5 comments about Spoiling for a Fight: The Rise of Eliot Spitzer.

1. Like the Bright Girl Ms. Masters no doubt was, and is, she reports every phone call, every e-mail, everything said at every meeting according to every participant. It's thorough but oddly, disappointingly, lifeless. There will be a bounce in the sales of this book what with the recent fall of the Governor amid scandal and disgrace. Alas, those who seek an insight as to how it all could have happened will have to look elsewhere.



2. The book fails to reveal the bold hypocrisy and megalomania of Eliot Spitzer. As a spoiled rich kid, Spitzer never let the silver spoon fall from his mouth. As a rich juwe, he was given privileges nonjuwes don't enjoy, such as admission to Ivy League colleges. Juwes hypocritically bemoan the bias against them in Ivy League colleges in yesteryear that they now practice with a shameless hypocrisy. Spitzer's tough guy image from the Bronx is preposterous in light of the fact he grew up in a gated community of wealth. Indeed, Spitzer, with crazed jealousy bordering on madness, attacked the person of Joe Bruno who, unlike Spitzer, pulled himself up from his own bootstraps, and was a self made man that transcended poverty and danger. Spitzer bemoaned the exploitation of women in the prostitution business, but indulged himself shamelessly in exploiting women. I would like to know what darker secrets Spitzer is hiding from the public? He obviously wants to snuff out the public's attention by his resignation. Indeed, it appears the media coverage of his infidelities to his wife and to his oath of office operates as further misdirection from darker secrets. Spitzer clearly fears prying eyes from discovering something perhaps more sinister in his character. This book needs to be up to date and avoid the hero worship of this self serving low life. His homely countenance seems to reflect an even uglier soul.



3. This is a rip roaring account of Elliot Spitzer and his big cases. A very important work and one that sheds light on corporate skullduggery such as Merril's Henry Blodget and others. Spitzer was a hero of the stock market bubble and a household name in New York, sort of the Guliani of the first five years of the Millenium.
   
   Seth J. Frantzman



4. For a book that supposedly focuses on him, Eliot Spitzer for the most part remains a rather obscure character who operates in the background orchestrating a crackdown on various financial institutions engaged in all manner of highly unethical, if not criminal, behavior in the state of New York. It should be a disturbing book. The dishonesty and disrespect for the public evidenced in this book by major financial institutions is appalling.
   
   The reader is supplied with Spitzer basics: wealthy upbringing, the best schools, good grades, etc. Given his background, he should have joined the club - the club that winks at financial shenanigans. But as a true believer in correct behavior, prosecutor, and later attorney general of New York, Spitzer became aware of cheating, collusion, and other assorted misdeeds among financial institutions and set out to do something about it.
   
   The book is more or less a step-by-step account of several cases involving numerous companies, lawyers, analysts, brokers, CEOs, etc. The illegalities are often subtle and much debated, though the intent is always clear: make lots of money at the expense of the other guy. Conflicts are a big part of the author's story, not only with those that the AG's office was hounding, but with the SEC and other regulators. Not trusting the inaction of the SEC through the years, Spitzer's office constantly intruded on the SEC's turf and moved quickly to address the issues. The myriad players and details, some of which are presented better than others, get to be quite a chore to keep straight.
   
   The author seems to assume that the reader will get to know Spitzer through his, or his proxy's, legal actions. But it is difficult to separate out Spitzer from the endless day-to-day detail of the cases. The reader gets snippets of Spitzer: a press conference, a document release, a decision made, etc. Beyond limitations on revealing Spitzer, one may have expected more general commentary and perspective on the questionable corporate actions. How widespread is cheating and collusion? And how much of that is technically legal? And why has there been so little action in regulating this? After all agencies are in place. Is American business really this degenerate?
   
   The details tend to overwhelm the story, both the story of Eliot Spitzer and the greater story of corporate skullduggery. That is why the impact of the book is less than it could be. I'm certain that the only nomination for a Pulitzer prize will come from one of the earlier reviewers, who happens to hail from New York. New York insiders will probably enjoy the book simply to see who got caught, not to mention perhaps some minimal understanding of New York's next governor. It will be interesting to see if Spitzer has any lasting impact on corporate shenanigans and what the next chapter in his life will be.



5. This book will intrigue anyone interested in the political process and law.
   
   Masters offers a balanced view of Spitzer's war against wall street. The gist of the book is Spitzer's background and education (rich, ivy league, privilleged) and his ambitious rise to NY Attorney General where he has whipped into shape Wall Street. In doing so, Spitzer has caught the ire of many people who beleive that he is trespassing on sacred SEC and federal government grounds.
   
   Others feel Spitzer is doing the job the SEC SHOULD have been doing. Whether you like him or not, the book offers an interesting perspective into a rising politician and the reaons why he will probably never have a legitimate shot at the White House (hint, its for the same reasons he's been thus far succesful).

5 comments about A. LINCOLN, ESQUIRE.

1. As a physician I looked forward to reading this, but it is poorly organized, written and edited. The author bounces back and forth within a chapter. I expected a straight discourse on each case instead there was a mishmash. For example in one chapter I thought he was going to discuss two malpractice cases that Lincoln defended. Instead there is an eassay on Medical Malpractice from 1830s through the 1850s. In another chapter about a malpractice on a broken leg that was not set as the patient wanted, there is a three page discourse on all the medical literature that Lincoln COULD have used. IN the end the case was setteld, but then we never find out the particulars of the settlement, why it was settled or such.Overall a major disappointment for me.



2. Like everything else concerning Lincoln's life, his law practice has acquired the patina of legend over the years. Mr. Spiegel's book does an excellent job of dispelling myths and presenting Lincoln as a well respected attorney with a thriving practice. The strongest part of the book are the introductory materials and the first two chapters. Lincoln is shown to be willing to argue any side of a case based on his clients' needs. In a case where two men had a monetary dispute Lincoln was hired by one man for the trial and by the other man during the appeal. Reamrks about the difficulty assessing an attorney's effectiveness based on the won-loss record are well considered.
   However, later chapters seem somewhat unfocused. The author adds interesting tidbits unrelated to the topic and outside the time of Lincoln's practice. I had hoped that a ten year research project would focus more extensively on his actual practice. Still, this is a good reference for scholars and Lincoln "buffs."



3. Many people believe that Abraham Lincoln was just a hick lawyer. This book cites more than 60 cases and shows that Lincoln was a top notch shrewd, sophisticated lawyer. In addition, Lincoln took on all types of cases and earned a good iving. He represemterd a slave owner even though he opposed the idea of slavery. He defended people accussed of murder and he prosecuted murderers. He represented corporations and he handled many individual bad debt cases. It was particularly interesting to read about Lincoln's daily mixture of law, politics and activities in the society of his time. For the first time, this book uses newly discovered legal documents about Lincoln's practice and the author describes cases that were previously unknown. There is a large mass of references and a substantial bibliography - about 40 pages of material. If lincoln had not been elected president, there is no doubt that he would have become one of the leading lawyers in the nation. Obviously, lawyers will enjoy this book along with historians and the general public. I heartedly recommend this book.



4. A. Lincoln Esquire: A Shrewd, Sophisticated Lawyer In His Time by Allen D. Spiegel (Professor of Medicine and Community Health, State University of New York Health science Center, Brooklyn, New York) is a unique study of an often overlooked aspect of the President who saw America through the Civil War. Studying Abraham Lincoln as a lawyer, A. Lincoln Esquire focuses upon his tireless work as a dedicated litigator facing down a tremendous caseload. Exhaustively researched for ten years, filled with legal papers as primary sources and presenting more than sixty of Lincoln's cases, A. Lincoln Esquire is a truly astounding portrait of a great legal mind - whose far-reaching career in the court of law was curtailed only by the higher calling of the nation at large. A. Lincoln Esquire is a seminal, ground breaking Lincoln biography, and a highly recommended addition to academic and community library collections.



5. I liked the mixture of Abraham Lincoln's law cases with his politics and activities within the society of his time. He handled all types of cases and was not a hick lawyer. I was surprised to learn that he defended slave owners despite his opposition to slavery itself. Furthermore, I learned that Lincoln handled medical malpractice and sexually-related slander cases. I highly recommend this book to historians, medical professionals and the general public. Read it and enjoy it!

2 comments about My Life As a Radical Lawyer.

1. This book should be required reading for two sets of readers: All trial lawyers facing monstrous odds and all readers interested in the history of the United States from about 1956 to the present. The first time I read this book (five years ago, while in law school) I picked up very specific lessons regarding the practice of criminal defense law. The second time through (2002), I picked up very specific historical lessons about turbulent times in our nation's history (civil rights litigation in the 1960s, the counter-culture of the late 1960s, and the American Indian Movement).

   Of particular interest is the section on Mr. Kunstler's representation of a defendant in the 1993 WTC attacks.




2. I have read many autobiographies of lawyers and am a collector of books relating to real life court drama. Mr. Kunstler's (affectionally also known as Bill)autobiography is one of the best I've read. As a lawyer myself, I truly felt inspired by his actions in court. I can only wish in my lifetime as an advocate that I can be at least half of a court room lawyer he was. I highly recommend this book to all advocates and aspiring trial lawyers. This book is as good as Louis Nizer's "My Life In Court".

2 comments about Architect of Justice: Felix S. Cohen and the Founding of American Legal Pluralism.

1. Tsuk Mitchell's remarkable achievement melds political theory, law, philosophy, and our legal treatment of Native Americans into a wonderfully rich and sensitive intellectual biography of one of the last century's leading legal thinkers who, really quite by accident, also became the creator of modern American Indian law. She skillfully and subtly integrates the deep ideas underlying Cohen's different fields of interest and achievement and his early life influences into a coherent theory of legal pluralism as she analyzes, for the first time, his experiences as a second-generation Jewish immigrant, his education at the hands of leading philosophers and law teachers, his relationship with his father who was one of America's leading philosophers, and what he learned while working at the Department of the Interior during the New Deal.
   
   This book is a terrific and enlightening read on its own. It is also, perhaps, the best account of the philosophy underlying our contemporary legal treatment of Native Americans. More than that, the book provides the reader with an alternative legal vision of communal life in an America characterized by great diversity, a vision that had real currency during the first half of the 20th century until it was eclipsed by individualism as our reigning mode of legal thought and action.
   
   The story of Cohen's striving for justice for all, his successes, and his failures, provide important original insights into the development of modern America. Anybody interested in the way American values of acceptance, tolerance, and community can be integrated into a liberal democratic society will find this book must-reading.
   
   Cohen was a man who deserved a biography, and in Tsuk Mitchell he got the biographer he deserved. The American Historical Association certainly knew what it was doing when it awarded this book its prestigious Littleton-Griswold Prize in 2007.



2. This is a major work of intellectual biography written by an associate professor of law at George Washington University here in Washington, D.C. The subject is a real giant in the field of American jurisprudence (and other areas as well) about whom we hear relatively little these days despite his many lasting accomplishments: Felix S. Cohen (1907-1953). I originally read this book because of Cohen's role as an important legal realist during the 1930"s (e.g., "Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach"). I was pleasantly surprised to discover as I read this fine book that this was but one facet of his multi-dimensional activities and contributions.
   
   Because the book is as rich as its subject, it is impossible to touch upon many points in a short review. The key focus of the author is to discuss Cohen and the development of his concepts of pluralism, group autonomy and group power, and how Cohen saw this dimension of American political (and legal) life as a source of important empirically-based values. The book effectively sketches Cohen's early life (and his relationship to his father Morris R. Cohen, the important CCNY philosopher). There is a helpful discussion of Cohen's first book, "Ethical Systems and Legal Ideas." Out of Columbia law, and not wanting to be a full-time academic, Cohen ended up (of all places) at the Department of the Interior where he remained a number of years. He got involved in Interior's role as trustee and administrator for the American Indians. It was within this context that Cohen worked out many of his key ideas about pluralism and decentralization, and he was deeply involved in the so-called "Indian New Deal" reform efforts. He also wrote the key book on Indian law which is still used today, and worked to get Jewish refugees resettled in Alaska or the Virgin Islands. One of the strengths of the book is the author is very effective in relating how Cohen's activities (such as while at Interior) influenced and shaped the development of his thought.
   
   The author also discusses Cohen's post-Interior period in private practice where he handled a number of important Indian cases and continued to develop his efforts to develop a "conscious ethical criticism of law." He also taught law school and wrote or edited several books, including a basic jurisprudential collection with his father. One of the more interesting areas he worked in was attempting to tie the reliance upon precedent to particular values and their origins. His untimely death at 46 foreclosed what could have been amazing further contributions.
   
   It is helpful to have handy when reading this book Cohen's collected articles and reviews edited by his wife, Lucy Cohen--"The Legal Conscience." There is but one problem I encountered with the book. The author, whose research is comprehensive, devotes a good chunk of the book to Indian related themes--since this is what Cohen spent much of his time being involved with. The detail here, as with the rest of the book, is exhaustive. However, if one is not particularly interested in this topic, it can really become a challenge to keep plowing through the extensive discussion. On the other hand, this is the environment that gave rise to much of Cohen's key contributions, and it is essential to understand this context. An extremely and quite extensive bibliography is included. By any measure, a book worthy of its subject.

5 comments about Mean As Hell: The Life of a New Mexico Lawman.

1. I have a few copies of this book, for my son and sister. Attorney Sidney Bateman was my grandfather.
   Mr Harkey's book presents an interesting and authentic perspective on the Old West and old New Mexico in particular.
   Jennifer Devenot -Kaneohe,Hawaii



2. I had to buy this book years ago. I bought 6 copies. One for each of my Zumwalt relatives (Father In Law, Brother In Law, Sister In Law, one for each of our two kids and of course one for us.) . Keeping in mind I married a Zumwalt girl. If you remember from the Chapter titled "Mean as Hell", Mr. Hall was killed by Mr. Zumwalt. That was my wifes Great Grandather. What was not made clear is that the Hall brothers were friends with the Zumwalt brothers. Due to some cattle rustling talk, the Hall brothers threatend to kill the Zumwalts on sight. There was a confrontation and needless to say it wasn't the Zumalts to hit the ground. Irony was that Hall was wearing the shirt that Zumwalt had bought him on his last birthday...The Zumwalts lost their ranch in the resulting trial..cost of courts/legal/ and lawyer fees. Mr. Zumwalt was aquited as the bottom line is Hall's threat ,as well as, went for his gun first..That was the way it was back then.

   From my understanding Mr. Zumwalt had informed Mr. Harkey that he was a liar and to not cross paths with him again or he would live to regret it.

   Over the years, I listen to this story over and over and never tire. One wonders that IF Mr. Harkey may have embellished a bit...It still makes good stories.

   Enjoy, as it is the old west as it was.




3. A fun vacation read. Anecdotes from a real wild west lawman -- who didn't do a lot of shooting and killing but somehow managed to be in the action none the less. It reminded me a little of the excellent Dustin Hofmann film, Little Big Man.



4. A fun vacation read. Anecdotes from a real wild west lawman -- who didn't do a lot of shooting and killing but somehow managed to be in the action none the less. It reminded me a little of the excellent Dustin Hofmann film, Little Big Man.



5. given the title, i was prepared to be unfavorably amused by this book but wound up thoroughly charmed by the direct and often witty descriptions and characterizations by this bona fide turn of that century wild west lawman, who, one must assume, was just as tough and unyielding as the 'hard cases' for whom this work is titled.

   harkey's plain style and simple accounting of the events develops a remarkable bond of trust with the reader, and i came away almost with a casual sense of familiarity with some of the most savage and desperate bad men produced by that savage and desperate era.

   recommend it very highly for anyone who would like to get a highly entertaining -- but pretty much unvarnished -- picture of life on the edge at that time.

1 comments about The Political Thought of Justice Antonin Scalia: A Hamiltonian on the Supreme Court.

1. I was an undergraduate student in Dr. Staab's courses at UCM. This work reads in a similar manner to the discussions that I recall. There are a number of books available on Justice Scalia that read more like biographies of the man or his political philosophy. This one is unique in trying to pain a more dynamic picture rather than just calling the justice a conservative or an originalist. It is a very academic book and the reading level seems just beyond that of the average high school student. It would rank as above average in terms of difficulty compared to many of my better college texts. Still, I've loaned it to several of my more advanced high school students and they have found it readable with a little assistance. A healthy understanding of American political history and the thinking of our early political leaders was needed to appreciate the analysis.

No comments about The Conscience of a Lawyer: Clifford J. Durr and American Civil Liberties, 1899-1975.

2 comments about Uncommon Sense: The Achievement of Griffin Bell.

1. Excellent writing by someone who obviously lived and played with Bell. Very interesting to a new "Southerner".



2. A well-written account by a Southern journalist who was there of a time in history and one uncommonly gifted lawyer's often underrated pace through it.

No comments about A Season for Justice: The Life and Times of Civil Rights Lawyer Morris Dees.

5 comments about Without a Doubt.

1. Yeah, I am a white guy. And you can call me any names that you would like, but it is upon you to prove it. Marcia Clark has written a book and has laid herself open to all the negative attention and snide remarks that she endured during the case that IMHO was a gut wrenching travesty. Marica proves to me that she is a mighty fine lawyer, a great mother and even more important a real LADY that dealt with extremes with the utmost integrity and honesty. She should be held up as an American heroine for what she endured, doing battle daily for more than a year with the "Dream Team," and their race baiting and a judge that was oh so very weak. I can't remember ever reading a book that made me want to meet and honor such a very special person as I do Marcia Clark. The trial was all about race and nothing that the prosecution could do would change that. They are the heroes. But instead, they are held up to ridicule for what they did or did not do. Orenthal James Simpson is guilty of snuffing out two lives with vicious and bloody attacks and if you don't get that message from this book, you have a serious lack of comprehension or you just don't get it. It would be a great honor for me to be able to meet Ms. Clark, just to thank her for what she went through while trying to find some sort of justice while fighting all of the elements that she came across. Great book. I am proud to live in a nation that has people like Marcia Clark. being an attorney, mother or just a lovely person. Ms Clark. Good Job!!!!!!



2. Any reasonable person who listened to the evidence at the so-called "trial of the century" knows without out a doubt that O. J. Simpson killed his ex-wife Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, the hapless waiter who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Anyone who watched the announcement of the verdict and saw the shock and disbelief on O. J. Simpson's own face, as the not guilty verdict was read, would know that even the defendant knew he was guilty.
   
   The prosecution never had much of a chance, because the presiding judge, Lance Ito, was a bumbling idiot who could not control his courtroom and make sound evidentiary rulings. . Instead, Lance Ito allowed his courtroom to become a three-ring circus. As a career prosecutor, I was appalled at the time at what went on in that courtroom, and Lance Ito's courting of the media was reprehensible. It was also clear that he was awed by and enthralled with the celebrity of the defendant appearing before him. One need only look to the civil trial in the matter to see how an effective judge controlled his courtroom. There, Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki made sound rulings on evidentiary matters and remained in control of his courtroom at all times. Consequently, justice was obtained in the civil case.
   
   This tell all, no holds barred book is a well-written, engaging behind-the-scenes account of the "trial of the century". While Ms. Clark does include some personal information about herself, it is in the context of why she became a prosecutor and makes for a more fully fleshed account of how and why she may have acted as she did under the circumstances. She admits to some mistakes, and probably one of the biggest was having been lulled into a false sense of complacency about the competence of the criminalist assigned to the case, rather than going with her gut instinct to get whom she thought would be the best person for the job. Consequently, she was saddled with criminalist Dennis Fung, who for his incompetence in such a high profile case should have been summarily fired thereafter.
   
   As for the defense "Dream Team", having watched their antics on court TV during the course of the trial, it was clear that they were playing to the media for all it was worth, and the media was lapping it up. So much of what the defense did went beyond what was sanctioned by evidentiary rules and the rules of professional conduct that I was both amazed and appalled. That they got away with this kind of behavior was reprehensible. The only one able to call them on it, however, was Judge Lance Ito, and he failed to do so. The blame, therefore, for all the shenanigans that went on during the course of the trial lies squarely on Lance Ito's shoulders. He definitely gets the prize for one of the greatest failures in American jurisprudence.
   
   Still, one cannot forget prosecutor Chris Darden's ill-advised decision in proceeding to have O.J. try on the bloodied, weathered gloves found at the scene and at his home, rather than waiting for an exact duplicate pair to be delivered by the manufacturer. In light of the fact that the manufacturer had advised the prosecution that the original gloves would have shrunk as much as fifteen percent due to repeated exposure to dampness and extremes of heat and cold, it was downright stupid for Chris Darden to proceed to have the defendant try them on. While Ms. Clark had counseled Chris Darden not to proceed with this demonstration, but rather, to wait for the new duplicate pair, he did so anyway with disastrous results. As the lead prosecutor in the case, however, the fault for this debacle lies squarely with her on this issue, rather than Mr. Darden, because when you are the lead prosecutor, the buck stops with you. Ms. Clark need look no further than herself for this major faux pas and for the ensuing creation of Johnnie Cochran's famous, catchy sound bite, "If the glove doesn't fit, then you must acquit". Never mind that the new, duplicate glove fit O. J. to perfection!
   
   Notwithstanding the glove debacle, the forensic evidence against the defendant was overwhelming, despite the bungling of criminalist Dennis Fung. Unfortunately, the painstaking forensics case put together by the prosecution was lost under the smokescreen set off by the defense. The "Dream Team" played the race card to perfection to a sound bite crazed media that helped create a public frenzy, no doubt aided by the celebrity of the defendant. The defense team's cries of police mis-conduct and the Fuhrmanizing of the trial was a pulp journalist's dream come true. It was also a travesty of justice, as all the hoopla and media distortion masked what the trial was really about, the savage and wanton murders of two innocent human beings. Moreover, while much has been said about this being a crime of passion that the prosecution tried as dispassionately as possible, one must keep in mind that Judge Ito tied the prosecution's hands in large part, while giving the "Dream Team' an unprecedented free rein.
   
   This book will keep courtroom junkies enthralled with its war stories and sneak peak into the "trial of the century". Ms. Clark gives an excellent analysis of what went wrong, and while some of it may be a bit self-serving, she is right on the money for the most part. This is a riveting, page turning account, and she doesn't hold back any punches. Ms. Clark painstakingly goes through the evidence that was presented at the trial, as well as that evidence that Judge Ito, in his infinite wisdom, did not allow the prosecution to present. Anyone who reads this book will be outraged by the obvious miscarriage of justice, as it will be clear as a bell why O. J. Simpson is, without a doubt, guilty of the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.



3. I read four books after the trial. I read the Schiller 1000 page saga, Outrage, the present book and a book on Johnny Cochrane. Each book was different and gives us different insights.
   
   I think it is clear to any reasonable and unbiased thinking person that O.J. did in fact kill Nicole and Ron and it is just as it is clear that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK. Also it is clear from the other reviewers that Marcia Clark evokes a certain emotional response that colors their view of the book. If you still think O.J. is innocent then I think that is a personal problem or internal devil that you must deal with but it is not related to reality. As the title says "Without a Doubt" he was guilty.
   
   Johnny made buckets of money as a criminal attorney. Both he and Shapiro could make sums of money in hours that only the rest of us can dream about. Johnny drove a Rolls and Shapiro rubbed elbows with the LA movers and shakers.
   
   Marcia is more like the average citizen, working for the DA's office, probably driving a Chevrolet or Honda. She was a single divorced mother that commutes to work. After the trial she had decided enough was enough, and she wrote the book along with everyone else. And I say good for her! Make a buck or two! Its America.
   
   Now for the book. It is what you might expect. It is the story of her involvement with the trial. It presents some prior background on her life and earlier trials and then goes in detail through the O.J. saga and what it was like from her perspective. I think is a well written book and for the most part entertaining. "Outrage" is a bit more gripping and Schiller's "American Tragedy" longer and more comprehensive. But this book is what we would expect. It deals mainly with her role and it is a solid job. She was basically a civil servant and she was the front "man" facing a raft of America's most famous lawyers including the above mentioned plus F. Lee Bailey. Then to complicate things, the whole mess was presided over by the star blinded Judge Ito. Together they faced essentially 12 black female jurors who loved Johnny and O.J.
   
   Could she win? "Without a Doubt" she could not win, but it was nothing to do with her.
   
   Recommend. 4 stars.



4. It wouldn't have mattered who prosecuted this case. The jury were never going to convict OJ after the race card was played.
   
   Pretty good account of the trial, and an interesting insight into the author's ordeal in handling such a nightmarish case. She lays into Judge Ito & the cyncical tactics of Cochrane.
   
   You come away doubting that the jury system really delivers justice.



5. I have read most of the books written about the O.J. Trial. All have been more about setting forth that particular author's personal/ or political agenda and not about true analysis.

   What I fail to find in any of these books is what role did the media play in turning a simple crime of passion into the racial mess that this trial came to symbolize?

   This story is simple. Man and woman have a very sick/tormented relationship, where many sick games are played. One day man loses his head and murders woman and the poor guy who comes to her rescue. Man goes to trial. Man goes to jail for a crime of passion. End of story.

   Instead the SCLM (So Called Liberal Media) as described in the Eric Alterman's book, "What Liberal Media," enters the picture driven by the almighty dollar and turns this simple crime into the trial of the century simply for the profit margin.

   We still trust the media to inform us and they failed miserably as they have done in every important story of our generation. There is no liberal media bias. It's all about the money and polarizing the country to fuel the tragic story of the Simpson case was more important to the Media than actually telling the real story.

   They forgot that Nicole and O.J. loved each other and created two very lovely kids together. Race had nothing to do witth it until the media focussed on it.

   Marcia Clark lost her case, because she drank the Kool Aid from the media and followed their narrative as opposed to trying the case for what it was a crime of passion.