Feb 5, 2009

Hate Crime or Excessive Force?

HT to Corine Claxton, who pointed out this story on Twitter.

Newspaper articles about criminal allegations are almost invariably frustrating to read. They never give me the information I want in order to decide what I think actually happened. Jason Vassell's case is a perfect example. Almost all the characterizations of the evidence seem to come from the defense counsel or people dedicated to an absolute belief that the defendant is not guilty. However, even assuming the evidence is as portrayed it leaves me with some serious questions.

Vassell's lawyer, David P. Hoose, has said that Bowes and Bosse instigated the confrontation by shouting racial epithets at Vassell from outside his room, breaking his window, and attacking him in the lobby.

What were the results?

Bosse and Bowes suffer[ed] from knife wounds, and Vassell’s nose was broken.

Vassell was charged with two counts of assault with intent to murder, two counts of aggravated assault and battery with a deadly weapon. Meanwhile, Bowes was charged with two hate crimes and disorderly conduct, and Bosse has not been charged at all.

The first article elaborates on the injuries somewhat (only information from prosecutor's office).

Vassell stabbed John C. Bowes and Jonathan Bosse several times each during a confrontation. The two men underwent emergency surgery as a result of their injuries.

This leaves me with all sorts of questions.

1) What started the event? Something's up. Did two white guys just pick a random black guy to harass? Possibly. However, breaking a window and then going into the lobby to pursue it further seems to indicate that something happened to stir emotions. There's something here we don't know about.

2) How did the knife come into play? Did Vassell pull it out of his pocket when he walked into the lobby and they bum-rushed him, or did he come out of his room ready to go with the knife in his hand?

3) Only one of the white guys charged? Did the other only stand around? Was the other guy just standing there or urging it on or trying to intervene to stop it?

4) How serious were the wounds? Are we talking slices (surgery=stitches) as Vassell waved the knife in front to keep the other two away or are we talking about multiple, major, once they were down, puncture wounds?

Honestly, I can't tell enough about the situation to know if the charges are justified. All I am sure of is that a fight took place and all parties left it injured. Everything else seems to be spin fed to the newspaper. It's just plain frustrating.

Feb 4, 2009

Me, My Dogs, and Snow

For those of you who come from places where they think the seasons are Hot, Drought, Hurricane, and Humid, here's what snow looks like:

How NOT to Deal With the Court of Appeals

I checked the Virginia Court of Appeals published opinions today. There was only one and it wasn't something you see often: the Court of Appeals directly finding someone in contempt of court.

What is required for a three judge panel to find an attorney in contempt?

1) File Notice of Appeal.
2) Move to withdraw as counsel per Anders.
3) Have court deny your motion to withdraw and order you to file an amended petition within 15 days.
4) Don't do it.
5) Have the court again order you to file an amended petition.
6) Don't do it.
7) Get removed by the court and ordered to provide a written response to a show cause within 15 days.
8) Don't do it.
9) Get called directly by the clerk of court's office to see why you haven't responded.
10) Fax a response that day admitting your failures were due to negligence.
11) Have the court order an in person appearance.
12) Don't appear.
13) Have the Chief Judge issue a show cause order and direct your appearance in court. Get served directly by the Virginia State Police.
14) Appear before the court and apologize. Offer no explanation other than your case load was too high.

Punishment? $1,000 fine, disbarred from practicing in the Court of Appeals (may ask for reinstatement after 3 years).

-------------

The punishment strikes me as pretty light. Back when I was doing court appointed work to pay the bills I knew plenty of people who would have gladly paid $1,000 not to have to represent their clients in appeals. The lawyer's probably been turned into the Bar as well and is waiting for that other shoe to drop.

Feb 3, 2009

Why Must You Must Be Competent for the Government to Kill You?

A defense team in Kentucky is challenging whether a man should be put to death because he is not sane enough to be executed. They're actually challenging Kentucky's law because Ralph Stevens Baze, the man sentenced to die, understands he is about to be executed and why he is being executed (thereby establishing his competence per Kentucky statute), but has become depressed and irrationally paranoid.

This set me to thinking. The first thought in many capital cases is whether the offender is someone who should be found NGRI. However, if you have determined that the person knows the difference between right and wrong and does not have an irresistible impulse to do wrong, should other mental defects be a reason to stop the execution?

If you believe the death penalty is valid I think your answer must be "no." In fact, a true believer in the death penalty would probably believe that if the offender was (a) legally insane, thus NGRI, and (b) non-restorable, she should be executed. Most every theory which justifies the death penalty is about the act, the result, or possible future results. None of these are particularly affected by the mental condition of the offender. About the only thing which could require that an offender be clear of mind would be a theory of redemptive punishment, because perhaps a person could not be redeemed of her evil act if she does not comprehend the punishment meant to redeem her. However, it does not seem that redemption of the offender's soul is a goal of our society's judicial system.

Therefore, we are left with the question of why an offender must even be competent to be executed. I understand why legal counsel argues that it should be so; counsel is trying to best represent the presumptive desire of the offender to stay alive. But why do the courts buy into it? Sure, some of it has come from those few judges who are so opposed to the death penalty personally that they are willing to latch onto any reason to halt its use. Yet, in the modern era judges have become less reticent about the deathy penalty and less likely to sign off on any technicality in order to stop it. What then is the reason they continue to follow this standard? Surely, it is not because they want to insure the added cruelty of forcing the defendant to know of his impending demise. That serves no true purpose other than sadism.

The best I can figure, this is one of those things which has gotten into the law without any reflection upon its purpopse as specifically applied to death penalty cases. In most cases it makes sense not to punish someone if they do not understand the punishment. After all, how is the offender to learn not to do the same thing in the future if she doesn't even realize she is being punished for doing it? However, this reasoning does not apply in death penalty cases. There is no "lesson learned" by the defendant after she has been executed.

Feb 2, 2009

Sovran Immunity

USSct 9-0: Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity in respect to supervision, training, and information-system management claims.

Feb 1, 2009

New Format for CrimLaw

Okay, I spent most of the day today rewriting the code for CrimLaw. I like the new look far more than any that I've had recently so it'll probably stick around for a while. The links on the left go to pages which aren't fully formed yet, but I'll get to them sometime in the next week or two. I've checked the page against all the major browsers and it works well (after I fixed the problems Explorer alone had). It looks wonderful on my monitor at home, but I not know exactly how it will appear on smaller screens until I see it on some tomorrow.

If anybody has any problems let me know.

Jan 30, 2009

Various & Sundry CrimLaw Happenings

1) I don't know how serious his plans were to kill the President, but I've been to the Mall of America and I'm pretty sure that nothing short of a tactical nuke would be large enough to take it out.

2) Can an 80 pound 94 year old woman actually commit assault and battery?

3) Remember, the next time you see a rookie officer in Chicago he just might be a 14 year old kid pulling a scam.

4) Don't go buy your booze in the school bus.

5) Do not bring a loaded gun to your daughter's Halloween party.

6) Google and the Swiss art of catching marijuana growers.

7) You're in the middle of your escape. You're handcuffed to the guy escaping with you. There's a light pole ahead. What do you do?

8) Virginia: The General Assembly has found another way to suspend licenses that has nothing to do with driving: school attendance.

9) What happens when you cheat all sorts of people out of a gazillion dollars? They make a doll of you.

10) 20 years later - When the police finally realize you faked your own death - are the drug dealers you were hiding from still out there?

11) She both drove with SIX dogs in the cab of her truck - resulting in a fatal hit and run - and had an illegal tiger cub at home.

12) Infinite Creativity: Smuggling drugs into prison via paintings.

13) It's just plain sad if you can't keep a convicted spy from continuing in his chosen field while he is in federal prison.

Jan 27, 2009

CLtoon: Fingerprint Fakery

Click on pic to get next panel.

Jan 23, 2009

Sincerity, Situational Sincerity, & Exploiting Children

Both Defending People and Simple Justice have knocked around the idea of the callousness of prosecutors when it comes to the children of an offender.

Defending People starts the ball rolling by linking to a site wherein prosecutors were airing their collective irks from defense attorneys.

Prosecutors seem so proud of themselves when they argue, "Don't show me photos of the defendant's kids. He had those kids when he committed the crime and he didn't think about them then."
. . .
Rephrased, the argument is this: the defendant didn't think about his kids when he committed the offense, so I shouldn't have to think about them now.

Simple Justice is ever so slightly more sympathetic to the prosecutor's position

This is the pat response of all prosecutors, everywhere. Ask any criminal defense lawyer and they'll tell you that they have received this reaction, no matter what permutation of words, a thousand times. It's one of the first things a young prosecutor learns when being taught to relinquish his humanity.
. . .
But truth be told, the pat response isn't without some degree of merit, which is why it has such longstanding, albeit superficial, appeal. Like the religious conversions brought about by the slamming of a cell door, it smacks of convenience. The epiphany of concern for one's children far too often comes after the deed, and the facile use of an infant's photograph flies in the face of the selfishness demonstrated by a defendant before the cops slapped the cuffs on.

Go read their posts, then come back here to get my response.

My permutation of this particular phrase goes like this: "Every person about to go to jail suddenly finds God, develops a terrible ailment, just got a job, has a job interview tomorrow, and/or suddenly realizes she has family responsibilities which no one else can fulfill." I've used some version of this statement at least 100 times since I've been a prosecutor. And, yes, the reason I say it is because I am terribly evil.

Oh, wait a sec, no it is not.

The reason I say it is because there is great amount of truth to be found in the statement. It's not the truth as Mark translates it - "the defendant didn't think about his kids when he committed the offense, so I shouldn't have to think about them now." The better rephrase is this: "Your client didn't think about her kids when she committed the offense and I don't believe she is now either." The offender is selling an excuse to avoid the punishment assigned under the law she has broken. The excuses are almost always variations on what I laid out above and most of them are irritating; nevertheless, they are part of the process. However, the suddenly discovered familial allegiance is the most vexing of the excuses.

God can take care of himself; personally, I believe that a lot of the jailhouse conversions are real - I just don't believe they'll stick once the offender is back on the street. The medical and job excuses are mostly limited to the offender herself; they're also pretty easy to prove or disprove. The children excuse is in its own class of despicability.

It's not that I'm upset that the offender wasn't thinking about the kids when she committed the crime. I'm peeved because I don't believe the offender is thinking about the kids now. She has been told by her attorney that she's going to jail for 6 months and she's flailing around for an excuse, any excuse, which will keep that from happening. What's the one thing only the most heartless of prosecutors and judges could possibly ignore? The harm which shall befall the children. She can exploit the children explain how the children need their mother and surely the sentence will change to straight probation or less time or maybe weekend jail time. It's got to help her somehow.

Let's be clear here, the offender in question (at least in Virginia) isn't the first timer who, in a mid-life crisis moment, at the age of 40 decided to see if she could scoot out the door of Mega-Store with the items in her cart. The first time, probably even the second, maybe even the third, that someone commits a minor offense she isn't going to be incarcerated. To become incarcerated she has either established a pattern of law breaking or done something very serious. Most defense attorneys aren't going to come to me in an abduction and aggravated malicious wounding case and try to sell me on the idea that their client shouldn't go to prison for 10 years because she has to take care of her kids. This doesn't mean the offender hasn't tried to get them to sell that; it just means they know it's not going to be a relevant factor after she shot a store clerk 3 times. So, the offender the defense attorney is telling me is such a wonderful and necessary part of her family has been convicted at least 4 or 5 times. It's going to be an extremely hard sell.

Yes, I know from personal experience that a few of these offenders are sincere. Admittedly, I wonder in how many cases that sincerity is retained once the offender gets home; too often, once the crisis is over the passionate concern and desire to do the right thing fades. In any event, it is basically impossible for me to judge who is being sincere, whose sincerity is more than situational, and who is blatantly exploiting the children for her own gain.

Remember, I don't have the access to the offender that her attorney does. Let's assume that 10% of the offenders are sincere and not just trying to exploit their children for personal gain or feeling situational sincerity ( most probably a high estimate). Even if the defense attorney can sort out who is who, he has a duty to try and sell his client's position whether he believes it or not. So, I hear the same pitch 10 times, knowing it is bogus 9 of them and it is very difficult to sort them out. The default is going to be the belief she's trying to exploit her children.

The things the defense attorney will show me are not things which will change my opinion of the offender. Invariably, I will be told of the problems which will occur for the children. Wanna make me not happy? Start telling how your client's act is going to result in the victimization of her own children; then tell me she should catch a break because she is causing the victimization of her own children. Yes, that'll make me really want to give her a break.

There is no real solution here. Scott is correct both when he points out that the children must be considered and when he states it is unfair to punish someone else for not having made the choice to have children. In the end, I have to come down to what I think are my two primary responsibilities: Protect the citizenry from the individual offender and dissuade others from breaking the law. Neither of these are accomplished if I do not put the offender in jail. In jail she cannot steal for 6 months and others who hear that she went will (hopefully) be discouraged from doing the things which she did.

Jan 22, 2009

CLtoon: Honesty

Jan 20, 2009

Self Defense / Render Aid

A while back Simple Justice put up a post giving his answer to whether someone who harms another in self defense has a duty to render aid.

I don't think the answer to this is all that hard. No, you're an idiot if you put yourself within arm's reach of someone who has tried to do you serious bodily harm. The extent of your duty is to call 911 and tell the police where the injured person is.

The right to self defense kicks in when someone is trying to harm or kill you or others. HARM OR KILL. You never place yourself within striking distance of someone who has done this. The fact that she appears injured, even grievously, does not mean that she can no longer harm or kill you. She could be faking; she could be hopped enough on drugs or adrenaline and still be able to harm you; she could have a gun or knife you don't know about. Specifically, if you are defending others you have a duty to remove them from the potential for harm. You cannot guarantee their safety by remaining at the scene.

On the other hand, it is your choice if you want to go above and beyond. You have no duty to render aid (other than calling and reporting), but the choice to remove yourself from potential harm is yours to make. If you choose to go above and beyond and expose yourself to the continuing potential for harm that's not a duty, that's saintly behavior.

CLtoon: Theraputic DUID

CLtoon: Theraputic Treatment

CLtoon: The Explanation

Jan 15, 2009

Round & About

1) Using facebook to capture criminals.

2) Teacher-student sex ban doesn't apply at 18.

3) "Los Angeles Police Department fingerprint examiners who falsely implicated at least two people in crimes have been linked to nearly 1,000 other criminal cases that authorities say must now be reviewed to ensure that similar errors weren't made.">Los Angeles Police Department fingerprint examiners who falsely implicated at least two people in crimes have been linked to nearly 1,000 other criminal cases that authorities say must now be reviewed to ensure that similar errors weren't made."

4) "Speaking before the annual meeting of the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, Watkins acknowledged his strategy of overturning other prosecutors' work hasn't won him any popularity contests in his field – 'though politically, personally ... I get on TV just about every night.'"

Jan 14, 2009

Explanations - Speech Patterns

At various times in my career I've noticed that I fall into speech patterns. As a defense attorney there were certain explanations that I found to work and continued to use. However, I do wonder if they would work for defendants here in Appalachia as well as they did for the city kids whom I was defending. Anyway, there are two patterns I have fallen into using as a prosecutor, one with victims and the other with defense attorneys.

Victims: Hammer

Victims come in with varying degrees distress and all sorts of expectations, hopes, and demands as to what prosecution should accomplish. Consequently, I've had to come up with a way to describe what I can actually do and the "hammer" explanation seems to work most of the time.

"You've got to understand, I can only do certain things. In fact, I can only really do two things. I can send someone to jail or get them put on probation. I can't fix them or condemn their soul. The Commonwealth of Virginia has given me a hammer and it's not the perfect tool for all situations. All I can do is hit them over the head if they do the wrong thing. I can't make things right, all I can do is punish and hope the message gets through so he, or others, don't do it again."

Of course, the explanation varies from person to person, depending on their state of mind and ability to comprehend. I sometimes use a whack-a-mole analogy, but I worry that too many people won't remember what whack-a-mole was. All in all, this seems to be an explanation that works. Everybody knows what a hammer is and that it only really has one use - to hit something.

Defense Attorneys: My Job to be Obstinate

Then there's a phrase that I find myself using with the defense attorneys. Usually, it's during an equity negotiation (facts not in dispute, just trying to figure out proper punishment). There comes that point in the negotiation where we are talking about different people. The defense attorney is talking about the mother of two who needs to keep her job and has a lortab addiction she needs help kicking. I'm talking about the person who has six misdemeanor convictions in the last 3 years and has been caught shoplifting from the Wal*Mart the 4th time.

"Sorry, Bob, but some times it's just my job to be obstinate. This is the best offer I'm going to make."

There are variations on this as well. On Monday, I found myself saying that "sometimes it's my job to be the bad guy" (I blame Edintally for that). It's a polite way to end the conversation and state your final position. Usually it means we part ways amicably, agreeing to disagree, and move on with whatever comes next. I'm sure there are other ways to do the same thing; it's just a pattern I've noticed myself adopting over time.

Jan 12, 2009

Now Starts the 7th Year

6 years of the various incarnations of CrimLaw have gone by. Tried all sorts of other online projects at the same time, but this is the one that has stuck. Why? Not sure, but I think this blogging stuff is more addictive than crack.

I look forward to afflicting another year on those of you masochistic enough to read my rambling. ;-)

The Young Criminal Lawyer: What Path to Take?

Edintally, one of the more interesting recent commenters, dropped me a couple emails asking as to my status (prosecutor or defense attorney?). When I clarified that I'd been a defense attorney and moved over to prosecutor he allowed as how he had never heard of someone doing that before.

And that's a shame. Not his fault, but I think it's symptomatic of a failing we have in our system. For some reason, we seem to think people should choose a side and stay there. That's just wrong. Long term practice on one side only tends to lead to the kind of bunker mentality we see all too often wherein both sides dig in, see everything the other side does as motivated by pure evil, and lob invectives (or worse, dirty tricks) at each other.

So, here's my suggestion to those of you interested in starting a career in criminal law. I know that no one will listen to me, but I think the world would be a better place if they did. Whichever side you feel are "the good guys", start on the other. Practice there not for 6 months - or even 2 years; practice there for at least five years - enough time that it becomes second nature. Then flip sides. Stay there for at least 3 years. Then put some serious thought into where you want to put your efforts.

As you might guess, this somewhat mirrors my journey, except for the fact that not having planned on becoming a criminal lawyer I didn't have strong feelings as to which side I'd start on. I applied for jobs both at Commonwealth Attorney offices and Public Defenders. Then I started my own practice doing court appointed work, built it up and eventually folded it (out of business reasons and wanting to move closer to where I grew up) and joined a prosecutor's office on the far end of the State. I consider my path something of a happy accident. However, that's not why I commend it to you.

Part of what makes anyone a good attorney is understanding the problems, motivations, and mindset of the attorney on the other side. No matter how smart you are, you cannot do this without walking that mile in the other guy's moccasins. I'm sure you think you can. In fact, I'm fairly certain that I'll get comments from people telling me they've observed the other side for years and they don't need to live it to understand it. They're wrong. There will always be issues you'll never know, priorities which you'll never suss out, and problems you'll never even have heard about if you haven't been there yourself.

Personally, my hope is that working both sides will lead a person to have more loyalty to the system than a side. That's not to say I don't expect people to play their part in the system to the fullest extent of their ability. The system doesn't work if they don't. Still, all this silliness about being at "war" with the other side tends to come from "True Believers" and True Believers tend to come from people who have never seen and don't understand the other side. It's not a war, it's a test. Those who have worked on both sides usually understand this and the prejudices, priorities, and anxieties of the other side. I'd go so far as to say, if you couldn't do either job in a manner meant to lead to justice you should seriously consider doing neither.

Jan 11, 2009

Comment Cavalcade (3):
Denying the Immorality of Pleading Not Guilty to an Offense Committed

More Commentary:

It is not possible to plead not guilty when one is guilty because one is not guilty until the government lawyers have proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is the right of every American to force the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, no matter what the particular circumstances might be.

Yes, that would be the correct if my discussion was about civil rights and criminal procedure, instead of personal moral responsibility. As I stated in the initial post, the system doesn't care about the defendant's personal moral responsibility as it relates to his plea and the guilt/innocence part of the trial. Nevertheless, the fact that we have chosen as a society to implement a criminal justice system based upon the idea that "it is better that 10 (Blackstone) or 100 (Franklin) guilty go free rather than one innocent be jailed" does not speak to the personal morality of the defendant's plea. A system based upon the principle above and having infinite resources and time would ideally forgo a plea and try each defendant to force the prosecution to prove his case. Of course, the system does not have infinite resources and time.

If one person pleads guilty, he permits the government to throw more resources at its other cases. The government prosecutes factually guilty people and factually innocent people. It can’t tell the difference. The more resources the government throws at a case, the more likely it is to convict that accused. So by pleading guilty the factually guilty accused makes it more likely that a factually innocent person will be convicted. That sounds immoral to me.

I'm pretty sure that Mark's tweaking me with this one because I just can't see him advising his client "Yeah, Bob, I know they're offering you 5 years on a murder charge despite having video tape of you doing it and your admission of the crime to 17 people before the police even arrested you. However, you need to think about how many resources the State will have to waste on you instead of on other people charged with crimes. The State might not have enough resources to convict an innocent man if you plead not guilty and make them waste those resources. It's the right thing to do." I'm sure he'd love for all you other defense attorneys to do that so there are less resources to be used against his clients, but I don't see him doing that to his. Nevertheless, let's assume his client came to that thought all by himself. Would he be correct? Would it be moral to plead not guilty because it would make it harder to convict an innocent person?

No. Well, it would be if that was as far as it goes. However, there's a pretty obvious flaw not addressed in the model set out by Mark. By pleading not guilty a defendant takes away resources from cases in which the defendant did it. No matter how you look at the criminal justice system there are far more people in the system who did what they are accused of than didn't. So, if a plea of not guilty by a murderer makes it 5% less likely that the prosecution is able to convict the next 10 murderers and 9 of them are factually guilty then the initial defendant has done more harm than good. So, instead of being just individually morally wrong the defendant is also wrong for the extenuated damage he has done to society.

Jan 10, 2009

Comment Cavalcade (2): On Laws

Riffing off of more comments:

"Speeding" is immoral?

Is setting the speed limit unreasonably low so that all traffic is "speeding" in order to write more tickets immoral? After installing a red-light camera at an intersection the politicians and bureaucrats have been known to shorten the yellow cycle in order to raise more revenue from "violators" even though the shorter yellow cycle increases accidents. Is that moral?

What is immoral is creating a dangerous situation for others. If politicians and bureaucrats had a sense of shame it might be immoral to speed because the speed limit would be set and enforced solely for safety reasons. But that is not the case and it never will be.

and

I just can't agree that all laws deserve our deference. At least not at all times.
......
Of course, in the end, our legal system breaks down to "might makes right." So ignoring a law which should not exist can bring consequences.

That still doesn't make the law right. And, for some people, it still doesn't justify giving it deference.

Yes, speeding is immoral, it and all other laws are due deference, and we all give them deference (if for no other reason then we have to). The deference is, at its base, because we are the ones responsible for our laws. We vote our lawmakers into office. We either vote into office the judges who are the gatekeepers or we vote into office the people who choose the judges. Laws cannot be without, at the very least, the acquiescence of the majority of us. And, while the majority of a town may approve their council passing laws to create speed traps the town council can't do so unless allowed to do so by the county, the State, and the federal government (in other words, the rest of us voting citizens).

That does not mean that breaking a law is not justified if there is a superior moral claim. This can be a claim that the law is immoral, such as suffrage laws denying people the vote, or an individualized claim, such as speeding to get a dying person to the hospital. Laws can and should be challenged when perceived to be in error. However, if we choose not to give deference to the law at all, then there is no reason to follow it, except for the claim of enforcement by force.

Of course, there is always some level of force to law enforcement. A minority of people will violate the law of the majority whether it has a justifiable reason or not. Saying "Pretty-please with sugar on top, don't drive 65 mph in front of the elementary school while kids are there" isn't going to stop such people. The threat and actuality of enforcement will decrease the number of people violating a law. The question is whether enforcement and/or resistence to it is just/moral.

I don't think we can limit the morality of the law to approve only laws which "creat[e] a dangerous situation for others" unless we widen our definition of "dangerous situation." If we are limiting it to a proximate cause /immediately dangerous situation that ignores long-term needs and effects. Sometimes, other necessities mandate an enforceable law. For instance, were OPEC to embargo the US the speed limit might be lowered because of the necessity of reducing the demand for gasoline. There's no immediate danger to individuals. Nevertheless, there is a danger for great, long-term damage to society as a whole. That law is, IMO, just.

So then, where exactly are the lines for just/unjust laws and just/unjust violations? I'm not sure exactly. Some day I may sit down and write my magnum opus, The Unified CrimLaw Just Law Theory. It'll be one of those 200 page books which law profs praise, people put on their shelves to show their sophistication, and nobody reads. Until then we are all just going to have to muddle through. :-)