News flash

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?...

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

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."

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

"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

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

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!

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

Georgia v. Russia

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

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...

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."]

Marching of a New Era...

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

Obama closes Gitmo... Read here

November 26

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

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

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!

October 24

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.

Whose policies have worked really?

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

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...

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...

October 1

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...