« Strahilevitz: How's My Driving? For Everything and Everyone | Main | Razors and Blades Again and Again: Apple and Kodak »

February 02, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Political umpire

Mr Hamilton,

I have enjoyed our discussion, although I think there’s little chance of much agreement. For example, you write:

“What I mean is that all humanity should have the inalienable rights of freedom and liberty and all that entails (religious (sic), travel, economic freedom, association, et al). Sadly, those rights that all people should enjoy are not available to all people. Too many nations don't allow their citizens the benefit of those freedoms.

Although I believe those rights do apply to all of humanity there are regimes and dictators that don't share my beliefs.

That is my distinction between United States citizens and other peoples of the world.
Our founders believed that those human rights came not from a King or a parliament or a government but were indeed bestowed by our Creator to all humankind.”

Bin Laden also thinks his rights and his actions are bestowed/ordained by his Creator. So too the theocrats of the Middle East, the Vatican and many other places. They cannot all be right. I can’t help thinking that if there is a Creator, who wished for his/her subjects to have specific (and contested) political rights, he/she might have made it a bit clearer.

Your remarks about the rest of the world border on the patronising. I fear that this sort of conviction (that the US version of Classical Liberalism is a God-given right) has underpinned many unwise American foreign interventions over the past sixty years. President Bush and his advisers seem keen on their faith; the people of Iraq did not seem to be so grateful, just like the Somalis and the Vietnamese before them. And a lot of shifty dictators received American support during the Cold War (Saddam Hussein amongst them) for staying on message regarding the Soviets, and were given a free hand to oppress their own as a result. But that’s all way off the original post and out of respect for that I will stop.


The interpretation of judicial power in Prof. Stone's post is just as overreaching and radical as John Yoo's views on executive authority.

Frederick Hamilton

Political umpire,
Freedom and liberty. The tenets of American government. That's all. Agree that in the name of religion all kinds of bad behavior has transpired through history. I don't blame God. I blame man for those transgressions against humanity. That a bin Laden believes his Allah requires the killing of infidel men, women and children is an indictment of bin Laden and not his Muslim faith. Although I must admit I have my doubts about the Muslim faith in general.

Certainly during the Cold War and World War II alliances of convenience were in my mind wrong. The giving of all of Eastern Europe to the Russians after World War II was America's worst hour. Our darkest stain on a stain filled foreign policy.

I suppose it sounds patronising to suggest that freedom and liberty are the worlds best hope for mankind. But, there was a time when it was a good thing to dream the impossible dream. A time when as Robert Kennedy said, Some people see things and ask why, I see things and ask why not?

America's policy should always be to foster freedom and liberty for all peoples. We haven't always lived up to our responsibilities in that regard.

That is the tie in to this post. The Supreme Court and freedom and liberty. As outlined in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Those two documents are the touchstone. The day we as a nation abandon championing freedom, liberty and democracy in our nation and throughout the world is the day our nation starts a quick decline into irrellevance for mankind. No, I think it important to dream the impossible dream and at times to fight for it. 50 million Afghans and Iraqis are still clinging to their fragile freedom and liberty. It is incumbent we do all we can to help them keep it forever. It is our duty. We did it for many other nations (Japan, Germany, South Korea, Eastern Europe, Russia, et al). We can do it for Afghanistan and Iraq at this time. Those two nations will need our help for many years to come. We can abandon them. Just as we did Eastern Europe after World War II. Easy to be isolationist. Just wrong.

Political Umpire

Perhaps we're not in such disagreement as I thought. I certainly agree with both propositions here:

"America's policy should always be to foster freedom and liberty for all peoples. We haven't always lived up to our responsibilities in that regard."

The thing is, not everyone wants freedom and liberty a la America. Rightly or wrongly, some wish to live under Sharia law, some under Communism, some under a milder form of socialism (such as the French), and the American version of freedom is not appealing to them.

You are right that America owes the Afghans and Iraqis, and has a duty to stay the course in both countries accordingly. The reason for the Afghan invasion was understandable, the reason for the Iraq invasion was not, IMO, but either way the reality is that the US is in both countries and now needs to sort out the mess.

I think whatever the rhetoric, the fact is that almost all of America's foreign policy is and always has been to act not as a benign spreader of democracy but simply to act in what it thinks America's best interests are. After WWII, the US was happy to abandon Eastern Europe (ironic as the West became involved after the Nazi invasion of Poland, then gave Poland to Stalin at the end) because it did not perceive Eastern Europe in America's interests. And it only bailed out Europe with the Marshall plan because it was afraid of the spread of Communism. Other nations do the same sort of thing, it is just that they don't have the influence America does so people comment less.


I think Professor Stone micharacterizes Chief Justice Roberts's "narrowness" approach. I don't understand the Chief Justice to be advocating a Supreme Court that functions as a district court; rather, I hear him saying that the Court should break as little new ground as possible in any given decision. That's a far cry from saying that it should break no new ground at all. (I'm not sure I agree with the C.J., but it's important that we not misconstrue his argument.)


Whoa Frederick!

Are you saying that the Supreme Court may decide cases using the abstract conception of freedom and liberty rather than the laws of the United States (including the Constitution)?

Frederick Hamilton

No. My point is simply that freedom and liberty are the cornerstone of the foundation of our Constitution. The Framers touchstone.

The Supremes as I mentioned above should only decide issues based on the Constitution and should not let their personal feelings and beliefs determine their decisions and also that they should not have a personal desired outcome relating to their decision making.

I do believe it is impossible to seperate the issues of individual freedom and liberty from the Constitution and the desires of the framers in that regard. But, as you point out, the decision making always needs to comport to Constitutional prescriptions and proscriptions.

Parenthetically, the Supremes have decided cases based on individual freedom, liberty and rights on any number of occasions, but I suspect always with reference to the Constitution.


If the Supreme Court's constitutional role is to say what the law is, then are dissenting opinions even within the Court's duties? If a dissenting opinion does not have the force of law, then it's not stating what the law is, but merely casting doubt on the law. Am I way out in left field on this one?

As an aside, I'd like to applaud all of the commenters. I'm a regular reader of The Volokh Conspiracy, and the comments here, at least on this post, are significantly better (whatever that means) than any comments I've read on the conspiracy.


Mr. Hamilton, you have yet to explain the inconsistences between your assertions that human rights are God-given, that they are limited to Americans, and that Congress can revoke them.

Adam, I find this one of the few discussion places on the Internet that fosters genuine discussion, as opposed to mere tribal self-reinforcement.

Frederick Hamilton

I thought I did explain myself above but probably didn't do a good job of it. Yes, I agree with the wisdom of our founding fathers that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (aka freedom and liberty) is God given (aka inalienable aka can't be alienated from humankind). I also said all human beings have those God given rights. Sadly not all nations had founders who believed (as do I) that freedom and liberty are intrinsic to the human condition ergo God given. Those rights are not limited to Americans but being lucky enough to be born American I do enjoy the rights as formulated by the wisdom of our founding fathers. Founding fathers who were believers in God, His Grace and who also believed in freedom of religion. I share the founders belief in God and faith but don't denigrate anyone else who doesn't.

No, Congress cannot take away or revoke those rights from American citizens. The Supremes would strike that attempt by a 9-0 vote in a heartbeat. Congress cannot revoke such inalienable rights of U.S. citizens. Now the citizens themselves can revoke those rights by amending the Constitution. The chances of that happening are the same as you or I reciting the value of pi to the twentieth character successfully.


Mr. Hamilton, how do you reconcile your statement that "Those rights are not limited to Americans" with your statement that "Congress cannot take away or revoke those rights from American citizens"?

The basic contradiction in your position is that, on the one hand, you claim that basic human rights are God-given and therefore apply to all people, regardless of citizenship, and, on the other hand, that Congress has the right to strip non-citizens of these supposedly God-given rights. Forget the Supreme Court -- shouldn't Congress be on the receiving end of divine lightning bolts if it revokes God-given rights?

Frederick Hamilton

You are correct in that Congress passed legislation regarding non-citizens that did not allow them the same legal rights as citizens, i.e. the MCA regarding captured enemy terrorist during a time of war as directed to do by a Supreme Court decision. But as you yourself note, these are not U.S. citizens. They are not striping them of their God given rights to freedom and liberty. They are applying rules of justice different than our U.S. criminal justice sytem.

Basically your question is do criminal enemy terrorists have civil rights? Yes they do. I believe our government is giving them a satisfactory compliment of rights. Terrorists that want to attack and kill Americans deserve to be treated humanely and to be given fair justice. Assuming as enemy combatants they survive the war process alive.

The treatment of terrorist prisoners is a different situation from the freedoms, liberties and rights of law abiding U.S. citizens. To try to equate the two is not apt.

In this instance I also would have voted as Congress did if a member of Congress regarding enemy terrorist combatants imprisoned in Guantanamo. Do those in Guantanamo deserve freedom and liberty? Some might. They will be getting their day in court. The MCA allows for federal court review of these prisoners military court process.

Among them of course is Sheik Khalid, the supposed planner and mastermind of 9/11. He is being treated humanely in Guantanamo. He will have his day in the military court (legal per the Supremes) and I suspect if found guilty will be executed. As to all the others in Guantanamo, I along with Congress, believe their trials and outcomes will be fair and their God given right to freedom and liberty will be accorded if found innocent and in the interim they will be treated well and humanely.


"Unnecessary uncertainty is not a healthy state of affairs when it comes to the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, or the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures."

I agree. Let's erase that "Case and Controversy" silliness right out of the Constitution. If the Supremes think a law implicates something on Prof. Stone's list, they should just announce their view, and wipe away that uncertainty forever.

"Whenever the Supreme Court decides a case 'narrowly,' resolving only the particular dispute before it, it leaves the rest of the society and rest of the legal system in the dark."

Absolute hyperbole. The legal system is quite adept at applying prior narrow precedents to new and unique problems. That is what lawyers and courts do all day every day. Even the narrowest of precedents provides information about how our laws work.


Well, Mr. Hamilton, we are once again committing felony topic drift, but you seem to have a flexible notion of what constitutes liberty and freedom. Habeus corpus is a pretty basic right, and denying that it is a universal right is tantamount, in my opinion, to declaring that in practice there are no natural inalienable rights. So I think you've pretty much blown out of the water the notion that our rights are God-given. Your stance towards such notions is opportunistic and insouciant. If habeus corpus isn't sacred, what is?

In deference to the principles of topic focus, I shall leave the last word on this to you.

Political umpire

"The treatment of terrorist prisoners is a different situation from the freedoms, liberties and rights of law abiding U.S. citizens. To try to equate the two is not apt."

Come on. Presumption of innocence, anyone? Or is it presumed anyone from those inferior countries must be guilty?

Joan A. Conway

Congress is corrupted by the ballot box, and the Supreme Court is a political institution. Staying cynical is the best alternative, when it comes to the treatment of terrorists, especially under George W. Bush's State of Death public policy practices. The law what the justices' and judges' say it is! Trying to white wash bad public policy denies the unvarnished truth that states do not scrutinize a statute for being constitutional. They leave it for the Supreme Court, which may be obstructed during its litigation as well.

Political umpire states a remarkably innocent conclusion that the innocent are saved from a wrongful prosecution, which in Illinois we know was mostly not the case, hence former Governor George Ryan's recent death row pardon(s).

People want Law and Order at any price, or the allusion of it, any more (NOW).


Progress requires leaps sometimes, it requires courage to change dramatically when it is the only way. Ending segregaton wasn't going to happen bit by bit. It was only going to happen when a few good thinkers took big logical steps toward justice. God bless the Warren court, you know? They'd still be lynching in the South.

Political Umpire

I have to say I'm not sure which remark of mine Ms Conway was referring to. What I meant in my previous post was that Mr Hamilton's apparent justification for Guantanamo Bay is that all the inmates are 'terrorists'. The G. Bay situation is simply unacceptable for a civilised country. If there was any evidence against those being held there, it would presumably have been possible to have trials years ago. America wouldn't tolerate its own citizens - even the worst criminals such as the Oklahoma bomber or serial killers - being detained without trial. What sort of message does it send about justice to the rest of the world? That a superpower can do as it chooses?

Frederick Hamilton

Habeus isn't sacred for enemy combatants during a war. The MCA had a Senate vote of 65-34 with 12 Dems joining 53 Repubs and a House vote of 250-170 with 32 Dems joining 218 Repubs.

There would be nothing wrong with holding the enemy combatants in Guantanamo for the duration of the war on terror without a trial. Enemy combatants were held in World War II on both sides for the duration of the war.

The Military trials will be fair proceedings conducted within the same framework as the UCMJ and militray court marshalls.

No, Political umpire, the justification for Guantanamo is not that all inmates are terroristss. The justification for Guantanamo is that it is a prisoner of war camp. You would like all war prisoners I take it to be held in federal prisons. Pretty unworkable and never been done before. The military trials will begin very shortly and we'll see how they unfold. And of course the inmates are presumed innocent and they will have military lawyers representing them.

McCain a tortured POW with no habeus in Hanoi with Graham a military lawyer both held out for a MCA they could support and called the bill a good thing.

One question. If there were no Guantanamo then what would take it's place for the captured war combatants and presumed terrorists? The DOD has released many more than they have captured and released many more from Guantanamo than are remaining there now. But yes, to the Bush bashers and the Iraq War critics Guantanamo is evil and our DOD is akin to Nazi SS and their concentration camps, the Japanese and their Battan Death March and the Soviet Gulags.

Our system of laws works. Hamdan was decided by the Supremes. Congress did respond to the admonition of the Supremes and instituted the MCA. Islamic terrorist jihadists want to continue the assault on the west. (Our fault of course).

Now, Joan, it is a bit surreal to claim Congress is corrupted by the ballot box. I kinda thought representative governemnt with voting wasn't a corrupting exercise but a democratic one. As to the Supreme Court being a political institution, I can't ever remember being able to corrupt one of them with my vote. I think the members of the SC would take your view as hogwash. After all, they did rebuke Bush with Hamdan and forced Congress to address the Guantanamo detainees, didn't they?

And LAK, if only we had a few good thinkers the Islamic terrorist jihadists and us would be sitting down and carving up Israel. Sounds about right.

Eras, your right, I am guilty of topic drift. But it is enlightening. And at least LAK hasn't reamed me a new one. So that is progress.

Political Umpire

"The justification for Guantanamo is that it is a prisoner of war camp."

In which case I'm at a loss as to why the detainees there weren't called POWs, but the slippery "enemy combatants", which allowed the DoD to say they weren't even entitled to the Geneva Convention.

"You would like all war prisoners I take it to be held in federal prisons."

No, but wherever they're held they should be entitled to the Geneva Convention (which they are now at last). The military trials seem to have been a long time coming.

"to the Bush bashers and the Iraq War critics Guantanamo is evil and our DOD is akin to Nazi SS and their concentration camps, the Japanese and their Battan Death March and the Soviet Gulags."

I never said that, you are attacking a straw man. But just because GB isn't as bad as those examples does not mean it is acceptable for a nation that aspires to higher things. You say "There would be nothing wrong with holding the enemy combatants in Guantanamo for the duration of the war on terror without a trial". As the US is never going to say that the war on terror has ended, what you are suggesting in effect is that America has a licence to detain any and all people it picks up from Afghanistan and Iraq forever.

Does the same apply in reverse? Ie, if the Taliban or an Iraqi group capture a US soldier, is it ok for them to hang on to them forever?


Without addressing the editorial content of your remarks, Mr. Hamilton, I would like to point out a logical error you have fallen prey to numerous times. Its most recent manifestation is your statement regarding "McCain a tortured POW with no habeus in Hanoi". You have elsewhere referred to outrages committed by terrorists in order to justify policies that others question. I'd like to remind you that two wrongs don't make a right, that the sins of our opponents do not justify our own sins, and that abandoning what makes us great in order to gain an advantage renders moot the moral justification of our continued existence. Yes, if we were facing oblivion, I would contemplate desperate measures -- but we do not face anything approaching oblivion. The injuries that have been wreaked upon us are pinpricks, and to lose sight of our greatness because of such pinpricks is beneath the dignity of the American experiment.

Frederick Hamilton

Agree two wrongs don't make a right. Also do have some reservations about suspending habeus with the MCA but also recognize the argument that won the day that to give terrorists rights as if they were U.S. citizens and all that entails in a criminal proceeding was unworkable for prosecuting the war on terror. Over 60 Senators agreed and as you know getting 60 Senators to agree on anything today is impressive.

I would disagree that the terrorist attacks on the U.S. over the years have simply been pinpricks. I think most Americans also don't consider them pinpricks. I have been to ground zero and that was a hell of a pinprick. Those 3,000 innocents killed and the ones leaping to there deaths, some hand in hand sure didn't consider them pinpricks. As an aside, the anti-war movement doesn't consider the 3,000 dead soldiers in Iraq a pinprick. They consider that number a tragedy.

Greatness requires us to stand by Iraq and Afghanistan as those 50 million people struggle for their freedom. The Iraqi government of PM Maliki has been in power less than 9 months. They need our help. Great nations don't abandon their friends during their darkest moments. We can't walk away from them.

And Political umpire, if the Taliban or al Qaeda capture an American you won't have to wait long to see just how long they keep them. Their dead bodies (frequently headless) will be available pretty quick. They also won't be provided trials. They won't be given Bibles. They won't get three square meals a day. They will get their day on al Jarzerra TV and that's about it.


Frederick, there are bounds to the leaps that those big thinkers can take (like the constitution). Let's not discount the necessity at the time for advancement of civil rights and new applications of constitutional thought to the political reality either. They did what they had to do. The big thinkers in Islam aren't really thinking logically, which is a premise of the whole endeavor in the first place.

Joan A. Conway

Now, Joan, it is a bit surreal to claim Congress is corrupted by the ballot box.

Congress is corrupted by the ballot box to gain votes from Mexicans, when they continue to allow illegal aliens to cross the border to the tune of 14 million without valid documentation or health examinations or without drug inspection. Congress has many incumbents that are not answering to their constituents, because they have no uncertainty attached to being reelected in their state or district. Congress depends on campaign contributions from industrial leaders, either hard or soft money, to finance their lifestyles, since money talks in Washington D.C. and bulls__t walks. Congressional members are euphemistically referred to as our "Clowns." The Democratic process is a term to cover up the lack of a better term to describe our electorial process fraught with corruption and machine control in major demographic areas that are heavily populated. I worked as an Election Judge for over 30 years in Chicago, and Glenview, Illinois, so I can tell you what the outcome will be in any particular election prior to the votes being cast, thanks to our Board of Elections, which finally threw me out of a precinct because I caught vote tampering by several 80 year old females under the pretext of early dementia, such as throwing away votes in the waste basket. Precinct captains control the outcome and election judges are only tolerated in the same precinct as long as they are easy going or aiders and abettors in the partisanship. Election rules only work in theory, and not in practice, since 80 year old women can't do much in setting up the precinct, especially if they are shuffled around from one precinct to another and have no feel for there location, let alone the rules of their engagement. The same can be said for most temporary Election Judges fearful of suspected and unauthorized authority over them, who can't find their way around a block let alone in a precinct. This then is the Democratic process you were talking about, and the flaws go on and on and on!

I kinda thought representative governemnt with voting wasn't a corrupting exercise but a democratic one.

I kinda thought representative government with voting considers the needs to get elected at any price including your health and safety!

As to the Supreme Court being a political institution, I can't ever remember being able to corrupt one of them with my vote.

The Supreme Court rules on statutes passed in states that have blocked justice by laws that are repugnant to our constitution, simply because the President appoints Supreme Court Justices that have the same ideological bent has he does to insure that his misdeeds are not discovered. Read: The President's Counselor, by Bill Minutaglio, concerning Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, and the misadvertures of the State of Texas that lead to his appointment as the state's Attorney General.

I think the members of the SC would take your view as hogwash.

All one has to do is to look at their voting record to see that the Supremes often have a split vote, or close vote, in deciding and expounding about our constitutional rights. Can any right be so clouded as to have like minded men and women so confused as to its clarity? Why is their so much discrepancy amongst very education Justices? It must be something in the WATER!

After all, they did rebuke Bush with Hamdan and forced Congress to address the Guantanamo detainees, didn't they?

That is Bush's plan to avoid the consequences of his acts until the Supremes take some action and in the process many years, if not decades have passed, and lives have been ruined. Sometimes Bush plays the devils advocate to create a Supreme Court ruling where one does not exist that allowed him to act irresponsible, but never the less Bush does not act responsible to find the Supremes reinforces his actions.

Many in Congress see the matter as a text of wills by the chief executive on his subordinates, Attorney General, and his cabinet members, to find out whether they will take a stand, and have a Supreme Court Justice career in their future. They go along with the tests and involve recent Americans into the system to see if they have the values we respect or whether they will sell out to the easy going way obviously the Nancy Pelosi way.

Joan A. Conway

"Progress requires leaps sometimes, it requires courage to change dramatically when it is the only way. Ending segregaton wasn't going to happen bit by bit. It was only going to happen when a few good thinkers took big logical steps toward justice. God bless the Warren court, you know? They'd still be lynching in the South."

Posted by: LAK | February 08, 2007 at 12:52 AM

When you take into consideration the scandalous education system in America, you realize that the bit-by-bit approach to reforming administrative rules and regulations, and statutes, with Agency 504 implications, is still a common practice. Take for instance the EEOC's failure to turn over state employees charges to the Department of Justice, for their investigation and right-to-sue letter, because such an action would doom the state as admission of guilt, when the Attorney General gets involved, and he is a political appointee desirous of a political career somewhere in his home State or with the Federal Government.

He will not attack a governor of a State, as a political hack, not wanting to rock the boat on his career opportunities, so the executive office of the EEOC, its Director, uses rules that have never received the authority of Congress, to dump the state employees charge into a "Lack of Material Evidence, because of its foibles.

The tricks do not end here.

Such as the EEOC's investigation goes, it uses its most senior, professional investigator to cover your testimony, but then uses its less senior, semi-professional investigator to cover your co-workers testimonies.

The slight of hand opportuntistic procedures involve even obstruction of the elements to make a sexual harassment claim on the trusting complainant, under the guise the complainant is responsible for her charge, when she had paid an attorney for the initial allegations under the elements of Title VII.

However, her attorney had her send it certified mail to the Illinois Department of Human Rights, and 504 Agency, in cooperation with the EEOC, who then forwards it to the EEOC, since too much time has passed since the first fact of the allegation, and the IDHR cannot cover it by law.

The EEOC is therefore not in possession of the attorney prepared charge and undergoes another charge without the assistance of an attorney.

The complainant is caught off-guard by the bait and switch tactic and suffers through the coarse of the obstruction by a federal, and justified state action, since the attorney never indicated that the former employee was indeed a "state employee" entitled to the U. S. Department of Justice investigation and right-to-sue letter, under Section 706(f)(1), which is vague!

And suspected of being unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment, for the confiscation of property, a claim of discrimination.

So goes the 14 year war I have fought with the Federal Courts to gain justice with the first summary judgment in my favor, and with a parallel case, based on quid pro quo, being employed, as the reason for the violation of being evicted.

They are simply waiting for time to run out on my life.

It has run out on my Mother's life, my Aunt's life, my former husband's life, and their are members of the family that have had collateral damage as a consequence to my legal horror stories with the federal court system, the executive agencies, and federal department(s) trying to keep a state from being declared "guilty" and paying the full price of their violation(s) under Title VII, ADEA, ADA, (and perhaps the EPA), as well as Section 1983, 42 U.S.C. for arbitrary governmental action, the exclusion of women in management positions or senior level auditors with the State of California, State Board of Equalization, et al.

Other plaintiff(s) are in the same boat I am in under the EEOC's misdirected activities that I hope I eventually get a chance to challenge under the Federal Claims Act, as unconstitutional, and void.

They are unknown to me, but two I know and they are "Men."

The men were denied their promotion to be the Administrator, when the State appointed a female, due to my charge with the EEOC, claiming sexual harassment and a hostile environment.

These men had several decades of service to the State, which the state wanted to overlook, since these men were independent in the eyes of politicans.

The female who they appointed was very junior to the male candidates.

She was seen as "easy going."

The choice was obvious for the state politicans wanting to maintain their control of state auditors, who they can gain campaign contributions from their revolving door career opportunities, as demonstrated by the 'Desert Sun' reporting of their loopholes for campaign contributions with the very firms they tax, and train their future employees.

State and Federal government and agencies have a conflict of interest in the fact the trained employee often goes on to work for another employer with an adverary connection to the employee's first employer.

Debauched employees initially do very well with the State, but they are let go when the relationship ages, like these men, who didn't move on when they had better opportunities.

However, the employer depends on more semi-professional employees then it does a professional employee, hence there is great encouragement to get the employee to be devalued in someway, gamble, alcohol, sex, drugs, and any negative conduct, like automobile accidents attached to driving in the field, when the employer's outrageous demands caused the conditions for the automobile accident - such as you can't get sick or have a sick day, while working in the field!

The rule is destined to be broken under painful conditions.

My youngest son learned early that breaking the rules was the best alternative. He and his wife and his friend and his wife started CORMARK, INC., in Des Plaines, Illinois, with receiving awards for point-of-purchase patented products. Now the corporation is global, from China, to Brazel, to United Kingdom, to Canada, with over 350 employees, and over 50 million in annual sales, and show rooms around the country.

Of course, he is a genius!

But most importantly he didn't become the doctor, or a lawyer, or an accountant, he because the President of a Corporation.

The difference is he is the one making the arbitrary rules and he is the one that has the right to abuse his discretion.

But he has to pay his taxes as well.

I should have taken a different route with my abilities in mathematics, like design engineering instead of accounting.

A Word To The Wise, to get to the top early in life break the rules! This is his motto!

You can find him on the internet.

I am very proud of him, unfortunately not so proud of myself stalled under the wheels of justice.

Of course, by now I have many lawsuits pending and I am almost 75% ready to tackle what I have to accomplish.

When the going gets tough, the tough get going!

The EEOC still is playing games with no cooling off period and issuing U.S.Department of Justice matters with their right-to-sue letter. And the bit goes on!

The comments to this entry are closed.