and having had children with his wife, those children remained citizens of their country. Back in America, that citizen decided to apply for citizenship, and succeeded in becoming naturalized. On returning to his native country once again, he and his wife had another child, who automatically derived his US citizenship directly from his naturalized father. Thus, when the whole family of five children came to America, only the youngest came through with an American passport; the others had to go through Ellis Island. Then, if either of the four had had children while in America, those children could not become American citizens. For obvious reasons, therefore, they all and quickly became naturalized citizens so that their children would be guaranteed citizenship similar to regular citizens or emancipated slaves. There was no such thing as bringing into America a pregnant woman for the sole purpose of delivery a child to gain citizenship. The Judicial system would not have stood for it. When the American government, notwithstanding the 14th Amendment, therefore, automatically grants to children of non-US citizen parents under the jurisdiction of their native countries--at the very least our very government vitiates the law, and creates another entity whose members (depending on the largesse of the same Government) become the political tools of whatever party—all at the expense of the citizen at large. In the end, unfortunately, the chickens come home to roost for the benefits of a few empowered individuals at the expense of the citizen at large. When our Government allows criminals into the US, who kill or maim Americans, the harm reverberates across America and endured by every citizen. Although the government has created federal subsidies on behalf of the poor, shamefully, there are more people who are poorer. Due to reduced funds, NASA has been cut down to limited significance, and the Defense Department has been downsized to a 1941 era. Yet, the national debt is the highest ever, and China’s economy is number one. Is this good for America? But what has happened to the people themselves in that process? The dissolution of the family has become baneful to everyone, regardless of grouping.
With power transferred to individuals from one grouping to another, by doing it legislatively, our American society has devolved to the time when the citizens existed for the government, and not vice versa. When individuals of one group hold sway over the people at large, devolution replaces evolution. The best example is provided by David Boyes, in the case of California's Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage, (Perry v. Schwarzenegger).
The people of California voted to ban marriages between men/men, and women/women. Mr. Boyes, by his own admission and with limited bravado, told his television audience how he, as the leading counsel, was able to convince the Supreme Court Justices to strike down the law that banned the traditional marriage, even though the right of civil union remained unchallenged.
Having become a powerful lawyer of the rich and famous, though dyslectic, he served on many prestigious law firms until he created his own firm with influence extending overseas.
He admitted that he deployed this powerful firm to work in behalf of his specific grouping of individuals at the expense of the citizenry whose votes, as a result, were abrogated by the justices themselves. The implication is this: individuals in groupings—clergy, nobles, gays accrue more privileges and gain more power over individuals not belonging to special groupings. This is being done by individuals such as Mr. Boyes with the effective participation of the judiciary whose members have arrogated a legislative power belonging to Congress. By so doing, legislators and judges are replacing the Preamble of We the people… to We the corporations…
In our democracy, everything emanates from the people.
In despotic governments, everything emanates from its tyrants.
In the former, every individual has standing.
In the latter, no one has standing, not even the tyrant himself.
When lawyers probe our system in order to garner more power for individuals of one group against those of another, they do so at the expense of every single individual. In a government which allows for real standing, the people enjoy democracy; in a government which allows for contrived or controlled standing emphasizing groupings, the people are made to endure repression.
The road from enlightenment to absolute oppression can be a very short one; indeed, when standing is based on attributes of social groups rather than on the attributes of the individual voter, standing becomes ineffective. Legislature is needed to abolish political contributions and to allow a range of limited contributions only by the citizens themselves. By so doing, Americans will achieve true standing. First step? Repeal McCain and Feingold.
With individuals like Mr. Boyes, whose goal is to guarantee that everyone has standing, through his type of practice, he guarantees standing for the wealthy at the expense of the citizen at large.
Americans are represented directly through the Legislative, and indirectly through the Executive and the Judiciary. The role of the latter two is to ensure, among others, that the Legislature passes laws that are constitutional and in the best interest of the American people. When the Executive, therefore, chooses to uphold only one part of any law, the Judiciary should act against that practice and not in concert with it. Likewise, when the Judiciary makes decisions that effectively become laws, such as establishing same sex marriages, the Legislature should act to prohibit that power with replacements of proper laws addressing the issue. In every state where same sex marriages are allowed, the majority has emanated from the Judiciary and not from the Legislature. Should the three branches of government all have legislature power? Where every branch of government intrudes into another, how can one check on the other?
Question 1: Are the bantering victories (by the Judiciary and by the Executive) done to enhance the principles inherent in our Constitutional Democracy or, are those victories to reduce those very principles that created and sustained America?
Question 2: Can House of Representative members, who represent you and me,--can they pass bills without bipartisan deliberation or without seeing or reading the bill, and/or to the exclusion of members of the opposite party? Should they pass bills on behalf of the citizens and the citizens kept from seeing those bills?
In, We the people,
Each person is a human being,
As defined by Dr. King.
Are our elected and appointed representatives on the way to replace, We the people…, with, We the entities…?
That seems to be the trend!
Adolph Caso, Publisher, Editor, Author, Poet, Photographer Routinely Contributes to Book Readers Heaven.
.jpg)
.jpg)
