Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury.

Thank you for being here, truly thank you very much.

With your presence in this courtroom, we have the simple, essential element of Justice.

I am NOT a lawyer, I am an Historian.

Benjamin Franklin in his Poor Richard’s Almanac modified an old folk saying:
“For want of a nail a shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe a horse was lost.
For want of a horse a rider was lost.
For want of a rider a battle was lost.”
For want of a nail a nation was lost.” (or words to that effect).

For want of a simple item, a cascade of calamity flows forth.

Our being here in this Civil Court room today with a Jury is illustrative of that truth.

Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, one of the “organic elements” of our law in America even today wrote:

“The history of the present...
is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations,
all having in direct object
the establishment of an absolute Tyranny...
For depriving us in many cases of
the benefits of Trial by Jury.”

Our forefathers fought a Revolution to earn our Right, your Right, and my Right, to have a Trial by Jury, and other Rights of Due Process and Civil Procedure.

The Right of a Trial by Jury is enshrined in “this Constitution for the United States of America” in Article III, Section 2,

“The Trial of all Crimes,..., shall be by Jury;...”

yet that Right was extended by the Bill of Rights to Civil cases as well, Article or Amendment VI is for Criminal cases and Amendment VII is for Civil Cases where is proclaimed:

“In Suits at common law,...
the right to trial by jury
shall be preserved,...”

In 2004, Virginia Court of Appeals Judge D. Arthur Kelsey wrote about the Framers’ legal philosophy in an issue of Virginia Lawyer magazine:

“To them, the jury was no procedural formality,
but a fundamental reservation of power in our constitutional structure.
Just as suffrage (voting) ensures the people’s ultimate control
in the legislative and executive branches,
jury trial is meant
to ensure their control in the judiciary.”

In Virginia, the Bill of Rights is placed first as Article I of the Constitution of Virginia before the rest of the Constitution to establish its preeminence in importance, wherein Section 11 the second paragraph states:

“That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man,
trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred."

In Williamsburg, Virginia at the National Center for State Courts with its Center for Jury Studies that has a branch office about two blocks up Wilson Boulevard here in Arlington, they quote Founding Father Thomas Jefferson yet again:

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor
ever yet imagined by man

by which government can be held to
the principles of its constitution...”

One could sum up the above wise words of wise men with:

“No Jury, no Justice.”

You have probably heard the saying,

“A man who represents himself has a fool as a client.”

Likely that saying came from a lawyer, or second hand from a lawyer.

The true saying is a bit different, ...
it too came from a lawyer,...
one who never went to law school,...
a man who was a repeated failure in life in one venture after another,...
until he finally turned his life around and succeeded.

Lincoln was that Man, that man was a lawyer.

However, as a man who is an Historian,
I researched that saying of Lincoln to learn that he said:

“A LAWYER who represents himself has a fool as a client.”

Not just any citizen, but a lawyer.

The question we should then ask, is “When?”

When did he become a fool?
When he became a client?
Or when he became a lawyer?

NY Chief Justice Judith Kay sues State of NY (for more pay!) Ripe for JURY TRIAL?!?

Chief Justice Sues the State of New York

Why no request by the "Chief Justice" for a TRIAL BY JURY? Might she know the wise Citizens would not look kindly on the corrupt judges and justices receiving MORE pay, there is "justice" in poor pay for poor work?

The New York Times reported on April 11, 2008 that the Chief Justice Judith Kaye in the state of New York has sued the state on behalf of the state's 1,250 judges claiming that the state has violated their constitutional rights for failing to pay them an appropriate salary. New York judges have not received a pay raise since January of 1999 and their salaries are nearly the lowest nationally, based on a cost of living comparison. A copy of the complaint filed by Chief Justice Kaye is available online and is worth the time to read.

How about the national television story of the "pay under the table" of a New York judge. Are we to believe that judge was the only judge receiving "extra pay". And what about "pay" as law school professors, does the "Chief Justice" include that income?

http://www.nylawyer.com/adgifs/decisions/041108complaint.pdf

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
JUDITH KAYE in her official capacity as
Chief Judge of the State of New York and
THE NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT
SYSTEM
Plain

against

SHELDON SILVER in his official capacity as SUMMONS
Speaker of the New York State Assembly Index No
THE NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY JOSEPH
BRuNO in his official capacity as Temporary
President of the New York State Senate THE
NEW YORK STATE SENATE DAVID
PATERSON in his official capacity as Governor
of the State of New York and THE STATE OF
NEW YoRK
Defendants

TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS
You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon plaintiffs attorneys an answer to the complaint in this action within 20 days of service of this summons on you exclusive of the
date of service or within 30 days after service is complete if this summons is not personally
delivered to you within the State of New York

In case of your failure to answer judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint

The basis for the designated venue is the county in which plaintiff Chief Judge Judith Kaye resides
Dated New York New York
April 10 2008

GW Will Ordered Arbitration NOT Litigation

George Washington's Will

A few days ago, your faithful lawblogger attended a seminar on arbitration. One of the interesting tidbits of the course was that George Washington had a provision in his will requiring all disputes be arbitrated rather than litigated. It would seem that the aim of the father of our country to foster means of alternate dispute resolution more than two hundred years ago clearly placed him ahead of his time!

Even though it may seem like a good idea to reach beyond the grave and require that disputes involving estates be arbitrated rather than litigated, this would be in clear conflict with the laws of New York which prohibit arbitration in such situations. Obviously, this might deny the Surrogate the power to review the conduct of fiduciaries acting in place of the decedent and to force them to account where necessary. If arbitration were to be allowed, it might compromise the rights of infants or of creditors of the decedent.

It is also important to keep in mind the fact that the driving philosophy adhered to in Surrogate's Court is to determine and achieve the true desires of the maker of a will. Therefore, while the intention of a testator to have disputes settled by arbitration could be achieved by enforcing such a clause, there is no guarantee that the arbitration process would operate successfully to determine and to achieve the overall intention of the testator insofar as distributing his or her assets would be concerned.

Courts have held , however, that where one has entered into an enforceable agreement during his or her lifetime, arbitration clauses in that agreement will be upheld. Therefore, the estate will be required to be involved in the arbitration of disputes arising under such a contract.