No comments about The Leaders of the Old Bar of Philadelphia.

No comments about John Jay.

No comments about Beyond Reason.

1 comments about Kentucky Justice, Southern Honor, and American Manhood: Understanding the Life and Death of Richard Reid (Southern Biography Series).

1. James Klotter's sensitive portrayal of a post-Civil War controversy over a legal dispute demonstrates the powerful force of the southern code of honor that one might have thought dead given the humiliating southern defeat in war. In this case Kentuckian Richard Reid's refusal to avenge a thrashing by a disgruntled and half-mad loser in a law suit led to the downfall and death of this upstanding political leader. Reid had thus disgraced himself in the eyes of a truculent public. Klotter's work would make an excellent film--his narrative is vivid, sutble, and full of cultural meaning and depth.

No comments about John Peter Zenger: His Press, His Trial And a Bibliography of Zenger Imprints.

1 comments about The Life of John Marshall, Vol. 3: Conflict and Construction 1800-1815.

1. No longer do defendants have attorneys as zealous, diligent, and able as Burr's were. Judges in criminal trials now routinely admit chains of inferences that the eminent Chief Justice John Marshall would never have allowed (and did not). The excellent description of the events, arguments, and rulings Beveridge supplies supplement the wonderful "Burr Conspiracy" by Walter F. McCaleb.
   
   Jennifer Van Bergen, J.D.
   author of "The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America" and
   "Archetypes for Writers: Using the Power of Your Subconscious" (both available on Amazon)

5 comments about I Rest My Case.

1. I should have given this book five stars. Five for the amount of B.S. it contains. It never ceases to amaze me that in our modern society, the narcissistic people who are politically and socially corrupt, are hailed by themselves as hero's. Shaw confesses to having deceived his family for many years before finally writing his "legacy". What would make the reader now suddenly believe an admitted liar? I get the impression Shaw is still a "Schmuck" with a fountain pen". Only these days, he and his law firm steal more with those pens than an army of gangsters with guns.



2. This book is supposed to chronicle Shaw's career as a legacy to his family. Some career. Him and his law firm through his partner George Esernio, receive patronage appointments nowadays from people like judge Frank S Rossetti who was appointed not elected by Gov. Pataki so that they could steal millions in fees from the elderly and infirmed while the families of those elderly people go starving.



3. Is this the same Shaw that has a law firm on Long Island known as Shaw, Licitra, Esernio, Bohner & Schwartz? The one that receives so much praise, patronage and rewards from the heirarchy of people in power? If you need a lawyer or firm with influence and crooked political connections, this one is among the top ten.



4. I have personally witnessed Shaw's law firm in action. They suck. I saw one instance where they took millions of dollars from my childhood friend and charged hundreds of thousands in legal fees for simply clipping coupons and for instigating problems of an already dysfunctional family.



5. In 1994, Mike DeLano, my best friend of more than 50 years, suffered a minor stroke. This excuse was used to declare Mike "incapacitated" when his immediate family began to fight over Mike's assets. George Esernio of Shaw, Licitra, Esernio, Schwartz & Bohner, along with Mike's wife Kathryn, were "appointed" as co-guardians of Mike's estate by Judge Frank S Rossetti, who himself is "appointed" by Governor Pataki, a staunch political supporter and personal friend of Stanley Shaw and his firm. A coincidence, I don't think so.

   Co-guardians George Esernio and Kathryn DeLano, Mike's wife, after stealing everything they could before legally marshalling over four-million dollars in tax-free municipal bonds. You know, the kind you just need to clip the coupons on for the rest of your life and, would net a person nearly 2-3 hundred thousand dollars a year in income. Well, they began by spending eight-hundred thousand in their first year causing bonds to be cashed in, thereby not only reducing principal, but the interest that Mike's bank accounts should receive in income. Throughout the next ten-years, despite objections the entire time from Mike's eldest son Franklin, the excessive spending continued until Mike's money was nearly all gone. Sadly but much richer, Mike's wife and her co-guardian attorney George Esernio, who now needed a big influx of cash to keep the excessive fees and other expenses being paid, not very surprisingly, decided to sell Mike's buildings and land in Queens that he and Franklin had built with their own hands over a period of forty years. Whew, another couple of million of Mike's money to spend on themselves for a few more years before they need to sell the next building. Oh, did I forget to mention that those buildings that Mike built contained other businesses' that Mike owned that were also adding income to Mike's estate for fifty-years. Too bad his wife Kathryn and George Esernio, who charged more in fees than Mike himself ever took in salary, went bust from "mis-management".

   So it would appear that Mr. Shaw and his firm are not Saints or knights in shining armor but instead, a bunch of crooks. At least in this example. Want to know more, call Franklin of the NBGAG (National Bad Guardianship Advocacy Group)at (406) 825-5040 or (406)628-4862 or go look up Index No. 24309-I-93 in the Nassau County Courthouse located at 240 Old Country Rd. in Mineola, NY. and be ready for the guardianship shock of your life!

No comments about The Automated Society: What the Future will be and how we will get it that way.

No comments about Edward Carson (Blackstaff Classics).

4 comments about Justice in Paradise (Mcgill-Queen's Native and Northern Series).

1. Justice In Paradise recounts how a commitment to Native rights and an extraordinary passion for the rule of law have determined the course of Bruce Clark's life. From a childhood in an Indian residential school, to the defense of aboriginal rights before the Word Court, to being disbarred, Clark's struggle has led him to fight against the justice system itself. Justice In Paradise explains the legal and philosophical position behind Clark's opposition to the Indian rights industry. Clark argues that the North American legal system causes the genocide of those indigenous peoples who embrace traditional religion and identity and accuses those who administer it with chicanery and abandoning the rule of law. Clark turned his back on a comfortable lawyer's life to defend the rule of law and Native rights across the whole of North America. Justice In Paradise is a candid, fascinating biography that will prove fascinating to students of law, Native American rights, and non-specialist general readers who enjoy reading of men and women who make their mark upon the world with an untiring and activist devotion to their ideals and principles.



2. This is Bruce Clark's third book on the legality of Native land claims in North America. His first two books were: Indian Title In Canada (Carswell Law Publishers, Toronto, 1986) and Native Liberty, Crown Sovereignty: The Existing Aboriginal Right of Self-Government in Canada (McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal, 1990).

   Dr. Clark has made a career of defending native land claims in Canada and the US, based on legal arguments that the taking of native lands without purchase or treaty, by US and Canadian federal and/or state and provincial governments, has been unlawful. The argument is so open-and-shut, that courts refuse to hear it, since part of the argument is that the courts do not have jurisdiction. In over 40 cases, the court has refused to hear or respond to the argument. It is based on 18th century British constitutional law, which has not been repealed, and which is still in force in Canada and the USA. Starting with the Jackson administration in the US, the governments have simply decided to ignore the law on this matter. In the 1690s one of the branches of the great Mohican tribe made a treaty with the colony of Connecticut. The colony then allowed settlers onto the land. The Indians objected, saying the purpose of the treaty had been to prevent settlers from moving in. Connecticut felt the purpose was so that it could allow the settlers to move in. Absolutely opposite viewpoints of the same document. Rather than go to war, the Mohicans wanted to find a peaceful rule of law solution. But they did not want to go into the court system that the colony of Connecticut had set up, since doing that would admit that the intruding settlers had legal jurisdiction. And Connecticut would not accept the Mohican court. The Mohicans petitioned Great Britain's Queen Anne to find a solution. On March 9, 1804, as recommended by the Privy Council, Queen Anne issued an Order in Council (meaning that this decision was constitutionally binding on the British Crown and on all colonial governments in North America) asserting three principles: 1) Creation of a third-party court to adjudicate land disputes between Native Peoples and the colonial governments of the European settlers; 2) This court was to be a trial-level court; 3) Appeals against decisions by this court would be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. From 1704 when the Mohicans first applied to the Queen to the beginning of the American Revolution in 1776, the case of Mohegan Indians vs. Connecticut was regarded as the single most important case in the history of the British Empire. It guaranteed colonized peoples the right to independent and impartial third-party adjudication in human rights matters. The genius of that court case was that, if it had not (illegally) been ignored, it could have prevented genocide in North America. Dr. Clark has been disbarred by the Ontario Law Society for making these arguments, and has been charged with contempt of court for making these arguments, even though the courts refuse to hear the arguments; hence, there is no basis for the court to say that they are wrong arguments. Dr. Clark's writing of this book is further basis for contempt of court. Like Galileo, Dr. Clark's only escape from imprisonment for making an argument is to renounce that argument. Which he refuses to do.

   Law is based on Truth. Arguments are not disproved by the use of force of punishment and jail.




3. I have not read the book but wonder about the author who has such a desregard for public safety, public order of the role of the police to protect us from violence. His behaviour during the Gustafsen Lake occupation revealed someone on the edge and held him up to widespread public ridicule.



4. There is no doubt about Bruce Clarke's passion for Aboriginal people in Canada and the U.S. He staked his legal career on such concerns. His passion has made him controversial in many circles in North America. This autobiography/adventure story confirms that.
   
   Clarke presents an interesting legal avenue to pursue Aboriginal concerns and claims within North America. The problem is that no one, and I mean absolutely no one, appears very willing to listen. Clarke appeals to a legal precident that has never been over-ruled and therefore remains binding on all courts within North America. It is a good argument. However, no court will admit it or even listen to Clarke, usually for procedural reasons. The argument, even though valid, keeps getting shut down in court. It may be of consequence that Clarke has a knack for becoming involved with several explosive situations in an attempt to have the courts hear his argument. He is unsuccessful. He is eventually disbarred as a lawyer.
   
   This is a most unusual story, more likely to be found in communities practicing oral traditions. Seldom do we find stories like this within the larger, dominant culture. Although Aboriginal viewpoints are not fully explored, it is Clarke's point of view is facinating and insightful. Moreover, Clarke provides very helpful appendices which support and compliment the text.
   
   This book is a good read, whether you agree with Clarke or not. It provides insight into why he did what he did. Arguably, It is not justification of his deeds, but a call to the reader to examine difficult issues which we want to ignore in our daily lives. It is presented in a well-reasoned argument. Although it may appear that Clarke is bombastic, loud, and obnoxious, I found that he becomes a little more humble along the way (i.e., "Bonfire of the Vanities"). For better or worse, Clarke discovers a little more about himself and the world in which he lives. In turn, we, as readers, ought to do the same.