World Peace

2012-02-13T14:57:00.001-08:00

The end does not justify the means

2012-02-09T08:51:00.000-08:00

We are not impressed by the argument that law enforcement methods such as those under review are necessary to uphold our laws. The Constitution proscribes such lawless means irrespective of the end. And this argument flouts the basic principle that all people must stand on an equality before the bar of justice in every American court. Today, as in ages past, we are not without tragic proof that the exalted power of some governments to punish manufactured crime dictatorially is the handmaid of tyranny. Under our constitutional system, courts stand against any winds that blow as havens of refuge for those who might otherwise suffer because they are helpless, weak, outnumbered, or because they are non-conforming victims of prejudice and public excitement. Due process of law, preserved for all by our Constitution, commands that no such practice as that disclosed by this record shall send any accused to his death. No higher duty, no more solemn responsibility, rests upon this Court, than that of translating into living law and maintaining this constitutional shield deliberately planned and inscribed for the benefit of every human being subject to our Constitution -- of whatever race, creed or persuasion.

Justice Black in Chambers v. Florida(1940) 309 U.S. 227.

Fact-finding infected with bias...

2012-02-09T08:18:00.000-08:00

As noted, intrinsic challenges to state-court findings pursuant to the "unreasonable determination" standard come in several flavors, each presenting its own peculiar set of considerations. No doubt the simplest is the situation where the state court should have made a finding of fact but neglected to do so. In that situation, the state-court factual determination is perforce unreasonable and there is nothing to which the presumption of correctness [*1001] can attach. See, e.g., Wiggins, 123 S. Ct. at 2539-40; Killian v. Poole, 282 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2002); Weaver, 197 F.3d at 363; Nunes, 350 F.3d at 1055. A somewhat different set of considerations applies where the state court does make factual findings, but does so under a misapprehension as to the correct legal standard. See, e.g., Caliendo v. Warden, 365 F.3d 691, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 6416, 2004 WL 720362, at *6 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2004); Fernandez v. Roe, 286 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2002); Wade v. Terhune, 202 F.3d 1190, 1197 (9th Cir. 2000). Obviously, where the state court's legal error infects the fact-finding process, the resulting factual determination will be unreasonable and no presumption of correctness can attach to it.

Closely related to cases where the state courts make factual findings infected by substantive [**17] legal error are those where the fact-finding process itself is defective. If, for example, a state court makes evidentiary findings without holding a hearing and giving petitioner an opportunity to present evidence, such findings clearly result in an "unreasonable determination" of the facts. See, e.g., Weaver, 197 F.3d at 363; Nunes, 350 F.3d at 1055; cf. Bryan v. Mullin, 335 F.3d 1207, 1215-16 (10th Cir. 2003) (declining to apply presumption where state court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing). But see Valdez, 274 F.3d at 948-50 (sections 2254(d)(2) and (e)(1) apply despite defects in the state-court hearing). Similarly, where the state courts plainly misapprehend or misstate the record in making their findings, and the misapprehension goes to a material factual issue that is central to petitioner's claim, that misapprehension can fatally undermine the fact-finding process, rendering the resulting factual finding unreasonable. See, e.g., Wiggins, 123 S. Ct. at 2538-39; Hall, 343 F.3d at 983. And, as the Supreme Court noted in Miller-El, the state-court fact-finding [**18] process is undermined where the state court has before it, yet apparently ignores, evidence that supports petitioner's claim. Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 346 ("Our concerns are amplified by the fact that the state court also had before it, and apparently ignored, testimony demonstrating that the Dallas County District Attorney's Office had, by its own admission, used this process to manipulate the racial composition of the jury in the past."); accord Collins v. Rice, 348 F.3d 1082, 1097 (9th Cir. 2003), as amended and superseded on denial of reh'g by 365 F.3d 667, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 6780, 2004 WL 743723 (9th Cir. Apr. 8, 2004).

....

In instructing jurors about their fact-finding function, we normally advise them to consider the entire record, not individual pieces of evidence standing alone. See United States v. Bertoli, 40 F.3d 1384, 1401 (3d Cir. 1994); United States v. Betancourt, 838 F.2d 168, 175 (6th Cir. 1988); United States v. Minyard, 461 F.2d 931, 934 (9th Cir. 1972); Kearney v. Bell, 160 Cal. 661, 668-69, 117 P. 925 (1911); Breuner Co. v. Allred, 98 Cal. App. 92, 96, 276 P. 422 (Ct. App. 1929); see, e.g., CALJIC 2.50.2 ("You should consider all of the evidence bearing upon every issue . . . ."); CALJIC 8.84.1 ("Both the People and the defendant have a right to expect that you will consider all of the evidence . . . ."). This reflects the philosophy of our common-law fact-finding process, namely, that the various pieces of evidence and testimony in the record must be considered in light of all the others. Testimony may seem implausible standing alone, yet gain considerable force when confirmed in a material respect by an independent source or by an objectively verifiable fact. Similarly, testimony may seem highly plausible, [**36] yet be discredited when it is shown to be irreconcilably in conflict with other evidence. Fact-finding is thus a dynamic, holistic process that presupposes for its legitimacy that the trier of fact will take into account the entire record before it.

What goes for juries goes no less for judges. In making findings, a judge must acknowledge significant portions of the record, particularly where they are inconsistent with the judge's findings. The process of explaining and reconciling seemingly inconsistent parts of the record lays bare the judicial thinking process, enabling a reviewing court to judge the rationality of the fact-finder's reasoning. On [*1008] occasion, an effort to explain what turns out to be un-explainable will cause the finder of fact to change his mind. By contrast, failure to take into account and reconcile key parts of the record casts doubt on the process by which the finding was reached, and hence on the correctness of the finding. See, e.g., Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2002) (failure of immigration judge to support adverse credibility finding with specific, cogent reasons constituted grounds for reversal); Winans v. Bowen, 853 F.2d 643, 647 (9th Cir. 1988) [**37] (failure of ALJ to give specific reasons for ignoring treating physician's opinion constitutes grounds for reversal).

Taylor v. Maddox (9th Cir. 2004) 366 F.3d 992

Universal soul

2012-02-06T16:37:00.000-08:00

"When the Universal Soul breathes through a man's intellect, it is genius; when it breathes through his will, it is virtue; when it flows through his affection, it is love." ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

Letter to Chancellor

2011-11-21T13:37:00.000-08:00

For the story,

Law Office of Narine Mkrtchyan
117 W. 9th Street, Suite 1001
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Tel: (818) 388-7022
Narine56@msn.com

Offices of Chancellor and Provost
Fifth Floor, Mrak Hall,
University of California, Davis
One Shields Ave,
Davis, CA 95616
November 21, 2011

Dear Chancellor Katehi:

As a proud King Hall alumna, Graduate Class of 2005, and also an alumna of UCLA, Undergraduate Class of 2001, let me express my complete outrage with the appalling incident at UC Davis that has sparked national concern over the last three days. The campus police pepper-spraying peaceful demonstrators and students nowhere else but on our own campus at UC Davis, at the direction of no one else but our own educators and campus administration, is unacceptable to any sense of justice and proportionality.

In 2008 this nation made a promise to its future generations, a promise that has not come to its fruition. It was a promise to embark upon long-awaited change, change for social and economic justice and equality. Change, however, was to come by concerted efforts of all Americans, united and determined in that struggle. In the words of our spiritual leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., “Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can't ride you unless your back is bent.”

The demonstrators that were pepper-sprayed by the campus police at your Administration’s direction, represent that promise that was broken, that change that was demanded for. Particularly because UC Davis is an educational institution, an arm of UC Regents, the best and most liberal University chain in the state of California, it should be at the forefront of this movement, take up the task of its leadership, organize the youth, inspire them, and lead them forward towards the change that America deserves. As education is the engine of any nation, you as educators have a high responsibility to preserve and enrich the best promise in the example of students who have taken up the difficult task of the struggle for better America. You are the Prometheus entrusted with carrying the torch of light for the future generations. Instead the University has chosen to take the shameful escape to the convenient and bankrupt ‘yesteryear,’ the rejection of freedom, succumbing to the authoritarian principles of the law enforcement. The Civil Rights Movement in the United States did endure a similar attack by those who were in shameful denial of the urgency of Change.

As a criminal defense attorney, practicing for five years, I have seen what you might not have seen. I regret to report, from the trenches, that our civil rights and the rights enshrined in the United States Constitution have been shed and downgraded by precisely the same subterfuge to the principles deeply antithetical to Liberty, Equality and Justice. America has been mercilessly thrown into the lap of corporations and financial institutions, with the secret agreement and silent blessings of our government. For fear of losing its grip and authority on the people angry with this treachery, the government has stifled all the freedoms and rights of the ordinary citizens, by turning into an ominous and authoritarian police regime. There is no escape from the iron grip and it is getting tighter and tighter.

These students and peaceful demonstrators represent the voice of America fed up with the status quo. They are standing up for civil disobedience and promise of change. If they have broken the current laws and/or campus policies, it is because those ‘laws’ as they are written down and enforced, no longer represent the American people and their urgent needs. If they have done something wrong by sitting and protesting to the current affairs without even resorting to any violence, then that law that they are breaking is morally wrong, not just and fundamentally un-American. In the words of Dr. King, “… an individual who breaks the law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law.”

It is clear from watching the video of the shameful incident, the students were not engaged in any violence, were only seated when the police, nonchalantly, sadistically and brutally started pepper-spraying. This scenario is unfortunately not new to me, having represented many individuals as victims of police brutality. But what is new and unacceptable to me, is the fact that this was permitted and authorized by the University officials on the very school grounds, against students as peaceful demonstrators.

Therefore, I request immediate resignation of all Administrative officials of UC Davis who authorized and/or failed to stop this action. Furthermore, I demand immediate termination of employment of the involved police officers, to set a clear example to the rest of the nation that these incidents will not be tolerated in the future. I do not believe placing these officers on paid administrative leave is an appropriate measure in light of their highly anti-social and brutal behavior.

Unless serious action is done to repair the image of the University of California, I refuse to associate myself any longer with UC Davis and King Hall.

Sincerely,

Narine Mkrtchyan, Esq.

Change is in grassroots...

2011-10-16T18:41:00.000-07:00

Occupy Wall Street= Change that America deserves
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/05/opinion/rushkoff-occupy-wall-street/index.html

Fierce and fearless...

2011-08-26T10:24:00.000-07:00

--Some women choose to follow men, and some women choose to follow their dreams. If you're wondering which way to go, remember that your career will never wake up and tell you that it doesn't love you anymore.

--Trust is like a mirror, you can fix it if it's broken, but you can still see the crack in that mother fucker's reflection.

--You have to be unique, and different, and shine in your own way.

--They can't scare me, if I scare them first.

--Well, that's your opinion, isn't it? And I'm not about to waste my time trying to change it.

--Do not allow people to dim your shine because they are blinded. Tell them to put on some sunglasses, cuz we were born this way bitch!

--And now, I'm just trying to change the world, one sequin at a time.

--I'm already crazy. I'm a fearless person. I think it creeps up on you. I don't think it can be stopped. If my destiny is to lose my mind because of fame, then that's my destiny. But my passion still means more than anything.

--I just I felt like a freak, I guess what I'm trying to say is

I want to liberate them, I want to free them of their fears and make them feel that they can create their own space in the world"

— Lady Gaga
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/2945649.Lady_Gaga

Role of judiciary

2011-08-04T15:14:00.000-07:00

The question on the role of judiciary is frequently entertained and analyzed. Some groups uphold the conservative approach that requires judges only to 'interpret' the law, expound on the law, not change it. Others are of the more liberal approach that judges are to 'make law', because the elected officials cannot do the 'right' thing facing their political constituents. The cause of the minorities historically has been advanced by the judiciary.

Two problems with this distinction. First, in one sense, 'interpretation' of the law cannot be really done without some implicit/explicit making, remaking, fashioning of the law. It is an absurdity to even argue that judges should not 'make' law, especially in the background of the American case-law bound system. Statutes are only the skeleton of the 'law', and the cases are the muscles, tissue, organs, etc.

Second, and conversely, there is no longer any real separation of judiciary with legislative or executive bodies. In the recent years in the United States there has been a very prominent erosion of historic boundaries among the three branches of the government at all levels, local, state and federal. Judges now are in the same position as the legislators in that any decision/ruling they make is subject to immediate political consequences/repercussions. The idea of 'checks and balances' and 'separation' of powers that held together the fabric of this country for at least two hundred years has been discarded. Because the judges feel directly accountable to the public for their rulings, they feel compelled to act like legislators, to please their constituents. That translates into an 'inactive' judiciary that will really not take upon doing the 'right' thing even when it is unpopular. So, really the concept of 'judge-made' law is outdated...

An independent judiciary was to serve several goals, one of which was to protect minorities against the 'tyranny of the majority.' It was also to ensure that the Constitution was interpreted independent of political expediency, public whim and caprice... After all, the Constitution is a document that was created for all times and ages, and was not to be pushed back in favor of particularistic interests of either the government or the people. Judges were supposed to guard and watch the Constitution essentially against the greedy encroachments of various human groups, elements, structures, each demanding their own selfish interests.

But of course the Constitution is also a living document, that needs to be placed in the context of the problems that arise in modern times. Interpretation of the Constitution cannot be in the void, without regard to the demands and needs of the society. Because judges are after all human, and products of their society, the interpretation of issues of constitutional dimensions is highly volatile, arbitrary and dependent on many variables, such as personalities, predispositions, political views of judicial officers. Therefore, it does not really make any difference to argue whether judges should be 'active' or not. Either way, they are going to be 'active' whether they choose or not, insofar as they are instrumental in 'expounding' a living document, such as a Constitution. They can be 'active' in perpetuating the status quo, as it is laid down by the legislature and the people, by giving constitutional validity to the status quo. That is a very 'active' role. In the most fundamental sense, after all they are the ones who create the 'case law'.

• It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is...If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each...This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

o Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 1317 (1803).

• The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their own will, and lives only by their will.

o Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheaton (19 U.S.) 264, 389 (1821).

• We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding.

o 4 Wheaton 316, 407.

• This provision is made in a constitution, intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.

o 4 Wheaton 316, 415.

• Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.

o 4 Wheaton 316, 421.

[Justice John Marshall]

Perfectionism and growth

2011-07-30T08:47:00.000-07:00

"The fact is, that to do anything in the world worth doing, we must not stand back shivering and thinking of the cold and danger, but jump in and scramble through as well as we can."

Robert Cushing

"Always dream and shoot higher than you know you can do. Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself."
William Faulkner

"The gem cannot be polished without friction,
nor man perfected without trials."
Chinese proverb

"Change and growth take place when a person has risked himself and dares to become involved with experimenting with his own life.”
Herbert A. Otto

"We are all functioning at a small fraction of our capacity to live life fully in its total meaning of loving, caring, creating, and adventuring. Consequently, the actualizing of our potential can become the most exciting adventure of our lifetime.”
Herbert A. Otto

"Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars."
Les Brown

'Papa, Don't Preach'

Anti-religious faith in God

2011-07-08T12:14:00.000-07:00

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?" [Nietzsche]

"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.

But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues.

You will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles.

But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak;
for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.

Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.

And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

When they persecute you in this city, flee to another...

A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.

It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master...

Therefore, do not fear them. For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.

Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops.

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will.

But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than sparrows. ...

Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.

For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be those of his own household.'

And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me.

He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it....

[Matthew 10:16-10:39]

My faith in God

Liberty and 'liberty'

2011-07-04T11:22:00.000-07:00

"Free people, remember this maxim: we may acquire liberty, but it is never recovered if it is once lost."

"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in shackles."

"Liberty is obedience to the law which one has laid down for oneself..."
[Jean Jacques Rousseau]

True calling

2011-06-17T17:16:00.000-07:00

Q: What is your true calling, Counsel?
A: To speak on behalf of the accused of a crime in the courtroom. To speak convincingly, passionately and devotedly. The courtroom is my spiritual birthplace, defense of criminal defendants-- my life!

Q: Why do you think what you do is important?
A: Those accused of a crime are the most disadvantaged group in the society. Most people do not like them and discriminate against them. I want to be their voice, to empower them against the ominous power of the state, shield them against usurpations of power and ensure their rights are protected. Most importantly, I want to give them dignity and make sure they are heard in the criminal justice system.

Q: Is it hard to represent someone who you think may be guilty of a crime?
A: A lot of people have asked me that question. That is not the way I look at it. Under the law, an individual is innocent until proven guilty of a crime. All my clients are innocent to me, no exceptions. None of them are guilty until the state proves them such beyond a reasonable doubt. The whole problem is what evidence are they going to use, how are they going to prove their case and whether they are going to drive down their burden of proof to get a conviction. My job is to ring the bells and question hard the state's efforts and customs in proving their case. My job is ultimately to show that my client cannot be proven guilty! Therefore, by the very nature of my job I have to confront, collide and fight with the state. My client is facing the state prosecuting him and I am his voice.

Q: Does the society understand and respect what you do?
A: It does not concern me. I hope they do. If they don't, it will almost certainly harm only them. The rights of the individual accused of a crime are the alpha of all individual liberties in a civilized society. If people cherish their freedom, they'd better respect what I do!

My true calling

Sailing forward... unfettered...

2011-06-15T13:19:00.000-07:00

I do solemnly swear that as an attorney and as a Counselor of this Court, I will conduct myself uprightly and according to law, and that I will support the Constitution of the United States.

"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country. A calm dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused, and even of the convicted criminal against the state; a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment; a desire and an eagerness to rehabilitate . . .; tireless efforts toward the discovery of creative and regenerative processes; unfailing faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man. These are the symbols which . . . mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation . . . proof of the living virtue in it"--[Winston S. Churchill, in a speech delivered in the House of Commons in 1910 while he was Home Secretary.]

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." [Winston S. Churchill]

Crime and punishment

2011-06-10T19:09:00.000-07:00

"The purpose of punishments is not to torment and afflict a sentient being or to undo a crime which has already been committed. Far from acting out of passion, can a political body, which is the calm agent that moderates the passions of private individuals, harbor useless cruelty, the tool of fury and fanaticism or weak tyrants? Can the cries of the poor wretch turn back time and undo actions which have already been done? The purpose of punishment, then, is nothing other than to dissuade the criminal from doing fresh harm to his compatriots and to keep other people from doing the same. Therefore, punishments and the method of inflicting them should be chosen that, mindful of the proportion between crime and punishment, will make the most effective and lasting impression on men's minds and inflict the least torment on the body of the criminal." [On Crimes and Punishments by Cesare Beccaria, 1764]

"In enforcing this punishment [of life imprisonment] in the Federal Republic, state officials are under a duty not merely to incarcerate but also to rehabilitate the prisoner through appropriate treatment... The court on several occasions has maintained that rehabilitation is constitutionally required in any community that establishes human dignity as its centerpiece and commits itself to the principle of social justice. ... The condemned criminal must be given the chance, after atoning for his crime, to reenter society... ... the state strikes at the very heart of human dignity if '[it] treats the prisoner without regard to the development of his personality and strips him of all hope of ever earning his freedom... ... [a hope] which makes the sentence bearable in terms of human dignity. [Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany. Life Imprisonment Case, (1977) 45 BverGE 187.]

'Totality of circumstances' or 'unbridled discretion?'

2011-05-17T15:14:00.000-07:00

Test for reasonable suspicion:

"An officer may make an investigatory stop if he is aware of specific, articulable facts which, together with objective and reasonable inferences, form a basis for suspecting that the particular person detained is engaged in criminal activity. The officer must consider the 'totality of circumstances-- the whole picture'. The facts are to be interpreted in the light of a trained officer's experience. They must, however, be more than the mere subjective impressions of a particular officer. Permissible deductions or rational inferences must be grounded in objective facts and be capable of rational explanation; 'while an officer may evaluate the facts supporting reasonable suspicion in light of his experience, experience may not be used to give the officers unbridled discretion in making a stop." U.S. v. Hernandez-Alvarado, 9th Cir. (1989), 891 F.2d 1414.

The so-called 'totality of circumstances' test that was elaborated in U.S. v. Sokolow (1989), 490 U.S. 1 and was later affirmed in U.S. v. Arvizu (2002), 534 U.S. 266, allows officers/courts to add up a number of seemingly innocuous and innocent factors to create 'reasonable suspicion' of criminal activity. In fact, 'totality of factors' is the most favorite term of the law enforcement. It is really bootstrapping and subversion of the principles of Fourth Amendment. If each of the factors described by the officer is susceptible of innocent explanation, how can their mathematical add-up amount to criminal activity? The process though was not meant to be that simple. Supposedly, the whole process of adding-up and deductive analysis should be rational, not subjective and grounded on specific facts. Officers experienced in the field of testimony come to court with formulas, ready stories. It simply shocks me how often they offer the same story, same terminology, same pattern of conduct and same analysis over and over again. They are trained to amalgamate the facts into their formulas. Facts that happen in the real world are subservient to their training and they analyze those facts, if they have such capacity, through the lens of their training, experience and policies. Experienced officers never just relate or recite the facts as they happened. They only tell those facts that they believe should have happened... It amazes me how many times when I ask an officer a specific question regarding the incident, he starts off by saying, 'I usually do this...' or 'It is my custom/practice to do this...' I repeat my question, 'I am not interested in what you usually do... What did you do on this particular occasion when arresting my client?' Often they say, 'I don't specifically recall.' They don't recall because they are trained like automatons not to recall what exactly happened but only what should have happened.

If you are supposed to read Miranda rights before questioning someone in custody, you usually do that. But did you do it on this occasion?

If you are supposed to formulate the facts amounting to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before and at the stop, did you do it on this occasion? Did you simply find out those facts after the stop but wrote in your report as if you knew them before the stop?

Officer experience and training then drive the whole Fourth Amendment analysis. Their credibility, highly suspect, as very biased witnesses, is accorded a lot of weight by courts in deciding if someone's freedom from government interference should be respected. One would hope that courts were less naive and less deferential to such highly biased witnesses, who are caught lying with shocking regularity in our criminal justice system. Is it worth it? Don't the courts often think that this erodes the integrity of the entire system? If we are going to depend on the law enforcement for our safety and protection, doesn't it make you feel quite unsafe and quite unprotected knowing that they lie with impunity... I don't think, securing a conviction of one man is worth jeopardizing the entire system.

Credibility aside, even with the most honest and well-meaning officer, very well trained and conscientious as a witness, is it a good idea for us to surrender the freedoms secured to us to such an elusive concept as 'totality of factors?'

A: 'M'am we look at the totality of factors.'
Q: 'Totality of what factors, officer? Can you please enumerate all the factors, one by one, 1, 2, 3, 4, as to why you believed my client was engaged in criminal activity.'
A: He was wearing a hat with a 'G' on it.
Q: Is wearing a cap with a G necessarily point to his allegiance to the gang?
A: No.
Q: What else?
A: He was wearing oversized pants.
Q: Does that point to gang membership?
A: No.
Q: What else?
A: He was wearing tennis shoes predominantly worn by gang members.
Q: Does that amount to gang membership?
A: No.
Q: Next.
A: He was pacing up and down the street in front of a known gang hang-out.
Q: Does that tell you that he is a member of that gang?
A: No.
And so forth.
At the end of all factors described that are not by themselves enough to suggest membership in the gang, officer will opine that 'your client is a member of that gang and I stopped him because I formed the opinion he was in violation of the gang injunction.'
Totality of innocent factors may indeed amount to a crime...

Reasonable suspicion v. probable cause...

2011-05-17T09:15:00.000-07:00

"'The infringement on personal liberty of any 'sezure' of a person can only be 'reasonable' under the Fourth Amendment if we require the police to possess 'probable cause' before they seize him...'

The fears I voiced in Terry about the weakening of the Fourth Amendment have regrettably been borne out by subsequent events. Hopes that the suspicion test might be employed only in the pursuit of violent crime-- a limitation endorsed by some of its proponents-- have now been dashed, as it has been applied in narcotics investigations, in apprehension of 'illegal' aliens, and indeed has come to be viewed as a legal construct for the regulation of a general investigatory police power. The suspicion test has been warmly embraced by law enforcement forces and vigorously employed in the cause of crime detention. In criminal cases we see those for whom the initial intrusion led to the discovery of some wrongdoing. But the nature of the test permits the police to interfere as well with a multitude of law-abiding citizens, whose only transgression may be a nonconformist appearance or attitude. As one commentator has remarked: 'Police power exercised without probable cause is arbitrary. To say that the police may accost citizens at their whim and may detain them upon reasonable suspicion is to say, in reality, that the police may both accost and detain citizens at their whim.'"

Justice Douglas, concurring in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, (1975) 422 U.S. 873.

What is in the name?...

2011-04-19T20:18:00.000-07:00

As April 24th, the Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day, is fast approaching, it is appropriate to ruminate on the origins of the word 'genocide.' The word 'genocide' did not exist until 1944. It was invented by a lawyer named Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jew who fled the Germans during World War II. Genos is the ancient Greek word for the 'tribe,' and -cide is a suffix that means killing. It was his term to describe the barbaric 'crime without a name.' His focus was on the idea that this 'crime' was the destruction of entire peoples, not just a number (even large) of human beings. When in 1921, Soghomon Tehlirian shot and killed Talaat Pasha, one of the masterminds of the Armenian genocide, in Berlin, Raphael Lemkin began his campaign to have genocide declared a crime. Allegedly Lemkin as a student asked his professor why Talaat Pasha had never been prosecuted. When he was told that there was no law that technically prohibited states from killing their own nationals, he was shocked, "It is a crime for Tehlirian to kill a man, but it is not a crime for his oppressor to kill more than a million men? That is most inconsistent."

It was Lemkin's efforts that made 'genocide' an international crime, codified first in Nuremberg indictments and later in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The definition of 'genocide' legally is very different from other crimes against humanity. 1) Genocide is a specific intent crime, unlike other crimes against humanity, which require only general intent. 2) Genocide requires an attack on specific protected groups-- racial, religious, national or ethnic. Crimes against humanity merely require an attack against civilian populations, even if these are not protected groups. 3) Genocide requires intent to destroy the protected group as 'such.' Lemkin's theory was that destruction of a group, such as a nation, is a profound loss to the humanity and thus, is a crime above all crimes.

"Nations are essential elements of the world community. The world represents only so much culture and intellectual vigor as are created by its component national groups. Essentially the idea of a nation signifies constructive cooperation and original contributions, based upon genuine traditions, genuine culture, and a well-developed national psychology. The destruction of a nation, therefore, results in the loss of its future contributions to the world." "Our whole heritage is a product of the contributions of all peoples. We can best understand this when we realize how impoverished our culture would be if the so-called inferior peoples doomed by Germany, such as the Jews, had not been permitted to create the Bible, or to give birth to an Einstein, a Spinoza; if the Poles had not had the opportunity to give to the world a Copernicus, a Chopin, a Curie; the Czechs, a Huss, a Dvorak; the Greeks, a Plato and a Socrates; the Russians, a Tolstoy and a Shostakovich." [Raphael Lemkin]

The distinctive characteristic of the 'genocide' from other international crimes is very important. It was the hatred of a specific group, 'Armenians', by Turks that fueled and drove the annihiliation of 1.5 million of Armenians. It was the targeting of a very specific group, 'Jews,' that resulted in the Jewish Holocaust. It was also the targeting of Tutsis by Hutus that was the force behind the Rwandan genocide. It is a very specific intent, to exterminate a very specific group of people. That factor elevates and distinguishes genocide from the rest. Why is it a 'crime' above all crimes? By its nature it sounds unbelievable. How can a group of people dare to even contemplate to exterminate another group of people! It assails the very essence of humanity... It is so antithetical to the moral 'code' upon which the humanity is established that one cannot comprehend it, nor tolerate it! Well, of course, killing of a single human being is by itself inhuman and beastly. Wars are crimes by their very nature... In fact, under international law an armed conflict is acceptable only for self-defense! The philosophical distinction of the 'genocide' is in the idea that this crime is targeting a group of people for its destruction... The idea of wiping out an entire 'nation' is mentally and emotionally abhorring. That is the reason Lemkin was so driven to crown this crime with a special legal meaning. The goal was to make it an international crime-- its commision with severe legal consequences, i.e. prosecution by international tribunals. The magnitude of the act of extermination of a single group is such that indeed requires a special recognition in the eyes of the world community. It has received that special meaning and since 1945 the word 'genocide' has achieved a very special and elevated status in the hallways of international psyche... The crime itself preceded the legal term invented to describe it... Unfortunately, it took the world a Jewish Holocaust to coin and recognize the Armenian genocide... Alas, the awe that the very word instills in the minds of people, did not prevent occurrence of genocides afterwards...

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

Article I: The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and punish.
Article II: ... genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a) Killing members of the group;
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The most forceful words to me, among others, are in Article I: 'prevent and punish'. That should be the goal!

For more read here.

The surreal task of 'cross-examination'...

2011-04-09T19:12:00.000-07:00

A lot of lawyers and scholars have written on the art of cross-examination... Most have agreed that even though cross-examination is an 'art', the techniques can be learned and mastered by almost everyone... I think, along with the closing argument, it is absolutely the most important part of the trial... I knew when I lost or won a trial finishing a cross-examination of the crucial witness... You just know it... But it is a surreal experience... I really call it a 'conversation' by a Socratic method. You are having a 'conversation' with the witness on your terms... Your power and your imagination have to be so strong that you can guide the conversation and shape it in the direction you want!!! I do believe, it involves a lot of artistry... Control the witness? Hmmm... That is certainly the goal... Lead? Yes! Before you even start, you need to know exactly where you are going, why you are going... But the details and the curves on the road is all that matters... Usually my cross-examination has been of very hostile witnesses, officers. It turns into a duel sometimes... 'Officer, if what you just testified is true, I would like to bring your attention to page 5 of your report, where you said exactly the opposite. You testified earlier that you are trained to write all material and significant facts accurately and fully in your report... ' I rarely have cross-examinations where judges, prosecutors and officers do not get angry... It simply amazes me... Almost always I get a prosecutor making faces, judge getting angry and officer wanting to tear me apart... This is when I accomplish something... When I don't accomplish anything, it is because the DA is screaming 'Objection' in anger and judge sustaining it in anger... I ask for grounds for objection, the judge adds them for the prosecutor... Everyone is in a highly anxious state of mind, everybody wanting to end the experience of witnessing my cross-examination... Then they resort to personal attacks, trying to stop me any possible way, 'Counsel, your question is unintelligible.' Then I cut my question into three pieces in plain vanilla English and serve it on a silver platter to the officer... But they are never quite happy with anything I do.

Why? Because I go there with a plan, with a map... I have different scenarios of possible answers... The main thing is to make sure that the witness does not have a way out of the corner you are trying to set him up to. You have to lock him! If you know what you are doing, you will lay the groundwork with the witness before you get to the main issue you are getting to. This is so when you are at the destination, he doesn't have a safety valve to escape from there...

For example:
Q: Officer, when you came to the room, you saw the purse where you found the drugs, laying on top of the bed, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you recognize that purse on this photo?
A: Yes.
Q: Please circle that purse for me.
Q: Was there any other purse in this room with drugs inside?
A: No.
Q: This was the only purse with drugs inside?
A: Yes.
Q: When you entered the room you saw this laying like this on top of the bed, like it is depicted in this photo?
A: Correct.

When that officer testifies on redirect that in fact the purse with drugs was found in another purse (which you anticipated), you come back and hit him hard with his earlier testimony that the same purse was laying on top of the bed as it was depicted on the photo when he entered the room. It is the most fascinating experience when you get the officer admit that he had been 'mistaken' in his testimony... Hmm... Mistaken? The more appropriate characterization is 'lying,' and 'falsifying.' Officer, you won't get away with that with me...

In one of my DUI cases, a client was charged with driving under the influence of legally prescribed medications, very strong painkillers, including Hydrocodone, Benzodiazepine, etc. The expert for prosecution testified that the level of drugs found in the bloodstream of my client on the day in question was lethal, highly toxic and therefore, it was his opinion that the client was driving under the influence of drugs. Most importantly, he just assured the jury that in his thirty years of experience he had never seen that dosage of drugs in someone alive. He said, 'lethal' several times in his testimony. I started cross-examination and had the jury laugh with me:

Q: Mr. ... you heard my client's doctor testify that he had been presribing the same dosage of drugs to her for about 20 years, didn't you?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Do you have any information to make you believe that on the day in question she misused any of the prescribed medications by her doctor.
A: No.
Q: In fact, you heard from her doctor that the amount of drugs found in her bloodstream on the day in question is consistent with the prescribed dosage allowed to her.
A: Yes.
Q: You testified that amount is lethal?
A: Yes.
Q: You are sure about that?
A: I am positive!
Q: Well, Mr. ..... if that amount is lethal (pause), she is sitting right there in the courtroom... (pause) She is alive?... Do you see her? (I turned to my client with a surprised smile on my face.)
A: ..... (He simply didn't have an answer to that, while the jurors started laughing with me and my client.)

This was one of the most hilarious moments I have ever had! The expert after that simply did not know where to look and left the courtroom with a red face and utterly confused! He lost all his credibility and the jury hung not believing the prosecutor's expert...

It can't always be pleasant though. You can have a witness that outsmarts you because you don't have a clear plan or goal... A witness may simply refuse to answer your question, can give evasive answers, etc. I have cross-examined officers who would never give a straight answer to any of your questions. At that point you have to balance your interest in accomplishing certain things through that witness against your interest in not looking like an 'idiot' before the jury. They will hold it against your client if they believe you are an 'idiot.' The witness may very well drive you to the corner if the answer is not what you were looking for! That can happen! Ooo... You have to shut up and sit down without showing your frustration to the jury! 'No more questions, thank you!' And smile... Incidentally, judges don't like even when I smile. I had a judge tell me in open court in the presence of the jury, 'I don't like that grin on your face. Don't have that expression when cross-examining!' I couldn't help smiling to that! All of a sudden, you can be found in contempt of court for 'smiling,' literally!

The problem is that you get so caught up with your plan and theory and you get so angry that the witness is not giving you the answers you wanted, you can't disengage and you want to fire all your bullets! It becomes very personal to you! You are so invested that you can't let go! It is very dangerous because then it becomes all or nothing and you may lose all! It is like charging your cavalry without infantry support in the face of oncoming artillery fire! That is reckless! (Remember the 'Waterloo'). Caution dictates to draw a line and withdraw when you are realizing you can't accomplish much with that witness... But before you draw a line, you must make sure the jury sees that you are trying to get important questions out there and the witness is refusing to answer! The jury wants your questions answered too and most probably will get frustrated with the witness too! Then in your closing argument you use the witness' evasiveness and unwillingness to give a straight answer to your benefit! 'Ladies and gentlemen, didn't you want to hear why the officer decided to do x or z... I asked him all those questions... He didn't want to give a straight answer to any of those questions! Why? What do you make of that? Well, because he is afraid to provide an answer for you to judge clearly as to the reasons of his behavior... How can you believe this officer if he doesn't want to answer very logical questions here in court under oath?'

So, you can use a bad witness to your benefit too, but only if he had not sunk your ship... You have to make sure a witness does not make you sink... If you know what you are doing, you don't go into areas recklessly with an adverse witness... Your first goal is to accomplish something through the witness... If you can't, move on...

The right to cross-examine is very important to me. I take it very seriously! In one of my trials, when I was impeaching the credibility of the officer by his written reports, the DA was consistently objecting on various grounds, the judge was sustaining, I finally asked for a sidebar! I was in a fury. I told the judge outside the presence of the jury, 'Your honor, you are not letting me to cross-examine this officer and impeach his credibility. You are denying my client a fair trial!' I laid out for the record the areas where I was trying to go into and the judge was not letting me... When I repeated, 'I want to cross-examine this guy...' several times, the judge finally gave up on me and said, 'Do it!' It was hilarious. We went back and I finished the cross-examination... But I will never forget that moment. I simply did not expect him to say that! I thought he was going to say, 'Counsel you are going into improper areas. Under 352 I am going to limit your cross-examination.'

It is definitely a battle you have to win in order to have a chance at winning the war! I have to say, it is not magic, yet it does entail a certain amount of 'magic.' Sometimes I myself don't believe what I accomplish! I go home and think, 'How did I do it?' I really can't explain... Probably it is a combination of preparation, passion, persistence... When you do it right and when you succeed, it is the most thrilling experience an attorney can live for!

Harmony and Dissonance

2011-02-17T09:49:00.000-08:00

Probably the most important conference of the year is the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, coming up shortly here. This year it is titled 'Harmony and Dissonance in International Law.' The title speaks volumes and forces to think, propound, explore... It has long become apparent that the traditional boundaries of international law have dissipated. It no longer means what it meant some 40-50 years ago and even two decades ago. Beginning from approximately 1990, the collapse of the Soviet Union or the Soviet bloc, the age of Internet, and marching trends of globalization, the international law has had a major metamorphosis. It no longer concerns only 'relations among nation state actors'. There is no longer a private versus public dichotomy. Significantly, non-state actors or quasi-non-state-actors (those who are in consort with the nation-state, but not acting under its auspices or under its direct control) have become a pivotal force in making and remaking international law. Separately, the erosion of real 'borders' between nation-states has brought forth an expanding field of transnational law. Nation-states have had to grapple with numerous challenges involving crime across borders.

The ASIL Annual Meeting focuses on a paradoxic simultaneous development of 'segmentation and seamlessness' in international law. The two parallel trends, in direct clash with each other, raise the obvious conclusion of harmony and dissonance in international law. It could not be otherwise. This is indeed a 'natural and probable' consequence of today's global reality that has also affected the making of international law. 'Segmentation' has been a direct result of globalization and 'democratization' of international institutions. The more globalized the world, the more players have the opportunity to roll the dice in the world arena. The more voices heard, the more dissonance. Cultural differences despite the strong 'harmonization' of values and beliefs have their inevitable effect on this process.

This obviously creates problems for resolution of international disputes, wars, disagreements. Therefore, in reaction to this 'segmentation' there has been an opposite push towards 'seamlessness.' There is a need to find a common pathway, an operating principle, and reach some degree of consensus. No one really wants insecurity, indefinite crisis, or stalemate. Moreover, the global economy, fragile and dependent on various indicators, is in constant need for harmonization of rules, policies, laws. 'Seamlessness' is the desire to 'simplify', 'streamline', 'direct' a single coherent body of international rules binding on all, especially in the area of human rights. The 'new' and recently added players constantly challenge the way human rights are enforced. In their eyes, justice is not enforced properly because those in power are 'different' in their value system. So, it is really a need for 'harmonization' of competing interests.

These two trends feed upon each other. If there had not been so much dissonance, there would not have been that much need for harmonization. The stronger the one, the stronger the other. The international law therefore is bound to be shifting and mutating in this highly volatile mass. The chemical distribution of this mass will mark and demark the boundaries of the 21st century international law.

Scholars of international law should not forget that international law is a child of international politics. After all, world politics will define the ingredients of international rules and laws. Depending on how the power in the world is distributed, channelled and processed, international law will develop accordingly. Who will make up the U.N. Security Council? Who will decide the future of Palestine? Who will become the judges of the International Criminal Court? Who decides to prosecute international crimes against humanity? Who will decide whether a case is admissible before the European Court of Human Rights? These are all real issues that will determine the future of international law development. Real people are involved in this process. Real power lubricated by political considerations, national policies, and unwritten/unspoken practice and custom is thrown into this 'critical mass.'

In short, this is a fascinating amalgamation of numerous physical bodies, structures and designs. The world making up the 'international community', speaking both in harmony and dissonance, has to be highly prepared for the inherent challenge that this process breeds.

Closure of 2010 and New Year Resolutions....

2010-12-31T15:24:00.000-08:00

At the threshold of the New Year, there is a desire to sum up the closing year, make peace with it or 'cash the check' and look forward to the new... In search for spiritual harmony, emotional and mental tranquility and equilibrium, one wants to know why things happened the way they happened in the past, what one could have done to prevent the bad things, etc. Recently had a conversation with a wise homeless woman who was almost psychic and she told me, 'Don't make mistakes in life...' Of course, it depends what kind of mistakes... There are little mistakes and big ones... It is only the big ones that matter! Compare your mistakes with other people's and if you come to a conclusion that yours did not break anyone's life or hurt anyone, then your mistakes are innocent. Ultimately your mistakes hurt you the most and no one else...

When you look at the world and see the level of greed, anguish, hatred, evil and envy, you always have to step back and not forget to see the amount of love, happiness, joy and pleasure that there is. When you wonder, how some people get happy with possessing material goods, finding satisfaction of doing evil to others, you should never forget to see the others who are so selfless, kind, humane and spiritual... Where there is evil, there is also the good... Where there is misery, there is also happiness... All you have to do is to acknowledge the evil, try to avoid it if you are incapable of destroying it altogether, and surround yourself with those who spread the good...

People say, 'Don't seek Nirvana... Life will never be the way you want it...' But is there anything wrong with seeking mental tranquility, and emotional stability and avoiding things and people in life who deprive you of that? That is not an escape from reality or illusion! It is the only path towards happiness... Sure, life is full of uncontrollable twists and turns... You have to be a part of the environment and your society or community. But it is your ability to look above the daily trivia, the daily stress and see the big picture, the purpose in life, your true place in the world... You can and have to find true joy in your job, in connecting with other people, making friendships, helping others when you can and should, searching for avenues of relief and joy... One conversation with a stranger may give you more happiness than you could ever imagine! One evening with friends may add a drop of happiness in your cup of life... One dance may turn your head around and bring you an inch closer to your ultimate happiness... Don't avoid them, don't shrug them off... It is these moments in life that little by little fill you with basic joy...

The world is a peculiar place indeed... Immeasurable wealth coexists with unimaginable poverty... Unless you see it with your own eyes, you won't believe it! The best and most noble human deeds happen with the worst and most dehumanizing crimes and atrocities... You wonder, how humanity in general contradicts itself... Why?! Some questions simply don't have an answer... You can situate your mind of a philosopher in this paradigmatic conundrum and satisfy yourself with the fact that you can't answer all questions, solve all problems or control everything (anything)... But that is the thinker in you! The activist in you will get back to work, trying to make your own little or big contribution to the world... Ordinary people are capable of very extraordinary acts.. Helping one person in misery or trouble, giving dignity and pride to those who need it, will make the world a better place! Contribute to your community any way you can, you must! Sharing your fortune with those who are in need, in poverty is a big act of kindness... People love possessing... They think the more money they have, the better or more worthy they are... They find enjoyment in accumulation of wealth... But only few of them have the ability to disassociate their soul from the material goods and share their wealth and fortune with others... Only very few of them understand the true meaning in life and do not believe themselves better or worthier than others because of their fortunes...

Ultimately, 'Love is all we need...' If you need guidance of God to find and spread love, seek it! 'He' will hear you! Find your communication and contact with God, directly and personally, without having to resort to organized church or religion! Don't live only for yourself! Don't you see, life is bigger than you... Give without expecting to receive! Love without expecting to be loved... If you find yourself not treated well by others and if you feel that others don't love you enough, remember, angels are here only temporarily... We are all guests here and we have to make the best of it!

Happy New Year!

Recent publications

2010-10-04T17:27:00.000-07:00

Came across a very interesting book worth to read with a provocative title "International Law For Humankind." http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=210&pid=41426
Haven't read the book yet, but have to say I know exactly what it is centered on: the need to recognize the 'new' international law. As soon as the Internet appeared in peoples' lives and fastforwarded the globalization, the world was never going to be the same. International law as it was perceived in the 20th century also was bound to change. Increasingly the international law, no matter how people around the world understand it, is going through a restructuring. Since the law generally is a product of the society shaping it, international law was going to be shaped by the 'international community.' As spread out, large and diverse as that 'community' is, it is interconnected by very strong ties glued together by the age of information. So, in some sense the Internet fostered a new stronger 'international law'. Most people unquestionably will have exposure to it one way or the other. On the other hand, because of the Internet there are more voices heard out there in the 'international community', that have the power and ability to shape that same international law. No longer is the international law a product of the industrialized world, Western civilization... Individuals from once marginalized countries and states now have a lot of say on what is going to be the 'international law' of the century. Because individuals from various cultures and countries may not always agree on many things, the globalization may 'weaken' the concept of international law. International law was always based on the aspirational postulate of 'universality', or in some sense, 'e pluribus unum'... The more the players, the harder for it to maintain its functions in a coordinated manner. It remains to be seen, how the fact that so many 'players' from such diverse corners of the world have come to the table, will ultimately shape the future of international law. Turning more 'democratic' and 'open', it does not necessarily become stronger. As we know, all democracies generally are more fragile than monarchies or oligarchies... Yet, if only a few 'chosen' continued the monopoly over the 'international law', that would subvert the very purpose of its existence.

I would recommend to read this book and think more about what is awaiting in the future for 'international law'.

Children growing up in prison...

2010-04-29T16:00:00.000-07:00

Read a heartbreaking story and watch a video here on how women in Kabul, Afghanistan, charged and/or convicted of 'crimes' have to bring their children along with them to prison. With no one else to care for them, these children end up growing up literally in the prison while their mothers are either waiting for their case to be resolved, or are serving their times... What a psychological trauma at such age... Can children grow up healthy in this environment?! Some of the crimes that their mothers are charged with and convicted are simply ridiculous... and to drag along these kids with them is a total human rights disaster.

Hunger and Africa

2010-04-28T17:20:00.000-07:00

Niger is struck really badly with a severe food crisis. A mother says, 'I seldom have one meal a day: my breakfast. I have a daughter who attends school; she can't eat every day. My husband has gone to Nigeria to fetch food.' For a full story. For those who know more about the African continent, this story sounds very familiar (very sadly). But this is something that has to be taken care of by the international organizations because the local governments are poorly equipped and lack resources to take appropriate measures. This is where international humanitarian relief is at most demand! It is very interesting to learn more about the availability of funding to these organizations. As the world is in financial crisis, the funding of these organizations is de minimus. The most direct victims are these children, who don't have food to eat...
(photo credit, see link above).

Olympic games musings?

2010-02-20T10:57:00.000-08:00

They always say, sports and arts are above politics... Really, artists and athletes, if they are true to their calling, never ask, 'Where are you from?' It is true, at Olympics and other World Competitions in sports, each athlete represents a country. Hence, we have the flag next to their names. And then when they get gold or silver, their country's anthem plays... But it is the politicians and leaders of countries that use sports to bolster their nationalism and pride in themselves as a country! When athletes go home with gold, they get to meet with president and get a medal of honor. Those who don't get a medal, get rebuked by the media... So, unfortunately, there is all the pressure on the athletes to succumb to the political mood and forget that sports does not recognize national boundaries. This is also true of art. That is the reason despite much antagonism against the Soviet Union during the Cold War, no one really questioned the strength of Soviet athletes in some areas. Movies from Hollywood are watched all over the world, even in those countries where there is anti-Americanism, including Iran...

That is why, the Olympics in the Soviet Union were boycotted by the United States in 1980. At that time, I was a mere 2 year old, growing up in the Soviet Union, and to me, the world was much bigger and fairer than it is today... I was still gazing at the world with innocent eyes and could not see all the dirt, corruption of the Soviet Union... I did not even really understand much, nor was I of real consciousness of what was going on. But I vividly remember the bear that was sent up to the air at the end of the closing ceremony... With that bear went a lot of hopes for a better future for the world...

Unfortunately, today the world is not doing any better than during the Cold War... In fact, I have to say, it is doing worse and is more unstable and violent... Enemies are being created, fought against, defeated (or not defeated). But the world as a whole is not doing any better. It is a cycle. Perhaps, this is a self-destructive pernicious cycle, where no one really understands where is the evil, and where is the good. By some mischance, the evil turns into good, and the good suddenly turns into evil. It is never black and white... The good may often do evil deeds. It is a kaleidoscope of changing colors, shifting pretty quickly and unnoticeably... Thus, the United States has had a pretty steep moral decline since the 9/11. Now, it is turning into a highly demoralized country...

Instead of changing in response to the demands of globalization, it is continuing to look inward. People are really not willing to change either their lifestyles or their mindset. One of the effects of globalization was that one country could no longer be 'an island of prosperity' in the ocean of poverty. Globalization has dragged the United States down along with the rest of the world. Now the challenge for the United States is to find a way to cope with this, change certain attitudes, lifestyles. Instead Americans are blaming the Chinese or the immigrants for their economic crisis. Then they seek comfort in the idea of local protectionism: 'Why are you shipping jobs overseas? Why aren't you making things in the USA?' etc. But local protectionism is the last thing that will help America. What will help is to regulate Corporate America that has accumulated so much wealth for the very few at the expense of hard labor by many. What will help is to clear out the corruption and nepotism of various governmental agencies. What will help is to consider how other nations have taken care of similar problems and not view international law as something 'foreign' and un-American. What will help is to stop this constant venomous political struggle and bickering between two 'clubs', Republicans and Democrats over everything, but nothing. What will help is to get more strict and serious with civil rights and human rights enforcement. Discrimination of minorities on various bases and chauvinism have become so commonplace that people are getting amazingly used to it. Nepotism has taken over. People nowadays get jobs, get promoted, and stay on jobs not because of merit and qualifications, but connections. How can a country do well and prosper when qualified and bright individuals get swept away by well-connected retards.

How can a country do well and prosper when it is in denial of the demands of the world as a whole and continues the same attitude, same lifestyle, same old... 'Same old' is the slogan of the day... The potential of America is slumbering in the deepest crust of the earth and is not extricated... Instead it is further driven into the core. My only hope is in the new generation, who will rebel against the old and will build a new America... Since I am part of this generation, I will have my own contribution. But there are a lot of challenges because the old is not letting go of the old ways...

There were hopes to start the building of a new America by electing President Obama. But one thing he always said, 'I can't change the world, unless you are willing to change it...' Please, remember these words by a wise man. Don't expect him to do the impossible, when you are not willing to do even the possible!

Courtroom and real world facts...

2010-01-10T10:17:00.000-08:00

The concept of 'reasonable suspicion' in the Fourth Amendment analysis has been difficult to apply in concrete cases... But the Ninth Circuit has said it pretty well:

"

Reasonable suspicion must be founded upon a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity. For this reason we must not accept what has come to appear to be a prefabricated or recycled profile of suspicious behavior very likely to sweep many ordinary citizens into a generality of suspicious appearance merely on a hunch. This is required by the fourth amendment. The opinions of this court have put the nomenclature of reasonable suspicion into the public domain. We must not allow ourselves to be seduced by the reassuring familiarity of its echo."

U.S v. Rodriguez, 976 F.2d 592.

The question is when the irrational hunch-- not a legal basis for the stop, metamorphoses into the legal basis, 'reasonable suspicion.' In other words, how trained officers in their minds create and articulate the suspicion that in the eyes of pro-law enforcement judges is 'reasonable' indeed. Unfortunately, the officers' training makes them suspicious of just about everyone and everything. But is that reasonable? Sometimes, I wonder, how different can be my views of 'reasonableness' from those of judges and prosecutors... Often I wonder and ask myself, 'Why don't they see it the way I see it?' 'Maybe my view is unreasonable?' I leave the courtroom after my motion to suppress is denied with a great puzzle and concern in my mind... It is altogether mind-boggling.

Is 'reasonable suspision' a chameleon that changes its colors or is it simply in the eye of the beholder?
Who is going to decide whether the suspicion was reasonable?! The trial court judge and his findings of fact will be given heavy weight.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that it will review questons of reasonable suspicion' de novo. Ornelas v. U.S. 517 U.S. 690. But interestingly in the opinion written by Justice Rehnquist, the Court heavily deferred to the wisdom of the lower judges, raising a pointed rebuke by Justice Scalia in another case, who said, "I do not see how deferring to the District Court's factual inferences is compatible with de novo review... we have here a peculiar sort of de novo review." U.S. v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266.
This strange type of review begs another question. Since finding of 'reasonable suspicion' depends on the facts of each case and is highly fact-sensitive, is the standard of review going to make a difference? After all, the facts drive the case. So, we are back to the square one. The trial judges will have almost absolute discretion over motions to suppress. They control what facts come into the courtroom. They have discretion to rule over admissibility of questions, what evidence should come in at the hearing... Many times I have lost motions to suppress because the issue I was driving at was precluded from being developed... 'Objection...'. 'Sustained.' 'But, Your Honor....' 'Sustained! Counsel, move on to the next issue.' 'Can I make the record?' 'No, move on.' The end of the hearing. Motion Denied.

So, often there is a wide gap between the real world and the courtroom... It becomes so bad that the entire process really turns into a circus with artificially created figures... As a trial lawyer you have two options, either leave the courtroom in utter disappointment, or like a magician try to manipulate it... It entails a lot of acting, just like in Hollywood.

Jewels of history...

2009-12-05T10:39:00.000-08:00

Check out the recent publication by my own distinguished professor of History at UCLA, Scholar of the Month on this blog, Prof. Joan Waugh on Ulysses S. Grant. Like all the deeply memorable lectures of Professor Waugh that I still remember years past and all her scholarship, surely, this book will illuminate much for you about the U.S. Civil War and the American hero... I am sure, it will righteously join the jewels of history... I can't wait to read this book for the holidays... Congratulations to Professor Waugh!

Thanksgiving at 80 degrees? Santa Claus in swimwear?

2009-11-26T12:18:00.000-08:00

It is 80 degrees in Los Angeles. How do you suppose you can have a holiday mood? It is eternal summer in Los Angeles. Bizarre, bizarre and utterly disturbing. Talk about climate change and global warming! Hmmm... It was not long ago when scientists and environmentalists-- oh, 'those environmentalists' -- warned us of this disaster... Only now it is becoming so urgent and so quite fearful that China is vowing to reduce its emissions... We are talking about China, a country that is half industrialized, whose population groth is stunning and resources for workable environmental protection amounting to almost zero... See the story. What about the industrialized countries beginning with the United States? What steps have they taken in this direction? These are the countries who in fact do have the resources to protect the environment.

Next month in Copenhagen the UN will hold its summit on climate change. Visit here.
Representatives of different countries will come and pay lip service again to the issues confronting the world. But nobody really takes the important steps and sacrifices in that direction. For example, why is it that in the United States we still do not have enough production of low emission or zero-emission vehicles? Hybrids that are available out there are more expensive than the traditional cars. Why is it that the government is not 'forcing' the manufacturers in the United States to increase production and make these cars affordable to the population. Moreover, why not also focus on the safety of these cars? The insurance rates for these cars are higher than those of traditional cars because of the high-fatality rate and the growing perception that these vehicles are not safe. Well, it is common sense, that if you are driving in the smallest car out there on the freeway, you are possibly more vulnerable if hit by a large SUV or a truck... But why is it that people in the United States are so attached to the concept of an SUV? Can we also make separate freeways for trucks, buses and passenger cars? Also, please, why are Amtrak and Metrolink falling apart, do not have good routes and are so non-appealing?! I am not even talking about public buses!

So, the story is the same and not changing. Meanwhile, we have 80 degrees in Los Angeles. In Moscow, Russia it is raining, while this is the time when traditionally it snows there. As far as the connection between the emissions and global warming, it has already been accepted and documented... Do the research.

I guess, for the forthcoming generations the Thanksgiving and Christmas will not necessarily be associated with snow or 'cold weather.' We may have Santa Claus on the beach in swimwear...

Fighting for peace without going to war...

2009-11-11T19:03:00.000-08:00

Following the thought-provoking post on IntLawGrrls here it seems there is no solution to the issues with regard to the war in Afghanistan. But history is the lighthouse for the future. See my post here earlier. First, there are no clear goals for the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. Besides the amorphous 'war on terror' and less amorphous struggle against the Taliban, the goals are not clear. What do we seek to establish there? Are we there to eradicate the Taliban? Or are we there to minimize their presence? Are we there to catch Osama bin Laden? Or perhaps just to make a show of our presence, as a reminder that the United States will not give in to the terrorists. When the Soviet Union entered Afghanistan many years ago, it did not have clear-cut goals and history is very instructive on that issue. It was there for a long time, trying to fight the same extremists plaguing the region now. But the Soviet Union paid a dear and heavy price for entering Afghanistan. While, indubitably, there are differences between the Soviet Union and today's United States, the war in Iraq was pretty instructive for the latter and repeating the mistakes not only of other countries but one's own, is simply unacceptable.

Second, even if we come to a point of setting clear goals for the war, and if we cross that threshold, there is another problem: are we realistically expecting to achieve those goals? On this issue, there are several obstacles: 1) financing for the war in this dilapidated economy and domestic crisis that the United States is facing, 2) lack of support from allies-- as far as I can see, no one besides the United States is really interested in sending major troops to Afghanistan, 3) the strong counter-arguments for non-intervention in light of the strong opposition to the American intervention in the Middle East overall.

People say that non-intervention is just as bad as adding more troops at the current time. True, the United States has set long-term commitments towards the global war on terror, has expressed its strong willingness and devotion to fighting terror of every shape, form and presence. Moreover, after Iraq the United States has set up on a journey to clear its public image and prove to the world that it takes its role as a world leader responsibly. Leaving a country prey to the terrorists whose goal is to kill women and children, terrorize innocent people and instill fear in the general population would not go well with the world image of the United States. Isolationism and non-intervention in this age of globalized world and interests would be as costly to the United States as a war that is turning sour. But can the United States shoulder this burden on its own without major support from the rest of the world?! I doubt it. We no longer have the resources after Iraq.

At this point the United States has come to the crossroads-- a major one, with respect to the war in Afghanistan and other geopolitical interests in the Middle East. There is a saying, 'damned if you do it, damned if you don't'. Is continuing this vague war against terror possible? Is Afghanistan going to be yet another Iraq for the United States or worse, will the ghost of Vietnam come back and disturb it again and again? But how can the United States hope to affect the world and try to achieve peace in the Middle East, by leaving the struggle against those who do not want peace... It is clear that the Marshall plan that was the great success in Europe may not be the future reality in the Middle East. There are too many cultural, political, religious variables in place now, absent from the political landscape in Europe post-World War II. America at the time was a country largely made up of descendants of Europeans. How hard was it to institute a Marshall plan in Europe by Americans? There was absolutely no opposition to the United States presence in Europe, at least in the West, whereas the very image of the United States and the accompanying American lifestyle is strongly opposed by many in the Middle East. In addition, the whole world had arisen to fight Nazism, fascism symbolized by Hitler. Today, I can't say the same about the war on terror. Many countries are still paying lipservice to the war on terror because it is not affecting them. Of course, the causes of the terror is a subject for another post.

History does not always provide the answers because one can't expect the world to be the same in different ages. But history may prepare the humanity in facing the challenges and solving them as they come, one at a time. The goal though should always be the same: peace to the world at all costs.

Napoleon used to say, 'I waged war to secure peace.' Can the United States fight for peace without going to war? That is the question.

Passage of time and human progress

2009-10-23T14:46:00.000-07:00

Look to this day for it is life, the very life of life... For yesterday is already a dream and tomorrow is only a vision. But today, well lived, makes yesterday a dream of happiness and every tomorrow a dream of hope.
[Sanskrit proverb]

Time has no divisions to mark its passage, there is never a thunderstorm or blare of trumpets to announce the beginning of a new month or year. Even when a new century begins, it is only we mortals who ring bells and fire off pistols.
[Thomas Mann]

We, humans, only live in yesterday or tomorrow. But while we dwell on the past and imagine the future, 'today' is slipping through our fingers like the dry sand. But perhaps yesterday, today and tomorrow are a single continuum... Did 'yesterday' even happen? Or was it a figment of my imagination, an individual desperately trying to project herself onto this world... But if you walk on snow and your footprints show up, with spring the snow will melt, your footprints will disappear entirely. Similarly, your wet prints on the beach will disappear with each new wave of the ocean... So, you as an individual may try so very desperately to leave some footprints on the surface of the world. Yet it may very well be in vain. Are you in control of it at all? Your existential, egotistic and self-centered effort to make things happen the way you want them to happen is futile and ridiculous. Yet throughout history it was ordinary human beings that were able to do exactly that-- they did leave their long-lasting footprints... In fact, their footprints were cast in stone. It is a fine line separating mortals from immortals, heroes from the rest... But it takes something more than egotistic existence that most humans are engaged in. It also depends on the age you live in... Some ages cannot tolerate heroes and in fact annihilate them so very quickly.

The question though is this, how do you live in 'today' as it is given to you, without trying to control it, without running away from it into the past, or shielding from it with the thought about tomorrow... If the clock is running with or without you, whether you like it or not, can you go along with the clock and surrender to the 'present' fully and unconditionally... Can you?!

'Everlasting'

Voice from the trenches...

2009-10-17T16:29:00.000-07:00

Took a minute to put out my voice from the trenches... As a defense attorney either in trial or at threshold to trial, I consider myself a foot soldier at war with the criminal justice system. What is the story of the trial lawyer? A psychodrama, a journey, self-revelation, and constant initiation, re-initiation into the inner workings of the criminal justice system... What do others, who do not go through this process, know?! What do they know... Only those in the shoes of the soldier know exactly what it feels like there, in the army... When you are seated next to a human being, who has put his trust, his hopes in you... who understands you with a simple eye contact... A person who has nobody else to like him in the entire system, but you... Someone who is unpopular, who is distrusted, disliked, feared and considered a 'criminal'. When you are seated next to this person who has relied on you, and how your heart sinks at every piece of inadmissible evidence introduced to the jury over your objection, every piece of undiscovered material introduced over your objection, when you are denied a sidebar, not allowed to voice your objections, and succumbed into submission to 'complete and absolute' authority of court that is impermissibly prejudiced and biased against your client... How your face turns red and you are on the verge of fury and a heart attack when you are not allowed to ask a single queston to the jury during jury selection or 'de-selection'. When you are threatened with contempt of court if you start doing effective representation on behalf of your client... This is the process that is not to be described, or written, but to be lived through day in and day out... It takes someone to 'stand up and fight' as a soldier. This is not about intellectual discussions over a cup of coffee, or writing volumes of books about how to be a trial lawyer. This is simply being in the army. Only those who have gone there and have been as foot soldiers know exactly how it is. It is a war where you may win the battle but lose the war because if you win one trial, you are back to square one, and fight for another, and another, and another, endlessly, till the end. There is really no winning at this war, but only fighting for what it is worth... The criminal justice system will never change its institutional law enforcement bias, prejudice against the criminal defendant and custom to wash away, dilute, mischaracterize, misinterpret the rights afforded the accused...

Many people do not understand the role of the defense attorney... We are not defending the 'criminals'. We are there to secure the rights and liberties afforded by laws to the entire, yes, entire, society... If some in this society choose not to exercise them, or decide to take them lightly, disregard them or worse, deprive others of them, that does not mean that we will put down our weapons and cease fighting for those rights!

And if those who get the opportunity and power to use criminal laws to subjugate, oppress, destabilize and disable minorities and those without voice-- those at the lower economic rungs of the society-- they will have to account for constant struggle by us! I do not walk alone. I have followed many and in time others will join me...
You are in the army now!

Law double-edged sword...

2009-09-11T10:26:00.001-07:00

There are times when I get the need to escape from the everyday parade, uproar and tumult and really think about what is happening around me. These are times when I step back into silent contemplation and musing, complete seclusion. I just thought, how little and powerless we are as individuals against the machinery that is driving the world. The so-called 'law' that we lawyers have learned to revere and analyze, is in fact a double-edged sword. Yes, it can empower the weak, the oppressed, those without power... But increasingly and devastatingly, it is a tool in the hands of the powerful against very those it was designed to protect... It is a tool to disempower, disenfranchise, destroy the will of ordinary people. Injustice through legal channels and under the guise of the law is commonplace. The Bill of Rights is in the gutter. I speak to older lawyers who tell me, 'We won't be a free society in fifty more years.' Someone in fact said, 'Are we a free society today?!' Those in power have the upper hand over the U.S. Constitution, its interpretation, its application, its very existence. The liberal institutions upon which this country has been built and has survived, now are cast into permanent oblivion. Because of economic crisis, people only care about the daily sustenance, not the rights they once enjoyed... But they do not realize that economic-social rights are part of their rights they have lost. Corruption, impunity, complete lack of accountability are commonplace. Police harrassing, intimidating, threatening and beating up people in the streets. No one seems to care. No one seems to talk about these things. You have no right to privacy, no right to speak your mind, no right to walk in the streets freely and fearlessly... The monster is driving the world... and there is no end to be seen.

The law is being used very wittingly and cunningly by those in power against the very those it was designed to protect.

President Obama is trying hard to work with those who do not share his values. Meanwhile, his own values-- values that earned him his popularity and victory-- are dissolving. He is not standing by his promises to unravel the damage brought upon this country by the monster... The promise was exactly that: to uphold the values he was espousing but is now slowly eschewing... Did American progressivism die with Ted Kennedy?! That is the question.

Well said...

2009-08-29T08:59:00.000-07:00

The right to walk the streets, or to meet publicly with one’s friends for a noble purpose or for no purpose at all—and to do so whenever one pleases—is an integral component of life in a free and ordered society… This right is rooted in the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of expression and association, as well as… the Fifth Amendment’s protection of fundamental liberty interests under the doctrine of substantive due process.

Waters v. Barry (D.D.C.1989) 711 F. Supp. 1125.

The city is free to prevent people from blocking sidewalks, obstructing traffic, littering streets, committing assaults, or engaging in countless other forms of antisocial conduct... The First and Fourteenth Amendments do not permit a State to make criminal the exercise of the right to assembly because its exercise may be 'annoying' to some people. If this were not the rule, the right of the people to gather in public places for social or political purposes would be continually subject to summary suspension through the good-faith enforcement of a prohibition against annoying conduct. And such a prohibition, in addition, contains an obvious invitation to discriminatory enforcement against those whose association together is 'annoying' because their ideas, their lifestyle, or their physical appearance is resented by the majority of the fellow citizens.

Coates v. City of Cincinnati (1971) 402 U.S. 611.

[Those who] can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority.

James Madison

Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation.
James Madison

First Amendment rights, continued

2009-08-14T09:18:00.000-07:00

Justice Brennan (Roberts v. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609):

Our decisions have referred to constitutionally protected "freedom of association" in two distinct senses. In one line of decisions, the Court has concluded that choices to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships must be secured against undue intrusion by the State because of the role of such relationships in safeguarding the individual freedom that is central to our constitutional scheme. In this respect, freedom of association receives protection as a fundamental element of personal liberty (italics mine). In another set of decisions, the Court has recognized the right to associate for the purpose of engaging in those activities protected by the First Amendment-- speech, assembly, petition for the redress of grievances, and the exercise of religion. The Constitution guarantees freedom of association of this kind as an indispensable means of preserving other individual liberties (italics mine).

The intrinsic and instrumental features of constitutionally protected association may, of course, coincide.

This distinction is much forgotten in constitutional analysis today. It is because the so-called instrumental features are tied to much recognized rights enunciated in the letter of the First Amendment itself. But I think, the intrinsic and fundamental right to freedom of association is of much substantive and deeper value...

First Amendment rights and criminal defendant

2009-08-02T09:48:00.000-07:00

I was appointed to handle several cases involving charges of alleged violation of a court order. In these cases the superior court issued a permanent injunction against a specific gang and its members, ordering it to refrain from certain activities within a specific circumscribed zone in Los Angeles. Under the umbrella of abating a public nuisance-- gang's activities constituting a substantial nuisance to the public [sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedes: one must so use his rights as not to infringe on the rights of others]-- the court ordered among other things the following:

1. Defendant [name of the gang], its members, agents, servants, employees, and all persons acting under, in concert with, for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with them or any of them, are enjoined and restrained from engaging in or performing directly or indirectly, any of the following activities in the
Safety Zone:
a. Do Not Associate: Driving, standing, sitting, walking, gathering or appearing, anywhere in public view or any place accessible to the public, with any known member of the gang, but not including: 1) when all individuals are inside a school attending class or on school business, 2) when all individuals are inside a church, and 3) when all individuals are inside a vehicle in transit on the 10 Freeway; provided however that this prohibition against associating shall apply to all claims of travel to or from any of those locations.

Most of my clients charged with violation of this court order were arrested for this provision, allegedly walking in the Safety Zone with allegedly known gang members. Moreover, they were also served with this injunction at some point in time in the streets as part of the enforcement of this order.

Immediate questions that arise for the concerned are the following: 1) whether this injunction on its face is constitutional and 2) whether as it is applied to my clients on the facts of each case is constitutional.

1) Is this a facially constitutional order?
The California Supreme Court has held in People v. Acuna, et al. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090 with respect to another similar gang injunction that a) gang activity constitutes a public nuisance as it is defined by legislature b) gang conduct is not protected by the First Amendment c) overbreadth and vagueness challenges are determined in the context of the prohibited activity.

A very badly written case with poor reasoning. The entire case is driven by the evidence of what are the horrors of gang activity in a neighborhood. As a general proposition most would agree that criminal activity in gross violation of other people's human rights is not protected by the First Amendment. But that is a serious generality. The more important and thoughful task is to look at the order on its face and ask, 'Does this order hypothetically infringe upon someone's Constitutional rights?' Sure it does. It is overbroad because it may be applied to those who are not engaged in gang activity and it may infringe upon someone's right to peaceful assembly and freedom of speech. Remember, the First Amendment protects not only speech/words, but also expressive and associational activity. It is also vague because an individual would have to take Herculean efforts to decipher what is allowed and what is prohibited. Where is the Safety Zone? How knowledge of gang membership is imputed to an individual? Walking in the neighborhood where one lives entails associating with neighbors, saying hello and gathering for an evening retreat and passtime.

An important problem with this decision is the following. Basically it implies that a criminal defendant should not be protected by the First Amendment. If gang activity is a criminal offense then gang membership does not and should not receive First Amendment protection. But that goes against the very fundamentals of our U.S. Constitution. The accused enjoys all of the rights that others enjoy, because 1) he is innocent until proven guilty, 2) often a crime in the eyes of the legislature is civil disobedience in the eyes of another. That is the reason that enemy combatants at Guantanamo should have had the protection of the First Amendment. Unless speech gets to the level of fighting words or incites imminent lawless action by its very utterance, it is protected by the First Amendment. Even there the jurisprudence should be revisited.

In this case, a blanket statement that gangs do not get the protections of the First Amendment is so much against the substance of the U.S. Constitution that it really horrifies one. Someone who is in a gang does not have the right to peacefully assemble with his neighbors for expressive activity? That is basically what the case does. Upholding the constitutionality of this injunction has that effect. Obviously, a gang member robbing, burglarizing, murdering or selling drugs is not involved in protected First Amendment activity. But this injunction has a different goal. It is preventative and goes out of its way to enjoin any sort of activity by known gang members. But in that effort, it infringes upon serious constitutionally-protected activity, not only of known gang members but also of others who are not in this gang.

2) Related question is whether it is unconstitutional as applied to my clients. Answering the first question above helps to answer the second. But it is important to note the dangers of injunctions. As it was noted in Madsen v. Women's Health Center, 512 U.S. 753 by the U.S. Supreme Court:
"Injunctions... are remedies imposed for violations (or threatened violations) of a legislative or judicial decree. Injunctions also carry greater risks of censorship and discriminatory application than do general ordinances."

In that case, the Court used intermediate level of scrutiny to uphold parts and strike some parts of an injunction prohibiting activity of anti-abortion protesters around an abortion clinic. The Court said that using the lower level of scrutiny (time,place,manner regulations to be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest) was not going to be appropriate for an injunction in light of the constituent dangers. The court instead said, "when evaluating a content-neutral injunction, we think that our standard time, place, manner analysis is not sufficiently rigorous. We must ask instead whether the challenged provisions of the injunction burden no more speech than necessary to serve a significant government interest." 512 U.S. 753.

But this was a case where under constitutional analysis it was admitted that 1) the government was regulating not the content of the speech but conduct 2) as a result of regulation of conduct protected speech was also curcimscribed. The threshold question is always whether the activity is protected by the First Amendment. In the Madsen it was.

In Acuna, the California Supreme Court has decided that gang association in public has no protected First Amendment ingredients in the first place. That is the fundamental problem that I see with these injunctions and how they are applied. Depriving the gang member of the First Amendment protection without a specific case-by-case analysis is simply unacceptable to me. What if the gang member is gathering with his associates and says 'Fuck the police', 'let us burn the flag', 'let us go to the City Hall and sit on the stairs' etc. etc. etc. What if their activity falls short of any 'criminal' action against either the public or police. It is simply expressive in nature. That is definitely and absolutely protected by the First Amendment.

As far as the application to several of my clients: this injunction gives absolute discretion to the gang unit of the LAPD in deciding who is subject to it, who should be served with it, and who is in violation of it. My clients have been arrested for innocuous behavior that cannot even come close to criminal activity. For example, driving to El Polo Loco eat, or walking home with friends after a basketball game, or having a ride home with a friend.

The injunction permits the police to arrest anyone who is associating with known to police gang members. Its wording does not even contemplate any sort of criminal behavior.

My question is this: does the societal interest in abating gang activity/nuisance on balance warrant such flagrant violation of one's Constitutional liberties?! Isn't this a slippery slope leading us towards the 'police state' and diminution/dissolution of the U.S. Constitution to prerogatives of the law enforcement?!

Not enough said!

2009-07-24T15:44:00.001-07:00

Prof. Gates' arrest did not come as a huge surprise to me (unfortunately)... 99% of my clients (criminal defendants) are either black or Hispanic. I know very well how so many white police officers treat my clients out in the streets. But somehow Obama's disappointed remark about how 'stupid' the police were, raised furor, forcing him to explain his comment away... One more example of how racially divided our country is... Is racial profiling just an expression or reality?! I am quite upset that they even dare to force Obama to take back what he says when he does not even say enough, in light of his own race and political posture... As much as he tries to unify this country-- an awesome and courageous promise-- I doubt if some people even appreciate it or want to embrace. Believe me, they are intransigent.. It is a wall that you can break yourself on before trying to break it.

As a side note, this incident also shows how fragile and insecure is Obama's position at this time. Did Bush ever have to explain away his comments, as stupid and outrageous as they were, or even apologize for anything? Why would Obama, the first African-American President, be treated differently?!

For more

Click here for the story

Eternal antagonists?

2009-07-19T09:10:00.000-07:00

President Obama, in his recent trip to Russia, had some interesting and straightforward statements with respect to U.S.-Russia relations... (here) It is kind of interesting when he called Russia not to view America as an enemy. It would be very appreciated if he said the same here to Americans-- to stop viewing Russia as an enemy. It must be reciprocal, don't you think? If Russia takes a step forward, but does not receive the same treatment from America, how long can the 'goodwill' last? Instead Russia is constanty demonized in Georgia, Ukraine, neighboring countries. Would America tolerate Russia's presence and influence, for example, in Mexico, or Latin America. In fact, remember, when Russia tried to get to Cuba, we had the world on the verge of nuclear war (Cuban missile crisis), because America did not tolerate any type of Russian influence in Western Hemisphere.

True, Russia does not have the same democratic principles that the United States has had the fortune of harboring and developing.
Part of this is due to history, part of this is due to culture... But Putinism is not any worse than 'Bushism'... In the last 8 years the United States has suffered a grandiose setback and degradation as a democracy under Bush-Cheney 'organization'. I think, Bushism has been even worse than Putinism, because it is more tragic when a working democracy is set to demolition than when a fledgling one is retarded... Russia never had a democracy in the first place, at least the way we imagine democracy here. It jumped from Tsarism and monarchy to Communism, then went from Communism to China-style free market quasi-Communism, quasi-socialism, with some linings of fledgling democracy. So, criticism of Putin is really not taking into context the development of Russian history and country. But what Bush did to this entire democratic structure, was simply outrageous and people forget that...

Unfortunately, even if Bush and Cheney are gone, Bushism is still persistent and will constantly eat up the democratic vigor and strength of the United States... It does in fact contribute very heavily towards antagonistic relations between Russia and United States. Bushism was not born with Bush or Cheney, it has been there since mid-20th century in America (it only found its heightened expression under their 'rule').

I am a little bit disappointed with Obama who has not made any big change yet in U.S. foreign policy framework. He was the one who wrote in his book 'Audacity of Hope' that the United States is in great need for a completely new and fresh foreign policy design. Perhaps it takes time... Change does not come at once... I only hope that he can manage to set a basic footprint for it as President. I think, he will in light of the appointments he is making for foreign policy posts.

At this point though his speech in Russia was not very different from many speeches by many other American Presidents of the 20th century.

This antagonism affects me in a very personal way. A person who grew up imbued with Russian literature and cultural heritage, who learned to love some of it, I have also lived a bulk of my life in the Unites States, learning to value its high democratic principles, cultural diversity and freedoms... I have both Russia and the United States in my heart and have always wanted the two to peacefully co-exist in this world without constant agony and antagonism. Unfortunately, I have also been a victim of constant discrimination by some Americans who have mistreated me because of my Russian accent and connection to Russia, without even understanding how much I love and appreciate America... I was misunderstood, mistreated and constantly agonized... I always wondered, how could even the most liberal Americans have discriminated me?!

When the war broke out between Russia and Georgia last year, I was in Bakersfield and someone said to me, 'Your brother invaded Georgia'. My first impulse was complete retreat to this half-joke. Then I thought, I should have said, 'Who is my brother? Do you have any idea that Georgians are my brothers as much as Russians?' But when I get angry, I cannot formulate good responses to attacks.
Someone also said to me, 'You come from this culture of KGB and you think people are conspiring against you...' Another one said to me, 'The world is not against you.'

I have tried not to victimize myself-- I have been fortunate and successful in the United States-- yet I have personally seen the dark face of discrimination... I have pledged to fight it in all its forms and shapes, to the end!

Why California is insolvent?

2009-07-13T14:03:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I received an email on a listserve I am on, with the following attachment, titled 'Now you know why California is so close to insolvency':

Now you know why California is so close to insolvency.

1. 40% of all workers in L. A. County ( L. A. County has 10.2 million people)are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.

2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for il legal aliens.

3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.

4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal , whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.

7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.

8. Nearly 60%&nbs p;of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

9. 21 radio stations in L. A. Are Spanish speaking.

10. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish
(There are 10.2 million people in L. A. County )

(All 10 of the above are from the Los Angeles Times)

Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare. Over 70% of the United States ' annual population growth (and over 90% of California , Florida , and New York ) results from immigrati on. 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

We are a bunch of fools for letting this continue& nbsp;

HOW CAN YOU HELP ?

Send copies of this letter to at least two other people. 100 would be even better.

This is only one State...............

If this doesn't open your eyes nothing will !

My response to this was quick and pretty short from a blackberry:

This is complete nonsense. It is chauvinism. Scapegoating immigrants. What about figuring out how much of California resources have been used for Iraq and the level of state government corruption. How many high officials should have been indicted for pocketing taxpayers money. When it is bad times, it is easy to blame it on the weak and disadvantaged. The rate of immigration was the same during Clinton. At that time it seemed so many immigrants did not cause problems. All of a sudden when Bush screwed this country up, people remembered aliens. This is quite disturbing.

This was the quickest I could come up with, but I had a lot more to say against this openly anti-immigrant and racist 'article'. An attorney I was talking to the other day (with whom I won't be talking again), spoke to me about another attorney and in conversation said 'He is black but a good one.' I hardly believed my ears. I thought I did not hear him well. But that was what he said and I gasped for air. The implication was somehow that black attorneys are not as good as others, or perhaps black people cannot become good attorneys... I always hope and with Obama's election thought that perhaps racism, chauvinism, nationalism, and xenophobia are in decrease in our society. But all these things really first outrage me to compulsive anger. Then upon reflection I simply become bitter and skeptical. Watching those who came to pay a tribute to Michael Jackson at Staples Center and who later gave concerts in his honor, I cannot believe how deeply segregated still our society is.

Now, the attack against immigrants, especially illegal aliens. These are people living on the very margins of our society, partaking only of 1% of the benefits of this country. Do you expect them to contribute to this country more than we do? Of course, they are going to receive government aid (I doubt they even do because they do not have documents) to get basic sustenance: food and shelter. You and I, no one among the higher levels of this society, would live in the same conditions as these people live. They live in the poorest of poor ghetoes, barely making ends meet, barely getting food to survive for the next day. All they have is the hope that some day, one day they will have the chance to partake of the American dream in the land of opportunity, where they were forced to flee to escape famine, unemployment, political oppression, persecution, and violence. Most of them are from Mexico, and increasingly from other Latin American countries. I know these people very well and know countries they come from. These are my clients who are constantly getting into trouble with the law because of 1) racial profiling 2) culture, 3) lack of education 4) difficult living conditions... Poverty breeds crime and yes they are targets by law enforcement because they are confined to ghettoes where there is no escape.

These are people who are here for nothing more but humanitarian relief, escaping from corrupt governments, that do not and are not capable to take care of their people. If we claim to be a civilized nation, a nation that holds United Nations headquarters within its borders, a nation who claims moral superiority over the rest of the world by virtue of its leadership role as a world policeman, we should then also take up the burden of humanitarian relief, which entails giving food and shelter to these unfortunate human beings who by virtue of destiny found home here. We cannot shut our borders against 'foreigners' and those seeking simple humanitarian treatment, and also simultaneously claim world leadership. That is not a logical and intrinsically consistent proposition. Ultimately, it is self-serving and immoral.

Therefore, this whole anti-immigration sentiment is first of all, a progeny of racism in the United States and is second of all, xenophobia. It has to end or else the moral capabilities of the United States as a world leader will end as well!

News flash

2009-07-10T08:44:00.001-07:00

The European Court of Human Rights has decided that the case of Georgia v. Russia is admissible to be heard in that Court. Press release.

This was a very important step forward because the ECHR declares many applications inadmissible. Of course, this was only a threshold to cross and as the press release indicates, in no way pre-judges the merits of the case. But the Court basically disagreed with the Russian Government's arguments that these allegations were unsubstantiated.

I do not have in my hands the documents and materials submitted by the Georgian side, but when I heard the hearing in April (personally), my instincts said to me that the case could be found inadmissible. The Georgian side was not convincing at this hearing and the Russian side made some very compelling arguments.

Politics aside, it is going to be very interesting to see how legally the Court will decide this case on the merits. But before it even gets to the legal issues, there must be strong evidence presented by the Georgian side because their claims are pretty serious. International law and especially human rights law should not be held hostage to politics. That is the hope.

Stay tuned.

Green [R]evolution in Iran

2009-06-21T09:02:00.000-07:00

As I was watching the images captured by camera and listening to Amanpour's reflections on the recent elections on Iran, the idea came about of a Green Revolution and its parallel to the Orange Revolution in Ukraine... Similarities were pretty stark. Interestingly, while I felt this independently, I was not the only one. Other commentators had the same feeling and parallel visions... see here

It came as a big surprise to many in the West that Iran is not united, as it seemed from afar. But that is a mistake we have always made in our assumptions, miscalculations and fears. That was the mistake we made after the 9/11, viewing all Arabs united, all Islamists united: against the United States. The naivete of that view was to dissolve pretty quickly in the ensuing years. And now it is with Iran. Iran like many other Islamic countries is far from united. This division only now came to the surface with greater force. Obviously, the elections are a perfect opportunity to express disenchantment with Ahmadinejad's extremist policies, views and statements. But I really do not know if political commentators are correct that there is political maturity in Iran currently. While there is grassroots movement and some political culture geared towards democratic principles, the existence of violence suggests lack of maturity. Disobedience and protests that result in violence and shedding of blood that are not necessarily caused by the militia, but simply by people getting angry with each other, is not the modern democratic way as we envision it here. In the United States the last elections were pretty emotional and dramatic, but there was no blood shed and the whole atmosphere was not dangerous. Watching the images on the screen from Iran, my blood chilled in my veins: people yelling and screaming, walking with rocks, angry...

Is this because of the fear on part of Moussavi's supporters that there will be a violent crackdown by the government that has bestowed victory (fraudulently or otherwise) on Ahmadinejad? Is there any expectation that the government backed by Khomeini will endure this opposition? Will the opposition get more organised and more level-handed? It remains only to be seen. At this point there is a lot of support for Ahmadinejad. There was a lot of support in Ukraine for Yanukovich. But it is quite reassuring to see Muslim women walking in the streets, demanding rights, respect and opportunity to be heard! If nothing else, this development will prepare a stage for something else... The very fact that people dare to express their discontent and voice against the current government is quite a big step forward.

Democracy gets developed through stages, oftentimes unseen to the ordinary eye. It all begins from the bottom, in the mindsets of the people, and slowly stage by stage, step by step, it develops from theory into real practice... Obstacles to it make the urge stronger and greater... That is why, it occurred to me, that this movement in Iran is rather evolutionary, than revolutionary. On the surface, this change seems revolutionary. But fundamentally the process of democratic growth is never revolutionary and more slow and evolutionary. Think about it, how many years did it take for the United States to become what it is?

The Iranian government will not be able to contain these forces for long... Either it will have to adjust and finetune itself to these demands, or else it will collapse, just like the Soviet Union.

Somalia in rage

2009-06-18T09:00:00.000-07:00

The radical Islamists in trouble-ridden Somalia have undertaken to further agonize and terrorize more moderate religious groups. Beginning from heinous desecration of graves, they are now bombing mosques where the opposing groups are gathering for prayer. Violence has been the story of the day for already many years in Somalia, a country separated into many tribes, groups, and 'states', whose interests do not coincide. Unfortunately, most of these interests are not based on any rational thinking. Much of it is simply violence for the sake of violence. Many causes have been pointed out by scholars for this crisis: lack of centralized government, economic backwardness and poverty, secessionism, radical Islam. It seems, solutions have been identified and there have been some efforts made towards them. But there is no political will and/or political culture to sustain any progress towards these solutions. Stability in these types of countries unfortunately has been associated with dictatorship. For example, Somalia did much better under Siad Barre and Iraq was more stable under Saddam Hussein... Of course, 'better' is a very relative term. Peace under fear does not last long.

At least 13 people died in a shooting at a mosque on Wednesday. Today BBC reported that in another suicide car bomb attack Somalia's minister died along with at least 10 others. here

For a story

photo credit here

News flash

2009-05-31T19:18:00.000-07:00

One more example of how the Obama Administration is not any different from Bush's. The Administration has rejected the release of Chinese Uighurs, already cleared of charges but still detained at Guantanamo Bay, on the U.S. soil. Reminder, that these people are already cleared and are innocent of charges of plotting against the U.S. government. Yet, justice does not extend to aliens.

See here

Change is on the way?...

2009-05-17T10:27:00.000-07:00

Promises for fundamental change in the United States policies and practice, specifically from those of Bush Administration, filled our hearts and minds not long ago... Inspired and excited we went to the polls...

The wisdom of the saying "Do not promise if you cannot deliver," has come back to haunt. President Obama has reneged on his promise to uphold long-held principles of human rights and has refused even to call the Armenian genocide by its name. (see here)

Has also not stood firm in his pledge to close the Guantanamo. By the very fact that he is supporting military commissions, he is following deeply-flawed policies of Bush. (see here)

Does change come half-way?

Celebrating 20th Anniversary

2009-05-10T09:44:00.000-07:00

Yesterday we gathered at Glendale Hilton in celebration of the 20th Anniversary of the Armenian Bar Association. The association was founded in 1989 and has been a great vehicle for professional developement and enhancement of the Armenian bar.

It was nice to see how many non-Armenian members of the California bar also gathered with Armenians to celebrate this special event. The Hrant Dink Freedom Award was presented to Raffi K. Hovannisian, a great individual who has incessantly fought for freedom of Armenia and preservation of Armenian identity and heritage. He made an inspiring and soul-startling speech yesterday. "Freedom and fear are mutually exclusive. Speak the truth to power," were his words.

With a tumultous and tragic past, Armenians in America are not losing sight of the opportunities ahead, their deep responsibilities to the world and the Armenian community, and the great fortunes bestowed on them by the United States. They also are not losing hope that one day, some day, the truth will finally triumph and history will be reclaimed with respect to the Armenian genocide.

The past makes Armenians determined that they will not allow the same happen in the future. 'No more' and 'Enough is enough' have been the slogans behind the Armenian support and assistance for Nagorno Karabakh.

There come times in the history of nations when the fight is for life or death and survival is at issue. Armenians throughout their history constantly faced such moments but their survival, clenched with blood and in agony, inspired them to go on and prosper. Even today Armenians cling very closely to their identity fearful to lose it. Their grip has become tighter and tighter with each blow of history.

Perhaps the Armenian will to survive and commitment to truth will inspire other nations in the world to come together for peace and prosperity for all.

Arthur Meschian "All of it for you."

Can't step into the same river twice?...

2009-05-04T19:03:00.000-07:00

Some things always change... Certain aspects of you will always change. Years pass by and you look back and laugh at things... But some things never change and will last as long as you live.... Those certain things make up the deepest core of yourself. Only in vain you will try to change... Only in vain.

But in some things you should not try to change at all. You should be able to preserve your 'childish' and innocent ability to believe in dreams, fairy-tales and miracles. You should be able to remain loyal to yourself under all circumstances and not deny your identity... The worst thing in life is when people try to wear masks and pretend what they are not. Preserve your spontaneity, your originality and colors... Do not become like others or try to mold yourself to the society you live in. Even if you turn out to be a loner sometimes, that is better than self-deceipt and self-distortion. Change is a perennial attribute of life but try hard not to change your true identity in response to life.
And under all circumstances do not lose your ability to smile...

"The world is a mirror. Smile to it and it will smile back to you." [William Thackeray]

Lyubov pokhozhaya na son

Belii sneg

My memorable trip to the European Court of Human Rights: Georgia v. Russia

2009-04-27T08:06:00.001-07:00

"On March 26, 2007 Georgia brought an application against Russia under Article 33 (Inter-State cases) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerns the alleged harassment of the Georgian immigrant population in Russia following the arrest in Tbilisi on September 27 2006 of four Russian service personnel on suspicion of espionage against Georgia.
11 Georgian nationals were also arrested on the same charges. Georgia maintains that the reaction of the Russian authorities to the incident in September 2006 amounted to an administrative practice of the official authorities giving rise to specific and continuing breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols. These breaches are said to derive, in particular, from widespread arrests and detention of Georgians in Russia creating a generalized threat to security of the person and multiple, arbitrary interferences with the right to liberty. The Georgian Government also complains of the conditions in which at least 2,380 Georgians had been detained. They assert that the collective expulsion of Georgians from Russia involved a systematic and arbitrary interference with these persons’ legitimate right to remain in Russia." (cited from the website of ECHR)

It was a quiet, warm and sunny afternoon when our plane from Paris landed in Entzheim Airport of Strasbourg. After the busy and lively airport of Charles de Gaulle in Paris the airport in Strasbourg was unusually quiet. You could hardly see a living soul. For a moment I thought we landed in the wrong town. How could the European Institutions, including the Court of Human Rights be situated in such a quiet and small city?! But I approached the information desk, asked for the map of Strasbourg and took a breath of relief seeing the European Parliament, Council of Europe and the ECHR on the map. The city itself was very old and extremely cute, more German than French. I saw an old German village with a church in the outskirts. It made me wonder about the history of the city. Walking in the streets I remembered Tallin, the capital city of Estonia, where I visited with my parents as a child. I really loved it… People were much more simple and friendly than in Paris and were not as upset with the fact that I did not speak French. In Paris I was quite distraught with some French who were rude to me because I spoke English and sounded like an American. (But this time I was proud to be an American because of Obama.)

On April 16, 2009 the ECHR Chamber held a hearing on admissibility of the case brought by Georgia against Russia. I got interested about this case in my conversations with a good friend and mentor, John Cleary, a distinguished criminal defense attorney from San Diego, who is currently teaching at Moscow State University. I was glad he gave me the idea. So, there I was in front of the ECHR building on April 16. Immediately I met Russian students and experts of international law rounding up the building. It was quite an event for us. There were not that many Georgians though, surprisingly. Then we were invited into the Chamber of ECHR. Unfortunately, we were not allowed to take pictures or video record the hearing until after it was all over. I was astonished to see very young lawyers among the representatives from both countries. In fact, on the Georgian side there were only 4 people seated at the table, 3 very young female attorneys, and one young man, not an attorney. On the Russian side, it was more solid. There was an older female attorney, 2 older male attorneys, and 4 younger attorneys. It seemed, the Russian side took this case more seriously by bringing more experienced attorneys to the table. Indeed, when the hearing began I liked the arguments and presentation of the Russian attorney, Georgy Matyushkin, much more than the Georgian attorney’s, Tina Burjaliani. In comparison with attorney representatives of the parties most of the visiting experts in the Chamber were older and intimidating. They were even talking during the hearing to my great surprise when we were all completely shut down from the whole atmosphere of formality and solemnity.

It was quite an experience. We all sat down, the bell rang and the attendant announced ‘the Court’. We all stood up and there came the judges:
Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President
Rait Maruste (Estonia)
Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic)
Anatoly Kovler (Russia)
Renate Jaeger (Germany)
Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein)
Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia)
Mirjana Trajkovska (Macedonia)
Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria)
Isabelle Berro-Lefevre (Monaco)
I noticed the equal division of female and male judges and liked it. There was a judge from Russia and a judge from Georgia to ensure greatest degree of impartiality. The selection of judges is guided by the Articles of the Convention. First spoke the Respondent State, Russian attorney Matyushkin. I really liked his presentation. He spoke in Russian. He was very professional, made his arguments point by point and was unemotional. First, he argued that the case is inadmissible at the ECHR. As a background information, the ECHR first has to decide whether a case is even admissible in its court. The international courts generally are complementary to national courts and if there is an adequate remedy for applicants in the state courts where the events occurred, then the court does not hear that case. The principle of complementarity is well-known also at the International Criminal Court. The argument therefore really revolves around whether the party suing exhausted his remedies in the national courts. This is called the ‘exhaustion’ doctrine. The Russian side (as well as the Georgian side later) cited cases, including Denmark et al v. Greece, Ireland v. UK, Cyprus v. Turkey. Mr. Matyushkin very convincingly and strongly presented arguments which showed that the Georgian individuals complaining of mistreatment and unlawful detention never appealed the decision to expel them from Russia. Again as a background information, allegedly in the fall of 2006 Russian authorities detained, harassed and expelled hundreds of Georgian immigrants residing in Russia. Also allegedly these individuals were detained for lengthy periods of time without the right of counsel, without basic needs and then were deported to Georgia without a formal hearing.

The Russian side argued that the case is inadmissible first because these individuals never exhausted remedies available to them.
But then the attorney shifted gears and went straight into the merits of the case and brought illustrations and arguments to show that the case was frivolous in the first place. He focused much on the state of the evidence and how Georgia was going to prove that these violations occurred. It argued that many of the ‘stories’ in the briefs were false and fraudulent and not based on reality. He was able to prop his arguments by real examples. He also made a distinction of illegal aliens and lawful citizens of Russia of Georgian ethnicity. He focused on the fact that deportation of illegal aliens according to the current law in Russia is not indicative of discrimination of that community when many of the same community happily reside in Russia. He brought some numbers as to the rate of immigration from Georgia to Russia during this time. How the numbers have even increased in this period of time. He said, if the Russian authorities were targeting Georgian ethnic minority, the numbers would not go up, but would go down. Basically, Russian attorney specifically wanted to dispel the notion that there was specific discriminatory motive behind this expulsion. Since these people were expelled and there is proof of that, Russian side could not deny it. But the argument that these individuals were bound to be expelled from Russia according to the laws of Russia went against any argument that the Russian side was acting unlawfully. (It occurred to me that maybe the Russian side should think about changing some of its immigration laws in response to this case. Because if their expulsion and deportation proceedings are not in line with the rest of Europe then it is wrought with problems not only from the standpoint of human rights but simply from the standpoint of international relations. In fact, I think Matyushkin noted that their immigration laws are in flux and changing constantly in response to these complaints. Immigration is an issue not only in America but also in Russia and the rest of Europe.)

But overall the Russian attorney’s argument was very convincing, assertive and professional. He had very good knowledge of the law of ECHR, the Convention on Human Rights, and the facts of the case, as well as arguments by the Georgian side. He was able to show much of the weakness of the cases of the Georgian side because he was able to show that many of these stories are not supported by a valid source and are suspicious. He also challenged the Georgian side to come up with real evidence to support their allegations. He ended with commitment of Russia to continue long-term neighborly relations with Georgia. Interestingly he did not personalize any of his arguments and remained very dispassionate and cool-headed.

Then spoke the Georgian attorney, Tina Burjaliani, a young female attorney, First Deputy Minister of Justice. I was quite surprised that such a young attorney would be holding such a serious post. She was quite a big contrast from Matyushkin. She started out on a very passionate note, angrily and very dramatically. In contrast to Matyushkin, this case was very personal to her. It sounded like Russia committed the Jewish Holocaust and we were in Nuremberg. She spoke in English and made some grammatical errors. In her place I would have spoken in my native language to avoid such mistakes. I liked her deference to the Court. She called the judges several times ‘Your Excellences’. While Matyushkin was very detached and never called the judges other than ‘the Court.’

But her argument was pretty weak. She made correct statements of the law but could not bring strong arguments on her side. She said in order for a case to be admissible in the Court, Georgia must show 1) administrative practice by Respondent State in violation of the Convention 2) Accessible and efficient remedies that were exhausted. So, her argument was structured in two branches: 1) she first argued that in this case the ‘Exhaustion doctrine’ was not a bar to admissibility because of the presence of administrative practice ((a) repetition of acts and (b) official tolerance,) 2) if it is found applicable, there was no accessible remedy to the Georgians expelled from Russia. Throughout her speech she cited the Human Rights Watch and a couple of individuals but did not sound like a lawyer. We, lawyers, think about EVIDENCE, PROOF in court of law. We think about what is the source of information behind a statement. For example, if the source of information for the statements by Human Rights Watch was the Georgian government itself, then what credibility could they have. She never bothered to talk about real specific facts, and proof. She said confidently ‘We will bring forth to the court evidence of our allegations later,’ but she was not able to convincingly oppose the arguments of Russia that these stories are exaggerated and false. Most importantly, even though she seemed to know the caselaw on the subject of the ‘Exhaustion’ and Admissibility, she could not bring her arguments to a strong conclusion and convince the Court that indeed this case should be heard here. For a moment I wished to be in her place. On the other hand, I did not see any shortcomings in the arguments of the Russian attorney. In her place I would have structured my arguments much differently. It seems, she was just making a written up speech, without having listened to the arguments of the other side. She was just reading from a script. I hate that about lawyers. That is why in my trials I do not write down scripts. I only write points to follow them and not to forget them. She even called her own argument ‘my speech’. That was quite sad. But of course, given she was so young, she was able to project some degree of confidence and not be intimidated by the numbers on the other side. At least she was able to remember the cases and cite them in her argument. She focused also on the fact that in inter-state applications ‘Exhaustion’ doctrine was not a bar to admissibility when administrative practice is shown/proven, citing the case of Denmark v. Turkey.

Most importantly, she was too dramatic in her tone. You lose your credibility when you are not realistic about your case. I have done that in one of my trials and lost my credibility with jurors. Once in a DUI case I finished my closing argument with global warming and polar bears, very dramatically. Jurors were looking at me as if I was out of my mind: what did a DUI case have anything to do with global warming? I only tried to connect my client’s case to the universe, but it was a stretch. I later laughed at myself along with District Attorneys. Now this attorney was at the ECHR and she basically tried to talk about this case as if this was seriously the Armenian genocide and she was the Armenian attorney against Turkey. Even if these allegations are true, they cannot arise to the level to warrant such a dramatic posture. Perhaps her lack of experience played a role.

Then judges were given opportunity to ask questions. First the Russian judge asked a question to both parties. He asked the Russian side ‘Do you have any numbers as to how many Georgians currently reside in Russia?’ The Russian side came back saying, ‘we do not keep such numbers and we have no way of knowing that,’ solidifying their argument that they had no intention of targeting certain ethnicities for expulsion. That was pretty smart. Notably, the Judge asked the Georgian side for some examples, dates, places in support of their allegations. This was directly in response to the complaint of Mr. Matyushkin that the Georgian side is not responding to their challenges for proof. Mr. Matyushkin made a statement during his presentation that while they constantly take the information, verify their accuracy and discredit it, the Georgian side to this day has not responded with any credible information to support their allegations. The Georgian attorney, to my frustration, did not respond to the question of the Judge.

One thing was really sad. Back when I was a child, no one would have believed that a case like this would end up in an International Tribunal. The long-time relations and neighborhood seemed to have evaporated. The relations between the two countries are getting worse and worse. Russia at least has expressed its commitment at this hearing as well as in other political pronouncements to continue long-term friendship with countries of former Soviet Union. However, Georgia does not seem to be committed to it at all. Not only at this hearing but as a general matter currently Georgia is not making the same commitment not only with respect to Russia, but other former republics. Georgian government has been unfriendly with Armenia, for example, throughout these years of post-Communist development and Armenia is the next-door neighbor. In fact, ethnic minorities that reside in Georgia are treated as second-rate citizens and are constantly discriminated. There is a small Armenian community residing in Georgia that is shrinking because they all feel quite uncertain about their future. If Georgia is so concerned about the treatment of its ethnic minorities in Russia, it should also concern itself about how it is treating other minorities within its own borders. So it is quite ironic that today it found itself at the ECHR. On the other hand, Russia should also be careful. Since it joined the Council of Europe, the ECHR has been flooded with cases against Russia, first with respect to Chechnya not with Georgia.

It will be interesting to see if the Court finds the case admissible and what will happen ultimately.
To me this case is revolving in the background of much political tempest and fire. At the end, it is all about world politics. Human rights-- their creation, interpretation, application and enforcement-- are never insulated from world politics and will never be.

(For Webcast of the hearing see here).

Recent publications

2009-04-04T11:34:00.000-07:00

For students of international law and those interested two good publications to look at:

International Criminal Law Review by Michael Bohlander

Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Courts and the European Court of Human Rights by Vladimir Tochilovsky

Law School Hypo

2009-03-14T17:44:00.000-07:00

Sometimes in practice we come across situations and cases that really remind me of my law school hypos. Here is one:

Police officers are driving down the street patrolling the neighborhood and see a brown Honda Accord exiting a parking lot. As they later write in their report, because of many stolen Hondas in the surrounding area, they run the vehicle license plate for any pending warrants. The license plate search reveals indeed a pending warrant for the owner. So, they stop the vehicle, ask the driver for ID. While talking to the driver, they also ask for ID from the two passengers for no stated reason. Sure enough one of the passengers also apparently had three outstanding warrants. So, both the driver and the passenger are transported to jail and obviously arrested for warrants. Once they are placed in the holding cell to be booked, an officer observs the driver push an item towards a far corner of the holding cell with her foot. The officer recovers the item which later is confirmed to be rock cocaine. The other defendant (the passenger) is searched incident to her arrest and is found to be carrying three small pieces of rock cocaine hidden in the waistband.

Then law school professor would simply ask to discuss. My concern confronting this fact pattern was whether there was any Fourth Amendment violation.

Possible answer: Yes.

Rationale:
The fundamental principle of the Fourth Amendment is that the individual has reasonable expectation of privacy. Katz. v. U.S. This means, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. When the police stop a vehicle, by definition the driver is not free to leave. This is a temporary detention within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and must comply with the standard laid down in Terry v. Ohio. See Whren v. U.S. In particular, when officers detain in relation to crime and investigation, they must have a "particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity." U.S. v. Cortez.

"A detention is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when the detaining officer can point to specific articulable facts that, considered in the light of the totality of the circumstances, provide some objective manifestation that the person detained may be involved in criminal activity." People v. Souza.

The problem I have with the facts is that there was no particularized and objective basis to believe that the vehicle of the defendant was stolen. The officers wrote in the report in a very general statement that they searched the license plate of the vehicle only because there were a lot of stolen Hondas in that area and that vehicle was a Honda. The very fact that they search the license plate of that vehicle without any articulable suspicion is an intrusion into privacy of that individual. On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court has in fact said in one of the cases that you have less expectation of privacy in your car than at home for understandable reasons. But things must be reasonable. Do you expect the police to run your license plate every time they see you driving in the streets?

So, I believe an argument can be made that even though the driver had pending warrants, the stop is not lawful because the officers had no reason to check the license plate of this particular car.

If so, the entire arrest is no longer lawful because of the unlawful detention.

Second, even if they are asking for ID of the driver, what causes them to ask for the ID of the passengers. You can ask for the Identification of driver if stopped for a valid purpose, including traffic stops. But I see no reason to ask also for the ID of the passengers. So, at this point the passenger has the right to challenge the lawfulness of her detention too. What particularized suspicion did officers have when asked for ID from passengers? Are you expecting the police to ask for your ID when you are having a ride in a friend's car? Just think about it.

A lot of these things are instinctively wrong. It requires case by case analysis. But coerciveness of these encounters is apparent. Police exerting authority over people in ways that our Constitution should and cannot endure. That is the whole purpose of the rights. They are not just symbolic written words. They should really function in real life to protect the individual from the police. It is not about the form, but substance. If something is wrong, it cannot be made right. Unfortunately, individuals lose the ability to exercise their rights because these things get approved in courts. They also get used to constant submission to authority of police and cannot imagine anything else. A lot of times, I get blank faces from my clients when I tell them about their rights under the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment. They lose their appreciation of these rights because in the streets the rules are quite different... It is like Ivy Tower and jungles.

The U.S. Supreme Court made these rules for all 'streets', no exceptions!

Happy International Women's Day!

2009-03-08T10:33:00.000-07:00

It is very interesting that this day is not celebrated as a national holiday in the United States. It seems paradoxical that in a country with strong liberal ideals, the International Women's Day does not receive such attention. Well, perhaps it is not that paradoxical. After all, we still have a high degree of sexism. I am still gasping for air after watching what happened to Hillary Clinton under the attacks of virulent sexism. For us, women lawyers, it is still a challenge to practice in courts housed by males as judges and lawyers. Women are still treated paternalistically and for some reason there is still the expectation that they have achieved something not through their brain, but through 'bed' (crudely speaking). Quite too often they are not treated seriously and when they become aggressive, they are punished. Do not tell me anything new, I have been punished many times and many ways. And yes, I have refused to achieve goals through 'bed', believe it or not. That is why, I am a solo practitioner now. Unfortunately, some women have the image of Playboy girls and that sets the expectations of men about everyone else. In some professions such as legal, 'Playboy girl' image is simply out of place. I am sorry, that is the truth. You do not have to lose your femininity by being a lawyer, but there is a certain line...

Human nature does not change from country to country. But it is really ironic that Russia has been celebrating this Day since the beginning of the 20th century, when socialism took its roots there. In fact, this day really is an outspring of socialism and the first major parade on this day happened in Russia. Russia is a country with no liberal democratic institutions and is currently being ruled by a 'dictator', correct? Yet, women do get flowers on this day and do get a national appreciation day. Of course, that is not to say that women have achieved more in Russia. By no means. Yet, symbolism matters and no woman would shy away from recognition and flowers. I call that 'culture.'

Unfortunately, because of the 'culture' in the United States, I always had some difficulties buying flowers for my own professors. For some reason, I felt awkward and afraid that the symbolic gesture would not be acceptable... True enough, sometimes it was not. Very sad. So I stopped buying flowers except for my own Mother.

Happy International Women's Day!

Watch the video on the history behind the Day

Click here for Tamara Gverdtsiteli's Dedication to Women

Bio of an International Woman

2009-02-28T19:46:00.000-08:00

Preparing for International Women's Day on March 8, the woman of the year on this blog is my own sister, a lasting inspiration for me and my family. Here is her short biography written very humbly and without any embellishments:

Born in Armenia, Marianna moved to the U.S. with her family at the age of 15. Her parents’ main goal in life was always to make sure that their three daughters received the best education. Born in the family of a lawyer and an engineer, high expectations were placed on her. With a different cultural background, facing numerous challenges and adversities, Marianna, a trilingual, learned to be strong, open-minded and persistent.

In 2004 Marianna graduated from UCLA with Departmental Honors, B.S. in molecular, cell, and developmental biology. She then continued to work at UCLA as a research assistant at a basic research laboratory studying stem cells in Drosophila and co-authored article publications in Nature and in Development Genes Evolution. Although research seemed an excellent path to follow, Marianna desired a little more-- work in direct patient care. The Jules Stein Eye Institute at UCLA was the decisive reference point and where her interest in optometry was confirmed. It was not until then that she began to appreciate the beauty and mystery of human vision.

Marianna felt extremely excited joining the Berkeley Optometry program (Fall 2007). She had an opportunity to hone her interest in clinical research in eye and vision science through 2008 Summer NEI T35 Research Grant. Joining Austin Roorda’s lab and collaborating with two ophthalmologists, Marianna focused her research on imaging patients with Acute Zonal Occult Outer Retinopathy (AZOOR) using Adaptive Optics Scanning Last Ophthalmoscope (AOSLO). Adaptive Optics allowed for analysis of structural properties of individual cones (density and spacing) and determination of possible correlations between retinal structure and function in patients with AZOOR. The results of the study were presented at the 2009 Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) meeting.

Although she is yet to be introduced to all the specialties at Berkeley Optometry [where she is studying with excellent grades], Marianna is especially interested in ocular disease and plans to apply for a residency program in a related field. She recognizes the rigor of training to become an astute clinician and hopes to achieve excellence in the field. Aside from academia and research, Marianna finds time to volunteer for school activities and participates in some vision screenings. She enjoys drawing and fashion design. She is acutely aware of time and wants to spend each day in life fully and productively, trying to reach her inner harmony and potential as an intellectual and a woman.

Click here for one of her co-authored publications

Georgia v. Russia

2009-02-26T10:22:00.000-08:00

ECHR is hearing the case brought by Georgia against the Russian Federation on April 16, 2009 on various grounds under the European Convention on Human Rights. see here.

The case stems from a specific set of events in 2006-2007 but is highly political in nature given the tense relationship between the two countries, manifested more and more in recent military showdowns. Is international law becoming a tool for political vengeance or is it really the only avenue for justice for minority rights? A smaller nation seeking justice against a bigger and stronger nation? But in world politics is there really such a concept of 'smaller' nation when there are multiple sets of interdependent and highly sophisticated alliances? Is the old flawed maxim 'might is right' relevant when 'might' is measured in many different conflicting ways, such as military, strength of liberal institutions, economy, etc. etc. etc. But is 'just is right' maxim as flawed given the defects and imperfections in administration of justice in national courts as well as international ones. When justice is sought on the international stage draped by heavy curtains of politics enmeshed in violent history and omnipresent nationalism, does prevalence of that 'justice' bring upon desirable results? ... Nothing is perfect and yet true justice demands purity and absolute objectivity. When 'victim' is screaming in pain, the rights of the perpetrator sink unnoticed and suffer incredibly along the way... Balance must be struck lest more injustice, fed and waxed by its own weight...

One thing is certain, lessons can be drawn for all from all these cases... Russia has got a lot of work to do in improving its treatment of minorities inside its borders... Nationalism and xenophobia have reached unacceptable levels in recent years... Regardless of the political background and possible justifications for some of the political events, the end result is simply not to be tolerated...

Thinking along those lines, as I am hopeful and extremely excited to visit ECHR in April and be present at the hearing of this interesting case along with a group of students from Moscow State University.

50th anniversary of ECHR

2009-02-07T10:09:00.001-08:00

At its opening of the new Judicial Year on January 30, 2009 the European Court of Human Rights marked its 50th anniversary.

In his welcoming speech President Costa expressed:

The national courts help us to ensure that States respect the rights guaranteed by the
Convention, demonstrating the importance of domestic remedies and therefore the
principle of subsidiarity; if the Convention is a “living instrument” it is also because
you make it live. International courts show that the existence and expanded role of
numerous international judicial bodies make possible a joint effort to uphold justice
and fundamental rights....

The “resurrection of human rights” which occurred at the end of the 1940s was of
course ideological, but this ideology was ultimately carried forward by an almost
unanimous political wave of enthusiasm. At the United Nations the Universal
Declaration was adopted without a single vote against. It was a revolt (“never again”)
and an aspiration (for peace, justice and freedom).
More recently new threats and a new context have emerged: terrorism, crime (whether
organised or not), different types of trafficking. All this has created tension in public
opinion and in our societies and a tendency to give precedence to order and security.
The influx of clandestine immigrants driven by poverty and despair has an impact on
policies, but has also been accompanied by xenophobia, racism and intolerance, or
contributes to their growth. In the same way the connection which is, sometimes overhastily,
made between certain types of religious belief and violence, or indeed
terrorism, has exacerbated susceptibilities, yet freedom of religion is also a
fundamental human right. This requires dialogue and not insults....

Moreover, the ideology of the protection of rights can no longer rely on the
groundswell of support that carried it forward in the fifties. It has come up against the
difficulties of establishing or maintaining peace, the return of materialism and of
individualism, the extolling of national interests, and more recently the financial and
economic crisis which could force freedoms into second place. Bismarck’s old
expression “Realpolitik” has reappeared and is regularly cited.
The protection of human rights has thus become more fragile, more complex, but does
that mean that it must yield?
My answer is No. On the contrary, I would argue that it is necessary to consolidate
and breathe new life into these rights, to bring about their aggiornamento.
For the full speech

In this speech I sensed the attempts to elaborate on the current state of human rights law and enforcement. Also it was an attempt to briefly delineate the challenges that human rights have been facing in the 21st century world politics... Quite amazing how the age dictates new formulas and new approaches to emulate old and well-settled principles...

Life lessons...

2009-02-03T18:23:00.000-08:00

Out of life lessons and bitter experiences there comes light and wisdom... Not new to anyone, but it is worth repeating them like mantra every day... Here are some elaborated by me and worth repeating on this blog:

With some exceptions, you are in control of your destiny. You can carve your own reality.

When you find yourself at crossroads, choose the path that leads you to happiness as defined only by you for yourself.

If you are smart, good-looking and successful there will always be those ready to tear you apart, to envy you, mistreat you, attack you and throw bricks at you...

Protect yourself from evil but do not let fear and bitterness distort your inner peace.

Seek and find peace in your soul and try to spread that to your surroundings. Be the angel of love and warmth for people.

Love and give your life to your loved one but remember not to drown in the intensity of your emotion. Be prepared that your heart may break and you may not be loved. Let go. True love is unconditional.

Fight for your love and never lose hope.

Be outspoken and fight for the oppressed, but remember moments when it is best to shut up and let silence and dignity win your way.

Never lose your dignity even if you are desperate.

Dream and make your dreams come true but remember your place and your limitations.

Believe in your high ideals and do not compromise them but be realistic about life and people.

Do not ever allow people walk over you, use you and abuse you, but forgive and forget when they manage to do so.

Be ambitious but remember the fundamentals of life and what you may lose on the way to your goals.

Know yourself and be proud of your accomplishments but do not allow arrogance and vanity overshadow your achievements. The greatest people on Earth never knew how great they were.

If you are stuck on the road and lost, let your star guide you. Never lose faith in yourself.

Do not compete with others. Compete only with yourself and do absolutely your best. Often you are your worst enemy.

Do not expect people to recognize you and place you on your proper place. Mentally know your own place. Be humble and realistic for everything is relative in life.

Remember, human potential is ultimately without limits. Reach your potential by working hard, with integrity and fair play.

Be independent and do not let others control you and distort your originality. But with that search and find your flock, your crowd, and know the great value of teamwork. What you can't accomplish all alone can be easily accomplished by a group of like-minded.

Develop iron will, discipline and strength to meet and endure numerous challenges and misfortunes in life. Rely only on yourself and do not expect help from others.

Put your energy in service for humanity and always remember the weak, the oppressed, the least fortunate, persecuted and accused. Your life will be fulfilled only if you sacrifice yourself for them.

Never lose faith in the humanity. Always hope for better and brighter future...

[Painting by Leonardo da Vinci "Madonna in the Cave."]

Welcome Madame Secretary!!!

2009-01-24T17:56:00.000-08:00

On this blog with special feelings we welcome Hillary Clinton as Madame Secretary!.. We rushed to say goodbye to her early on... The power is on and with her on his side, with the team he has gathered around, Mr. Obama is really on to something great! Are you ready to embrace the enormousness of what is coming? For the first time in many years I am proud to be an American, proud to be a part of this...

And you should definitely log on to the State Department website for new jobs and opportunities... I myself was tempted enough to get on the Foreign Service Officer test list... If only I was not so much in love with trial work, I would soon find myself overseas (Moscow) as a US national working for the State Department! Who knows, maybe one day... But follow your dreams and you will never regret it... And believe me, under this President, it is worthwhile to fight for your dreams!

Nostalgie, nostalgie, nostalgie...

Marching of a New Era...

2009-01-22T09:29:00.000-08:00

It has begun... It is not about talking and pointing fingers, but about living it, day after day...

Obama closes Gitmo... Read here

Happy New Year!

2009-01-03T10:37:00.000-08:00

You are a hero if you can stand like a rock and smile a big smile to people throwing bricks at you...
Only kindness and forgiveness may disable the evil stored in the world!
You are a true humanist if you always remember to help those who need it the most and stop those thwarting justice and making a mockery of truth!

Click here for Alla Pugacheva

New Year wish...

2008-12-26T13:12:00.000-08:00

Love to our homes and peace to the world!

If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other. [Mother Teresa]

Click here for Maya Plisetskaya dancing in Swan Lake by Tchaikovsky

November 26

2008-11-26T14:55:00.000-08:00

1922, archeologist Howard Carter and his financial backer, Lord Carnarvon, opened the tomb of Tutankhamen (Pharaoh of Egypt 1333–1324 BC.) This was preceded by uncovering a stairway near the tomb of Ramses VI by Carter on November 4, 1922. Excavation of the tomb was continued on November 23 when the excavators encountered the first doorway inscribed with the cartouches of Tutankhamen. A second door was reached on November 26, when Carter peered through a small hole and had the first glimpse of the treasures of Tutankhamen... As he put it later, "When Lord Carnarvon said to me,'Can you see anything?' I replied to him, 'Yes, it is wonderful.'"

Tutankhamen's burial chamber amazingly was left intact for thousands of years-- unusual for similar treasures...

For more on this and Ancient Egypt, read "When the Sun was God" by Zenon Kosidowski...

David and Goliath

2008-11-18T10:46:00.000-08:00

There is a constant problem in the criminal justice system. The tension between law enforcement and enforcement of whatever civil liberties we have got left... Sometimes I get the fear that these rights are imaginary and have already slipped away because of governmental overreaching and abuse of power... What is left of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures when police routinely stop and frisk people in the streets under the auspices of so-called 'consensual encounters' and 'consent?' What is left of Miranda v. Arizona when officers question first, obtain a confession under submission of authority and under excuse of preliminary investigation and then advise of Miranda once the person has already incriminiated himself? What is left of the notion of 'custodial interrogation' when officers think they can ask any questions they want until they place the person under formal arrest? Obviously, they are procuring arrest by means of violating someone's Fifth Amendment rights... My mouth is tired of saying that 'custodial interrogation' is a functional test. Someone may be in 'custody' of the police even without handcuffs and without formal arrest.

Well, on the other side of the pendulum are crime rates, victim's rights and public safety... Of course, most people are intensely afraid of crime and criminals without realizing that we are the ones creating both the crime rate and the criminals. We criminalize everything, our penal code is so outdated that it scares me. Poverty and misery are equated with 'criminal behavior'. Protecting oneself and surviving in ghettoes, for example walking with a knife in a pocket, is equivalent to criminal behavior. Everyone forgets that poverty breeds crime, miserable human existence breeds crime... Who are these imaginary 'criminals?'-- mostly people in dire circumstances, miserable, unhappy, abused, and lonely... Fix the causes, stop obsessing over the effects... Fix the sociological, cultural and political ailments that cause the behavior we have coined 'criminal.' Realize, most of these crimes are not malum in se (innately/morally wrong), but malum prohibitum (statutorily designed to be wrong).

But, most importantly, why do we constantly have to compromise civil liberties in the quest for public safety, crime investigation and justice for victims? Why can't law enforcement work within the parameters and in consort with the rules set up to protect individual's liberties. Are law enforcement needs and protection of civil liberties mutually exclusive and not co-extensive? I portray law enforcement needs as a circle within another circle of individual rights... So, desire to further law enforcement goals cannot take precedence or overshed individual rights because of this scheme of things. Unfortunately, that is far from the case in reality. On a daily basis, individuals have to endure constant overreaching by law enforcement and government in the streets... Once they end up in the court system, this continues because of judges who have an agenda to be 'tough' on crime and who believe their role is to further law enforcement goals and not protect individual's liberty interests...

As a rule, many people who have never been charged with a crime, think that this scheme of things does not affect them whatsoever... I get jurors' blank gazes when I question them about individual liberties during jury selection... They think a 'criminal' is an unusual type of a person, different from them, and therefore, this problem I am describing has no relevance in their lives.... But one thing they do not comprehend: these rights of little mythical David are contra to Goliath, the State, and if the government is allowed to step over these rights protecting this 'criminal', then it will also one day similarly step over other rights, not necessarily involving crime, such as freedom of speech, right to privacy, etc. If you do not push back the government at some point, it will enclose the individual with a wall into a space smaller and smaller with each passing day, month, year, decade... The grip will only get tighter and tigther!

November 17

2008-11-17T15:09:00.001-08:00

1558, Queen Mary I, known as Bloody Mary for persecution of Protestants, died of influenza at the age of 42. Elizabeth I became Queen of England.

1917, Auguste Rodin, a great sculptor died...

He reportedly said:

The artist must create a spark before he can make a fire and before art is born, the artist must be ready to be consumed by the fire of his own creation.

I invent nothing, I rediscover.

There are unknown forces in nature; when we give ourselves wholly to her, without reserve, she lends them to us; she shows us these forms, which our watching eyes do not see, which our intelligence does not understand or suspect.

Above Rodin's famous 'Citizens of Calais', 'Balzac' and 'Thinker'...

I voted!

2008-11-04T07:50:00.001-08:00

Total eclipse before liberation...

2008-10-31T08:17:00.001-07:00

With days away from the Election Day, is your heart beating as fast as mine??? Do you feel the clock of history ticking, and moments melting away into the eternity, like water drops into the ocean? The moon and sun turning into one big balloon casting a gray shadow on Earth, moving on its orbit, slower than ever? Planets frozen in time and age, with magnetic echoes of the past, present, and future... Humans turning into one whole, one universal will, one spirit, overtaken by one ultimate goal-- survival... The next step from that is renewal and rejuvenation... Change is up in the air, oscillating within the inner halls of human conscience, rolling down the rivulets of our psyche, soon to embrace and encircle our whole environment and existence... Can you embrace it with an open heart, awakened mind and alert consciousness?... Can you sign under the memorials of the present to make up the history parchments for future generations with your little and yet important hand? Can you stand up and turn your ear to the sounds of the approaching train filled with promise and reassurance in the future day? Welcome it, you must in order to earn the right to reclaim what has been lost, abandoned and discarded through human folly and ignorance!

Total eclipse of my heart

Time has come...

2008-10-25T16:37:00.000-07:00

Since I became a U.S. citizen, this is the first General Election that I am going to vote in! Oh, I remember the year 1996 when my family had just moved here-- I was watching people reelect Bill Clinton and could not understand why I could not say my say... Then was on the sidelines again in 2000, 2004, but otherwise an active participant... Could not yet cast my vote... It was such a pain!

Now, finally my time has come too. Oh, yes, I will vote for Barack Obama!

Yes, on Prop. 1A for high-speed passenger trains...
No, on Prop. 4 on parental notification for abortion by minors!
Yes, on Prop. 5 to improve and expand drug diversion treatment programs for nonviolent offenders...
No, on Prop. 6, on funding to police and law enforcement initiatives.
Yes, on Prop. 7 for renewable energy generation!
No on Prop. 8, eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry!!!
No on Prop. 9, expanding victims' rights and restricting parolees' rights.
Yes on Prop. 10 for alternative fuel vehicles and renewable energy!

Time has come for your voice to be heard... The moment is approaching when you can express your anger, frustration, dissatisfaction, disgust with Bush and generally the way our country has been moving! The only person whose voice will be in unison with yours is Barack Obama... Support Barack Obama! Vote for change!

October 24

2008-10-24T16:29:00.000-07:00

1945, the United Nations Charter-- the constitution of the United Nations-- was ratified by the five founding members: China, France, Soviet Union, Great Britain and the USA. The United Nations Charter was earlier signed by 50 original member countries, on June 26, 1945.

October 24 came to be known as the United Nations Day.

The United Nation's predecessor, the League of Nations, was formed in 1919... World War II was a major impetus towards further development of the U.N. as a necessary organization for global security and peace...

While many have criticized the U.N. left and right for various reasons, it has played a crucial role in the world arena... Many should remember that international law and international organizations often play a symbolic and 'expressive' role without which there can be no hope for any action or practice... If we can formulate the right aspirations for humanity, then we can also act out on those!

Like every other organization, the U.N. has to rely on its members' willingness and commitment in furthering global goals... Therefore, it is simply wrong to criticize it for any perceived shortcomings when its members fall short in their level of commitment.

Heroes of today

2008-10-19T15:22:00.000-07:00

Something happened to me the other day. A client of mine, who received a favorable disposition and resolution of his case, waited to speak to me... A disabled guy, with a cane, who could barely walk on his feet and with ragged clothes, he had an intense look on his face. He did not look like normal transient/homeless clients of mine... His face was shaved, he wore clean although very old clothes, and did not smell like others... He was very emotional, thanked me for the work, then said, 'I have lost my home recently, but kind people took me in and I have found another 'home' in my heart. God bless you.' Then put his fist on my file and unnoticeably put a dollar bill there, saying something like 'buy yourself a cup of coffee on me'. Shocked, I said, 'please, that is not appropriate, needn't worry,' and asked him to take it back. There was such deep emotion and decency in the moment that I had no words really. There was no ounce of self-pity in him. He barely walked out of the courtroom, but I could not find my place and was thinking, how much strength, hope and belief can be found in people's hearts... And that man was ready to share his one dollar bill with me, perhaps that was all he had!

I know, there are millions of decent folks out there in the same position, having lost many of the material attributes of our life but having dared not to lose the intangible ones-- strength, dignity, hope for better and most of all gratitude for what is left! To me, they are the heroes!

This is the song for the lonely!

Whose policies have worked really?

2008-10-15T08:00:00.000-07:00

I posted below on the theories of John Maynard Keynes in juxtaposition to those of Adam Smith... Today if we break down and simplify the Democratic and Republican parties' economic/fiscal policies, we can see the followers of Keynes in Democrats and followers of Smith in Republicans... But it is very instructive to view the history and find out more whose policies really worked... The Gilded Age in America that was completely and fully energized by Smith's policies lead to the destruction and the Great Depression... and it was only John Maynard Keynes' policies implemented by Roosevelt that took the country out of that disaster... And this is only one of the many examples in history... Just take a moment to look back... Bill Clinton following the general ethos of liberal Democratic fiscal policies left the Office with a thriving economy, unprecedented budget surplus and the lowest unemployment and inflation rates ever in the U.S. history. How this success story was thrown out of the board in these last 8 years is lamentable...

When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession — as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life — will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease ... But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight.

[John Maynard Keynes]

October 9

2008-10-09T07:43:00.000-07:00

1967, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara (June 14, 1928 – October 9, 1967), Cuban guerilla leader and left-wing revolutionary, was executed by Bolivian soldiers. Albert Korda took his most famous photograph: that of 'Che' in 1960. The picture, called Guerrillero Heroico above, was not published until 1967, after 'Che's death. It is one of the most reproduced photos in the 20th century. "I remember it as if it were today ... seeing him framed in the viewfinder, with that expression. I am still startled by the impact ... it shakes me so powerfully." [Korda]

1930, pioneer pilot Laura Ingalls (1901 – January 10, 1967) was the first woman to fly across the U.S. with nine stops. The same year she performed 344 loops, setting a women's record...

1989, a Soviet Union newspaper officially confirmed the landing of a UFO in Voronezh... From 1985 thru 1990 the newspapers proliferated with similar stories.

"Many will call me an adventurer-- and that I am, only one of a different sort: one of those who risks his skin to prove his platitudes." ['Che' Guevara]

Rehearsed lines and eye winks...

2008-10-06T07:54:00.000-07:00

I suppose, nowadays, rehearsed lines, eye winks and a charming smile will get you to the VP post... Was comparing Hillary Clinton with Sarah Palin and it was the difference between day and night. Palin came to the debate with a script and answered not the questions posed to her but what she planned to answer... Ditched so many important questions with a charming smile, absolute lack of genuineness... Showed remarkable confidence despite remarkable lack of knowledge about important political issues. She has got no clue, that is all I can say! While she is passionate, her passion is translated into stubbornness too many times and her face sometimes shows inner insecurity and hysteria... It is simply inconceivable and absurd that she could in fact be the second to the President, so close to the highest post! Huh.

Very sad and pathetic... Try to compare her with Hillary... for women out there who are upset with Hillary-Obama race, do not make the mistake if you know what I mean...

Who cares any longer?

2008-10-04T16:43:00.000-07:00

I always get disturbed how people take freedoms they have for granted, do not appreciate them enough to notice when they are losing them and do not dare to fight for them! At the end of the day people stop thinking, get lazy and accustomed to the 'status quo' that slowly sets in their minds, cultural atmosphere and lifestyles... Succumbing to power and unquestionable obedience to authority at the expense of most cherished and basic freedoms are the usual way... Who cares when the police ruthlessly beat up someone in the streets. After all, that man asked for it, was in the gang, tried to escape from the police, and was finally chasen down like a dog. Who cares when someone gets convicted after a not so fair trial. After all, she was 'guilty' of the crime charged and there was overwhelming evidence... Who cares when someone loses her job for speaking her mind... After all, freedom of speech at workplace is circumscribed by other considerations... You need to choose the right 'forum' to speak your mind... Who cares, if that forum is growing smaller and smaller, getting into a zero size...
If you are different, you will be ridiculed, disrespected, intimidated, punished, and chased out! The power in the hands of the few and majority having surrendered to that power, you belong to a painfully shrinking minority... Play by the rules of the game and you are the winner. The choice is only yours. If you try to go against the current, your wings will burn and your fall will be that of Icarus. The fighting spirit in you may wane with time and age and your originality will lose its colors... Under these pressures you may betray yourself and one day may not even recognize your own face in the mirror... Disturbing? Perhaps. But the rest of the civilization goes through this morphosis. Next thing you know, in a few centuries, words such as 'freedom' will disappear from the common dictionary and vocabulary...

It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have these three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence to practice neither.Mark Twain

People hardly ever make use of the freedom they have. For example, the freedom of thought. Instead they demand freedom of speech as a compensation.Kierkegaard

So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.Voltaire

Painting above Picasso's self-portrait

October 1

2008-10-01T07:31:00.000-07:00

1964, Japanese high-speed passenger train Shinkansen went into service, just in time for the Summer Olympics in Tokyo. The exciting train carried passengers from Tokyo to Osaka in a record of 4 hours, traveling at a speed of 200 miles per hour. The line was extended and now the network serves all of Japan's major cities. The Japanese developed an even faster one, known today as Maglev. The train reaches up to speed of 361 miles per hour!

Talk about public transportation and lack thereof in California! Amtrak and Metrolink are falling apart. Recently out of real curiosity I took Greyhound for a 100 mile travel-- what was a 2 hour ride turned into a whole day travail, waiting in line to get on the bus, and then being in a bus that traveled at a snail's pace! My goodness, we have come so far as to travel in outer space, but not far enough to have decent means of transportation, besides our oil-driven trash box cars. When I moved to California from Moscow, I was appalled with the fact that the buses and trains were used by the poorest of the poor and not having a car was equivalent to a major disability because public transportation was not reliable...

And no one will dare to deny the effects of this on air quality and global warming...

'No way, no how, no McCain'

2008-09-28T14:23:00.001-07:00

November, 2004... The American people made a mistake, reelecting Bush to the second term by a popular vote. The politics of fear prevailed. I gasped for air and wanted to scream in pain. A dear friend said, 'Never lose hope.' But the 4 long years went by very slowly and in great agony... The 8 years left an irremediable mark on the American history and world politics. Things that the next generations will be paying a heavy price for years and decades to come.

Yet, now we have McCain as the messenger of Bush, propagating continuation of those same 8 years, same mentality, same policies and politics of fear. Watching the debate the other night, lost all and any respect for John McCain. Insulting Obama, came with an indolent and arrogant behavior. Constantly boasting about his record and looking at Obama as a 'child' who does not understand or know anything... So rude and disrespectful. Sounded and acted very much like Bush debating with Gore and Kerry. Most importantly, all his ideology and vision have been proven wrong, wrong, wrong all these 8 years and even before...

Meanwhile, Obama displayed great self-control, self-reserve and statesmanship. Displayed enormous hidden power with his calm behavior. We, Hillary supporters, were so reckless in 'attacking' him so much and finding 'perceived' weaknesses in him... He has got none. This is a man with great power and decency. First and foremost, he has got the answer for all troublesome questions besieging this country... Will people be able to set aside their racial prejudices and judge him by the content of his character, and not by the color of his skin? Can America stand by its liberal principles and give a chance to this man who deserves it all? That is the question.

Do you love your country? Set aside your fears, open your eyes, and see the reality... We cannot afford repeating the mistakes of the past! Simply cannot! 'No way, no how, no McCain!'

Cycles of history and historian's puzzles

2008-09-26T07:53:00.001-07:00

I have posted on my blog about how history gets repeated with amazing regularity here.

March 5, 1946, Fulton, Missouri, Winston Churchill made his historic speech "Iron Curtain", a precursor of the ensuing Cold War. here

September 18, 2008, Washington DC, German Marshall Fund, Condoleezza Rice has made her speech on US-Russian Relations, a precursor of yet another open 'War' between the two countries. here

Puzzling and disconcerting...

September 24

2008-09-24T09:27:00.000-07:00

1996, the U.S., Russia and other nuclear powers signed a treaty to stop testing and development of nuclear weapons, including underground blasts. America had conducted 1,030 tests since 1945.

At the signing, then UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali said, "This treaty should reinforce international resolve to achieve a world free of the nuclear arms race, a world free of all nuclear weapons." here

Still an aspiration when those who have them are clinging to them even stronger and are improving their capabilities, and those who do not have them work hard to get them!

Time for change...

2008-09-23T19:38:00.000-07:00

When you go to the polls this November, think not about yourself, but about all those others that your decision may affect today and tomorrow... Look at those at the bottom of the economic ladder and whose livelihood has sunk to the lowest. The vast numbers of the poor and homeless, destitute and desolate, those who have become beggars and are surviving on the margins... Forgotten and unheard of... Invisible and oppressed. Disadvantaged and in misery...

It reminds me of the Great Depression era. In his wonderful book that encapsulated that era, "Grapes of Wrath" John Steinbeck wrote:

In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.
Chapter 25

How can you frighten a man whose hunger is not only in his own cramped stomach but in the wretched bellies of his children? You can't scare him--he has known a fear beyond every other. Chapter 19

And the great owners, who must lose their land in an upheaval, the great owners with access to history, with eyes to read history and to know the great fact: when property accumulates in too few hands it is taken away. And that companion fact: when a majority of the people are hungry and cold they will take by force what they need. And the little screaming fact that sounds through all history: repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed.
Chapter 19

They's a time of change, an' when that comes, dyin' is a piece of all dyin', and bearin' is a piece of all bearin', an' bearin' an' dyin' is two pieces of the same thing. An' then things ain't so lonely anymore. An' then a hurt don't hurt so bad. Chapter 18

Time for change?!

How much more we do not know...

2008-09-23T07:50:00.000-07:00

In the post below, referencing the BBC radio show, Professor Sunder has pointed her finger to the lack of attention to non-Western cultural and artistic heritage. Her criticism is really on point, because in the world-known famous art museums all we see is Western art... Many other problems flow from this, including lack of knowledge in the West as to how people in other parts of the world live and breathe. Then when it comes to analyzing the 'clash of civilizations' people in the West have a very limited and constricted empirical framework to begin with.

Here are some modern Indian art paintings by Archana Santra.

When Desireless went to India, her impressions lead her to the hit 'Voyage Voyage'.

Internet, globalization and harmonization

2008-09-20T13:26:00.000-07:00

How has the world Internet changed the power dynamics between the state and the society? How did the traditional control of the state over the communication slowly give in? What does this mean? Is the ever-expanding global communication system threatening to take over the traditional knowledge and mode of thinking? Relatedly, is the globalization and ensuing clash of civilizations, necessarily washing away the traditional cultural footprints? Is modernity diametrically opposed to culture and tradition?

This process is affecting how people think, interact with the world and build their pathways of survival... The information flow is however faster than people can absorb or reflect over. Does that make us as humans of 'shallow' and 'superficial' thinking... Time-management is a major problem in light of competitive demands and obligations. How can we manage our time in light of this information blast? For example, as an average American citizen can you keep up with everything that is happening in the presidential elections every day? Don't you feel overwhelmed? Don't you sometimes want to shut off the TV? I have decided to minimize my use of TV as much as possible. I can't promise the same about the Internet though.

In answer to some of these questions, I highly recommend to listen to the recent program Forum of BBC World Service with my own Professor Madhavi Sunder here. Professor Sunder is my favorite professor who influenced me to a great degree as a law student. Her scholarship crisscrosses many subjects, including Law and Modernity, Intellectual Property, International Human Rights, Women and culture...

Text-message for peace...

2008-09-20T10:06:00.000-07:00

In 1981 the UN General Assembly declared, in a resolution sponsored by Costa Rica, the third Tuesday of September (the opening day of regular sessions of the General Assembly) as the International Day of Peace devoted to commemorating and strengthening the ideals of peace. Later September 21 became to be known as the day for global cease-fire and peace.

The Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has called to text-message for peace around the globe. "I use electronic communications all the time, but honestly – this is a little embarrassing – I have zero friends online. But you – collectively – can reach tens of thousands of people in an instant. You can mobilize way beyond your clique, beyond your community, even beyond the borders of your own country. That is the power you have and I count on it – your power to make this world different when you become leaders, and even before.” (here)

If our technological sophistication has allowed us to destroy the world by one push of a button, we should also be able to ensure for long-lasting peace...

Wisdom in spirituality

2008-09-14T10:11:00.000-07:00

Пергаменты не утоляют жажды,
Ключ мудрости не на страницах книг,
Кто к тайнам жизни рвется мыслью каждой,
В своей душе находит их родник.

[Faust]

Lawyers and 'lawyers'

2008-09-13T10:45:00.000-07:00

What is it that makes one a good lawyer? When I was stepping on the threshold of law school, I was anxiously asking this question to my father, whose opinion counts very much to me. (He started his career in the Police Academy, went on to serve in the Soviet Army in Eastern Europe for a short time, was a colonel, then was an accountant, and then was a well-known prosecutor at a IRS/FBI type of a government agency, prosecuting white collar crime). He always tells me that aside from intelligence obviously, imagination is what separates good lawyers from bad ones. When I confront difficult cases, he stresses, 'Use your imagination! Think creatively! Why are you looking at things as if they are frozen?'

But how can one develop imagination? Well, have you read Greek mythology? Have you enjoyed reading 'Alice in Wonderland' or the fairy-tales of Hans Christien Andersen? Are you familiar with Herbert Wells' 'Time Machine'? Did you ever read Herman Melville's 'Moby Dick'? Did Huckleberry Finn inspire you? Have you ever 'lost' yourself in existentialist writings of Sartre, Camus, and Schopenhauer? Can you sit and look at Dali's and Bosch's paintings for hours and find something new every minute? Did you ever try to learn art history from ancient Egypt to modern days? Does science fiction or movies like 'Matrix' have any appeal to you? Did Hitchcock's movies disturb you? Does Hercule Poirot of Agatha Christie 'scare' you? And do you still feel obsessed with Harry Potter or 'Lord of the Rings'.

We all have the capacity to develop imagination. It is innate in the human being. But lawyers seem to forget that. They think, all they need to do is to learn by heart the law, the procedure, the technical rules of the 'game'... They think, the legal profession has nothing to do with the things I listed above. They also think the legal profession is a very 'conservative' profession and you have to accommodate to that by becoming dispassionate, boring, complacent, cool-hearted... Does professionalism equate with lack of passion or, even more disturbingly, with absolute deficit of imagination? I really hope not! Do you have to bend your free spirit, crumple it into a little piece of innocuous paper and stick it into a little box? Sometimes when I am around lawyers, I have a great need of oxygen. There is lack of air that gets me headaches. Convention and tradition have special meaning among lawyers and those who deviate from that by using imagination, fresh thinking and creative approach are simply berated... Many other negative things flow from this, which demean the seriousness and vast importance of this wonderful profession.

Of course, there is a group of successful, bright, brilliant, highly accomplished lawyers who would completely agree with my father. But they are a small minority, that is shrinking. I feel absolutely fortunate and privileged to be working with some... They have inspired me incredibly and have challenged me to develop these skills.

One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams. [Salvador Dali]

Painting above is Dali's 'Dream of a Virgin'.

In Memoriam of 9/11

2008-09-11T12:45:00.000-07:00

He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.

We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.

[Martin Luther King Jr.]

September 10

2008-09-10T14:17:00.000-07:00

1797, Mary Wollstonecraft, an eighteenth-century British writer, philosopher, and feminist died (1759-1797). During her brief career, she wrote novels, treatises, a travel narrative, a history of the French Revolution, a conduct book, and a children's book. Her best known book is "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" (1792), in which she argues that women are not naturally inferior to men, but appear to be only because they lack education. She reportedly said, "Strengthen the female mind by enlarging it, and there will be an end to blind obedience." At that time her thoughts seemed revolutionary...

Well, today in the 21st century women are still treated as inferior to men. Still there is great amount of bitter, subtle and disgusting sexism creeping into the atmosphere, political or social... Is it just a problem of lack of englightenment in the public or is it just a means of oppressing a potential group and beating them up to the corner, 'out of the game.' The glass ceiling is still there and women still are viewed as 'liabilities' in terms of maternity leave, family obligations, etc. Even the most educated women are treated with ridicule and sarcasm, and not only by men, but also by women... Look at the attacks mounted towards Hillary Clinton not while ago, and currently at Palin... It makes me feel like throwing up!

Unfortunately, feminist critique of this is not very effective either... The code 'pink' and all the associated entourage does little to diminish this unhealthy and quite dangerous situation... Plus, there is a problem with code designation 'pink' sometimes. If you constantly say, 'I am a woman', aren't you inviting different treatment? But I thought, we want equal treatment... Can we ask for special treatment as women, and yet also demand equality? Am I just walking a fine line here?

September 8

2008-09-08T15:58:00.000-07:00

1504, Michelangelo's sculpture David was unveiled in Florence. Among his famous works are Pieta (below) and the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Michelangelo along with Leonardo da Vinci are among the most crucial torch-bearers of the Renaissance... Rejecting the tenets of the Medieval Ages (Dark Ages), they postulated that earthly life and dignity of the human being take priority over the heavenly life and God. Pico della Mirandola has expressed it well in his "Oration on the Dignity of Man,"

"We have placed you at the world's center so that you may survey everything else in the world. We have made you neither of heavenly nor of earthly stuff, neither mortal nor immortal, so that with free choice and dignity, you may fashion yourself into whatever form you choose. To you is granted the power of degrading yourself into the lower forms of life, the beasts, and to you is granted the power, contained in your intellect and judgment, to be reborn into the higher forms, the divine."

here

Some of Michelangelo's quotes deserve to be placed here:

I am a poor man and of little worth, who is laboring in that art that God has given me in order to extend my life as long as possible.

I hope that I may always desire more than I can accomplish.

The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark.

There is no greater harm than that of time wasted.

Genius is eternal patience.

Reading Michelangelo's biography is very instructive, especially with regard to what gigantic, almost inhuman efforts he put into painting the Sistine Chapel. That is not just hard work. It is a level of physical and mental exertion that is reached only through unimaginable passion and sacrifice...

Click here for Vivaldi 'Four Seasons'

Why you and I should vote for Barack Obama!

2008-09-06T08:16:00.000-07:00

I am a loyal Hillary supporter and I am still in great sorrow that she did not get the nomination she deserved the most! The race was all about dice-rolling, hair-splitting (and a great degree of sexism), and Obama got lucky... I have been angry and critical of him trying to support Hillary in the heated race... But now looking forward, we have to-- absolutely have to-- vote for Barack Obama! Why?

He does not have whole lot of experience, but he has what many American Presidents did not have: intelligence, great power to inspire, energy, optimism, ability to dream big... Most of all, he has the rare ability to think 'new', defy settled conventions, and take a whole fresh look at things... That is what I like in him the most... Most of the time, success depends not on gray hair or experience, but on vision and ideology... He does have the ideals, the vision and power, power to implement it... In specific policies, his entire platform is 'centrist.' In his quest to unify this divided country he has come to the 'vital center' (like Bill Clinton) and has tapped into the feelings of most Americans, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat... I have seen stickers on cars 'Republicans for Obama'-- that is a wonderful sign... In foreign policy, he will be the smartest President we have not seen for a long time. The very fact that he was against the war in Iraq tells me how smart he is and how well he can assess the interests of our country... Is use of force always in the interests of this country?! I think, by now most should know the answer... The anti-Americanism is at its highest in the world... This is exactly the type of a President we need...

While I respect John McCain and do not really want to attack him like many Democrats, he has got the experience, but no vision in how to take our country out of the present crisis! He also does not have the right way of thinking and settles for the conventional ways... It is time for us to look forward and approach new horizons with someone like Obama and not to look back, feel sorry for ourselves and settle for little-- with John McCain...

Vote for Barack Obama! We would be fortunate to have him as our leader for the next 8 years...

People's choice

2008-09-05T12:30:00.000-07:00

'Good guys and bad guys'

2008-09-05T07:48:00.000-07:00

Read a thought-provoking article on Russia v. Georgia in Le Monde Diplomatique here.

A quote by the author deserves a note:

History is easier to follow when goodies and baddies are decided in advance. The goodies, such as Georgia, have the right to defend their territorial integrity against the separatist struggles of their neighbours. The baddies, such as Serbia, must accept the self-determination of minority communities or expect to be bombed by Nato. The moral of this story is even more enlightening when, to defend his country’s borders, the charming pro-American Saakashvili repatriates some of the 2,000 soldiers he had sent to invade Iraq.

I would add that dividing the world into 'good' and 'evil', and guys into bad or good, will only perpetuate further divisiveness and hinder any chance for resolution of conflicts...

September 4

2008-09-04T09:24:00.000-07:00

1781, the city of Los Angeles-- my favorite-- is founded as El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora La Reina de Los Angeles de Porciuncula-- the City of Our Lady, the Queen of the Angels of the Little Portion-- by a group of 44 Spanish settlers. Having lived in Los Angeles most of my adult life, I have to say, despite its horrendous traffic, smog and overcrowded/dirty streets, it has an irresistible charm and appeal to it, and partly because of its enormous cosmopolitanism. You will meet the world right here... When I set my foot on this land as an 18 year old, I had very far-fetched dreams that came true in this very city. One of these dreams materialized at UCLA, which has been engrafted in my heart with golden letters since then... That dream was made possible by a Democratic President then in power who ensured that people of minorities could attend a public University and get affordable education to enrich this nation for forthcoming generations... And that dream has become impossible for many other kids recently. Can we reverse the trend in this election by choosing a Democrat?! Yes, we can! Vote for Barack Obama!

1907, Edvard Grieg, one of the greatest composers of all times died. Click here for his famous Piano Concerto.

September 3

2008-09-03T13:15:00.000-07:00

2004, the Beslan school massacre in Russia came to an end after a terrifying two-day siege, when Chechen militants took more than 1,100 people hostage. Most of the victims were children, many of whom died after long torture... Bodies were found burnt beyond recognition... and many more were missing... It was just one more reminder that the war on terror is everyone's war and terrorism cannot disappear without consolidated efforts. [Of course, how you fight that war is a subject for another day and another post]

1783, the American War of Independence ended after eight years of fighting with the signing of the Treaty of Paris by the U.S., Spain, France, and Great Britain. The British recognized the independence of the U.S.

"Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person." [Mother Theresa]

Need a magnifier?

2008-09-01T10:16:00.000-07:00

In a characteristic Cold War vein, Russia has been blamed for everything that happened in Georgia... When I take my clients, criminal defendants, to jury trial, I always ask the jurors to listen to both sides carefully, objectively, cold-heartedly, and try to assess the reality without passion, prejudice or irrational fear of crime... Reaching a fair verdict implies careful review of facts without resort to passion. It implies taking a magnifying glass when viewing those facts...

I would like to therefore ask every journalist, every American citizen, to do the same... A start would be to look at the history behind the conflict, beginning from the 1920s, when the Soviet empire was being created and republics were drawn up on the map... Then historical analysis should move towards the 90s, and the independence movements in the Caucasus and further redrawing of the map... Furthermore, how the empty power vacuum created by the collapse of the centralized government, effectuated resurface of highly nationalistic, xenophobic, corrupt leaders in the region... How the U.S. has tried to enter the region and fill the power vacuum, but unsuccessfully given its current leadership and unilateral view on the world. How NATO's further development in the region has made Russia's insecurity rise to the highest level... How further missile shielf defense initiative by the Bush Administration has undercut the arms control agreements entered between the two countries in the late 80s and early 90s. Finally, it is crucial to search for neutral sources and find out what exactly preceded/prompted Russia's unwelcome behavior and strong reaction... If you are going to coin a defendant's behavior criminal and condemn it vehemently, first find out the context, the causes, and any legitimate defenses that could be raised... It is also important to see what was the intent behind this behavior? But this cannot be done after viewing one side of the story and a manufactured video...

Taking sides in this crisis would imply myopism at the very least... Both Georgia and Russia have been at fault with varying degrees and severity... Since Russia is the bigger power, the degree of fault accompanying could be symmetrically larger. But they are not the only players here. The issue should not be who is to blame, but how could we confront the causes of this crisis and develop effective mechanism to prevent reoccurrence... Wise political scientists could assist you in this search by pointing to overall lack of balance of powers in the world and resurgence of severe nationalism in too many parts of the world. It is also very much about who will be the next U.S. President.

Listen to Gorbachev on the conflict here

Hope

2008-08-31T07:58:00.000-07:00

Out of the dark despair of the night, hope arises with the morning sun… Ray by ray it spreads its warmth on the cold surface of the earth crust, sneaks into your forsaken soul and brings back energy and vitality… Hope is faith in today and tomorrow… Hope gives you courage to let go of the burdens and broken promises of yesterday and direct your tired eyes only forward… Hope is all about sailing your ships in the morning calm of the sea, at full wind force… It is in the act of confidently letting those ships into the sea that you heal your yesteryear wounds and put a bandage on your aching heart… The disappointing past is only a mirage when you have the determination to look forward and find tomorrow, a magic cup filled with unknown and yet to be seen treasures… Those treasures are awaiting you but you have been too caught up with musing over the baggage of the past to embark on your journey… Let go of it all! Leave the baggage troubling you behind and set your ship free forward to your true destination… Every breath of life is a glimpse of hope that you will get to your destination… Every day gifted to you is hope that you can travel through the heat of the desert with enough water supplies… Every moment thrown to your feet is hope that when your ship sinks in the stormy night, you will catch on to the life-saver and will get to the shore… If you gather all these little glimpses of hope and store deep in your soul, and nourish them with your endless faith and optimism, you will be the winner of your destiny. Yes, your ships will sail forward through good and bad times, through all the blows of nature, through all the wars waged by mankind—to your final destination… Your final destination is self-actualization, the realization of your human potential on this Earth…

Let you not doubt that hope floats high above and will embrace you and the rest of humanity with its life generating arms! Have faith in it, do not be afraid and go on!

Hope floats

Truth?

2008-08-29T07:36:00.000-07:00

A wise man once said, "All things are subject to interpretation; whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth." [Nietzsche]

When I ponder over the irremediable mess that the world is in, I wonder, who is given the responsibility to interpret the events... Because the interpretation will dictate further development of events and ultimate chance for arrival at truth... But if power is the driving engine behind this interpretation, what chance for truth to resurface any time soon?

And power and truth are quite often not co-extensive...

Search for truth high above?

August 26

2008-08-26T07:33:00.001-07:00

1920, American women were given the long-awaited and hard-fought right to vote upon the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony and others remained crucial historic figures leading the struggle.

Today, at the Democratic National Convention, another woman, as influential and historically crucial, will make her speech, bidding farewell (only temporary) to the idea of a woman U.S. President.... Other women will follow, they will, and will make her dreams come true! She only made it easier for those others, while never succumbed to the pressures of the journey and came-- exhausted but stronger-- covered with mud and dust to the end! Our eternal gratitude to these brave women...

Say goodbye to Hillary

August 22

2008-08-22T07:52:00.000-07:00

1864, 16 European states adopted the First Geneva Convention, formally known as the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field . It covers the treatment of the wounded in the battlefield.

The convention was inspired by the experiences of a Swiss businessman, Henry Dunant, who witnessed the sufferings of 40,000 soldiers wounded during a bloody conflict in 1859 between French-Piedmontese and Austrian armies after the Battle of Solferino. There was no mechanism in place to arrange truces to retrieve the wounded, who were typically left to perish of their wounds or of thirst.

Dunant rallied nearby villagers to render what relief they could, insisting on impartiality between the sides. He later wrote a book, 'A Memory of Solferino,' that described the horrors he had seen and called for the establishment of civilian volunteer relief corps to care for the wounded in battle.

In 1863, the Geneva Society for Public Welfare took up his cause and created a committee of five, which later became known as the International Committee of the Red Cross. On August 22, 1864, this committee brought together the representatives of 16 European states who adopted the first Geneva Convention. The conference also established the red cross on a white field (the reverse of the Swiss flag) as the protective emblem for those serving the wounded. (Courtesy of the Encyclopedia)

For more on the series of Geneva Conventions see on this blog below under Labels.

August 20

2008-08-20T07:19:00.000-07:00

1940, in Mexico an assassin fatally wounded Leon Trotsky with an ice pick. He died the next day. The mastermind behind the murder was Stalin.

Trotsky was a crucial figure in the Great October Revolution. He, along with Lenin, had foreseen the gloomy and tragic consequences of emerging Stalinism. When Lenin was told at his deathbed that Stalin's people were going to 'throw out' Trotsky, he exclaimed, "Throwing Trotsky overboard - surely you are hinting at that, it is impossible to interpret it otherwise - is the height of stupidity. If you do not consider me already hopelessly foolish, how can you think of that????" For this and many other reasons Lenin wrote his last 'Letter' to the party, warning of Stalin as the biggest danger...

A staunch socialist and Marxist, Trotsky could not have foreseen at that point in time that the very idea of Communism (an extreme manifestation of socialism) was deeply flawed. The Party was gaining enormous power and eventually ruled over the people-- in the name of the people-- like no other king or monarch. If that was going to cure the ills of monarchies, it was only a temporary pseudo-cure. Perhaps Marx and Engels had failed to take account of the deep-seated attributes of human nature, including the tendency to abuse power... Focused on the 'whole', the 'communa', they overlooked the little person, the 'individual'... What protections were they going to ensure to this little person against the abuses of governmental power?

"The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end." [Trotsky]

La Piovra

2008-08-15T12:56:00.001-07:00

The sea monster is rising above the waters... The world is on fire. We have global warming... The ice cap of the North Pole is melting... Polar bears are dying. All across the globe, we have earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes destroying and disabling the human civilization... We have civil strife, violent conflicts, genocides in many parts of the world, threatening with annihilation of this world. Organized crime has infiltrated all high levels of societies and governments. Cynicism, hypocrisy and dishonesty are commonplace and tolerated... Our nation itself is at war with no end to be seen... Justice and reason have forsaken the world.

All this because at some point in time in the past we failed to confront the reality and failed to act! The sea monster is raising itself above the waters...

Dr. King once said, "History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."

Click here for La Piovra (Sea Monster)

One world, one people...

2008-08-07T13:02:00.000-07:00

At every Olympic game series, when the beautiful and strong athletes come together in one place from all over the world, there is a momentum reached... One world, one people... Competition, albeit fierce, does not reduce the spirit of solidarity and feeling of brotherhood/sisterhood. One only wonders, why not have that spirit in international political affairs at all times.

As the 2008 Olympic games roll in Beijing in the background of the deeply troublesome and traumatic events in China/Tibet, let us hope that the emblem 'Dancing Beijing' above will instill the spirit of peace and international solidarity!

Click here for the official website

La Vita Nuova

2008-08-06T19:21:00.000-07:00

'La Vita Nuova'

In that book which is
My memory . . .
On the first page
That is the chapter when
I first met you
Appear the words . . .
Here begins a new life

[Dante Alighieri]

Shall I compare thee to a Summer's day?
Thou are more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And Summer's lease hath all too short a date:
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd:
But thy eternal Summer shall not fade
Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st;
Nor shall Death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou grow'st:
So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.

[William Shakespeare]

The painting above by Pierre-Auguste Renoir.
Click for Demis Roussos here and here

Solzhenitsyn and history

2008-08-05T11:27:00.000-07:00

Everyone by now is familiar with the work of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn. But for decades we, children in the Soviet Union, were growing up not having the opportunity to even know about him, or even have a chance to get his printed work. Then in the early 90s his famous 'Archipelago Gulag' was published and shook the conscience of many in our former country. The West in contrast had long been familiar with his work.

Today Vladimyr Putin has made a call to encourage more coverage of Solzhenitsyn's work in schools for children. This is highly complimentary on part of Putin and dispels many attacks by opponents. He reportedly said, "это человек, который вместе с народом пережил великую трагедию и репрессии, своей жизнью и работой А.Солженицын сделал обществу значимую прививку против любых видов тирании". ("this is a man who lived through a great tragedy and repression along with his nation and whose life and work has significantly inoculated the society against all types of oppressions." translated by NM). here

Enough said. If only this acknowledgement came a few decades earlier...

The painting above, Burlaki, is by Ilya Repin, 1873. It does give a very good idea of the reality behind Archipelago Gulag even though it reflects a different historic time period. I can imagine how this painting could have inspired Solzhenitsyn...

Inspiration

2008-08-03T07:54:00.001-07:00

When I look around, I get disappointed with overall lack of inspiration in people... I get very upset with that because I know very well, things do not get done without inspiration. What do I mean by 'inspiration'? Oh, that is not something to express in words and should only be experienced to know its flavor, its essence. Throughout my life, I constantly sought this feeling and grabbed it at every instance. First, I was inspired by book heroes and my favorite authors. Then I was inspired by my parents. Then of course, by people of 'authority', foremost by my teachers and professors, who shaped my character and personality... I became what I became because of these very important figures in my life, beginning with my first-grade teacher and ending with some of my law school professors. Some day I will inscribe their names on a very special plaque...

Inspiration is critical because it raises conviction, passion, ambition, commitment and a touch of insanity in you... When you draw a goal or dream and then become obsessed over the ways to reach and make it come true... Without inspiration you will settle for less, you will shed your dreams and become dull, boring, complacent. Without inspiration you won't even realize who you are, why you are in this world at this time, where you are going... Without inspiration life stands still like a dirty lake and turns into a bog... Without inspiration life really turns into nonsense. So, I totally understand why so many people went for Obama. They were inspired by him! (Well, and I was inspired by Hillary and that is why I voted for her-- it was so irrational at some deep level! Don't ask people to justify whom they are voting for!)

So, when I meet younger students at lectures and at Universities, I ask them, 'Do you feel passionate about something in your life? Go after that and leave everything else behind! If you don't feel passionate about anything, then search for it and find it!'

It is the aching passion given life by inspiration that determines the noble and higher purpose of human existence. You can find it if you only look for it!

Glance at history

2008-07-24T07:27:00.000-07:00

As a result of World War I and the Armenian genocide, the forceful exodus and extermination of Armenians from their historic lands brought up the issue of demarcation of Armenian-Turkish borders. From 1918 to 1923 five treaties determined the Armenian-Turkish border. The Sevr Treaty was signed on 10 August, 1920. It was followed by the Alexandropol Treaty (3 December, 1920), the Moscow Treaty (16 March, 1921), the Kars Treaty (13 October, 1921), and finally, the Lousanne Treaty (24 July, 1923). More notably are the Sevr Treaty and the Lousanne Treaty.

The most important point is that the Armenian-Turkish border was determined by the arbitration award of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. Armenia was among the winners of World War I and put its signature under the Sevres Treaty. Wilsonian Armenia refers to the boundary configuration for a proposed Armenian state drawn up by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson for the Treaty of Sèvres.

The proposed state incorporated Erzurum, Bitlis, and Van Provinces, which were parts of the region referred to as Ottoman Armenia (also referred to as Western Armenia). This region was extended to the north, up to the west side of Trabzon Province to provide the Democratic Republic of Armenia with an outlet to the Black Sea at the port of Trabzon.

The Turkish War of Independence forced the former wartime Allies to return to the negotiating table prior to ratification of the Treaty. The parties signed and ratified the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, which annulled the Sèvres Treaty, and also established the current borders of Turkey. This included the previously established eastern borders obtained by the Treaty of Alexandropol, signed on November 2, 1920, and the Treaty of Kars, signed on October 23, 1921 and ratified in Yerevan on September 11, 1922, the Treaty of Lausanne confirming them.

While the Sevres Treaty was not ratified, it remains valid. Today, the Republic of Armenia is still claiming that the Wilsonian Armenia as it is mapped out above is more reflective (still not fully) of historic Armenia than what was established by the Lousanne Treaty. In fact, the Lousanne Treaty was a political compromise among allies with no attention to the real grievances of Armenians against Turkey. Turkey's denial of the Armenian Genocide carries two-fold policy: reject the very occurrence of the genocide, and close any avenues for renegotiation of the border.

On July 20...

2008-07-20T09:33:00.000-07:00

1969, Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the Moon. The Apollo 11 launched onto space in Florida at 9:32am on July 16, 1969. On board were Commander Neil Armstrong, Colonel Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin and Lieutenant Colonel Michael Collins. On July 20, Apollo 11 began to orbit the Moon. Armstrong overrode computer controls and guided the Eagle, the landing module, to a more suitable spot with less than a minute's fuel remaining. The mission was accomplished.

1960, Sirimavo Bandaranaike became Prime Minister of Ceylon, the world's first elected female head of government. She entered politics when her husband, Prime Minister Solomon Bandaranaike, was assassinated in 1959. A socialist, she focused all her efforts in nationalizing key sectors in the economy.

1989, after political protests in Burma (Myanmar), military rulers placed the opposition leader and human rights activist Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest.

1973, Bruce Lee, the greatest martial arts professional died. "Be like water. When needed you can freeze, but when necessary you may spill out of the glass and join the river," (paraphrase) was his advice, touching upon the wisdom of flexibility and ability to function in all situations. In his opinion, you must be able to transform from a tiger to a monkey, from a dragon to a cat, when needed and when you wish to regain control of your existence. He also advised, "The key to immortality is to live a life worth remembering."

"Dost thou love life? Then do not squander time, for that is the stuff life is made of." (Benjamin Franklin)

Click here for all-time favorite Valeriy Leontiev

Global 'suicide'

2008-07-17T11:12:00.000-07:00

Al Gore has just made an inspiring speech, calling again and again to stop and think over the reality of what we are facing not only as a nation, but as a member of this Earth. 'Wake up from slumber and do something!' is his message. Can we appreciate his call and act upon it?! Or are we just going to sit there, self-oblivious and lethargically suicidal, and watch it all happen... Will the Earth slip into a fireball, like Venus and Mars?

A portion of his speech:

On July 16, 1969, the United States of America was finally ready to meet President Kennedy’s challenge of landing Americans on the moon. I will never forget standing beside my father a few miles from the launch site, waiting for the giant Saturn 5 rocket to lift Apollo 11 into the sky. I was a young man, 21 years old, who had graduated from college a month before and was enlisting in the United States Army three weeks later.
I will never forget the inspiration of those minutes. The power and the vibration of the giant rocket’s engines shook my entire body. As I watched the rocket rise, slowly at first and then with great speed, the sound was deafening. We craned our necks to follow its path until we were looking straight up into the air. And then four days later, I watched along with hundreds of millions of others around the world as Neil Armstrong took one small step to the surface of the moon and changed the history of the human race.
We must now lift our nation to reach another goal that will change history. Our entire civilization depends upon us now embarking on a new journey of exploration and discovery. Our success depends on our willingness as a people to undertake this journey and to complete it within 10 years. Once again, we have an opportunity to take a giant leap for humankind.

For the full speech here.