Lawson Law, L.L.C.

Happy Belated Birthday, Malcolm

This posting is submitted to honor the birth of another great American, El-Hajj Mailik El- Shabazz, more commonly known as Malcolm X, on May 19, 1925. Malcolm X’s influence upon this author is remarkable. Malcolm represents an example of overcoming adversity and challenges and striving, through faith, to make your own personal contribution to the greater society.

To the ill-informed and/or the ignorant, Malcolm represented hate. Nothing could be further from the truth. Malcolm was an American-Muslim who cared about the advancement and human rights of African-Americans or, Americans of African origin. Malcolm used faith to guide his own life and the lives of others who came to be influenced by him. More frequently than not, Malcolm leaned not to his own understanding of the world, but instead, to his understanding of world events and the role that faith played in understanding world events, in coping with history and in fostering racial progress for African-Americans.

Malcolm asked the international community to consider its assistance to African-Americans in their struggle for rights in America. Unfortunately, his plea represented, at least, the third time that the international community failed to provide meaningful support to a direct plea for help from African-Americans. Despite a life filled with tragedies, this may represent the greatest tragedy Malcolm faced. According to Africaonline.com:

During the summer of 1964 [Malcolm X] formed the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU). Inspired by the Organization of African Unity (OAU) made up of independent African states, the OAAU's program combined advocacy for independent black institutions (e.g., schools and cultural centers) with support for black participation in mainstream politics, including electoral campaigns. Following the example of Paul Robeson and W. E. B. Du Bois, Malcolm X planned in 1965 to submit to the United Nations a petition that documented human rights violations and acts of genocide against African Americans. His assassination at the Audubon Ballroom in New York—carried out by gunmen affiliated with the NOI—intervened, and the OAAU died soon after Malcolm X was laid to rest. (http://www.africanaonline.com/malcom_x.htm)

Malcolm X, like Dr. King after him, surrendered his life to the struggle for African-Americans’ human rights in this country. While Malcolm was able to influence others abroad, neither he, nor African-Americans, could look to the international “legal” community for support in the struggle for humanity and against inhumanity.

Recently, the United States Mint unveiled coins that commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the desegregation of Little Rock High School, in Arkansas, as a result of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education. (http://www.usmint.gov/pressroom/index.cfm?action=press_release&ID=775)

This symbolic measure does nothing to address the greater challenges that America faces in 2007. It is significant to note that the reality is that when that school was integrated, the nine African-American girls and boys who went to school there by court order were threatened and assaulted by local white adults and children. They required the United States National Guard in Arkansas to protect them from Americans, just because they decided to learn in the same place where whites learned. To that extent, the coin represents yet another glossing over of American history. (Perhaps a more accurate coin would show an American adult spitting at one of the children as she tried to enter the school or, perhaps an American with raised fist and clinched teeth and another screaming at a child as he tried to enter the school.)

In 2007, the violence African-Americans face—the inhumanity—is less physical than in the time of Malcolm X and The Little Rock Nine. Today, our challenges are that Americans are still polarized by race; that the struggle that American violence now manifests itself more verbally than physically (perhaps first verbally, then, through law, physically, if necessary), whether the issue is whether Barry Bonds used steroids (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2861930), whether our Supreme Court claims that our Constitution is “color blind”
(http://lawsonlawllc.typepad.com/my_weblog/critical_race_theory/index.html)
or whether Don Imus did anything worthy of censure.

In 2007, we can still draw upon Malcolm’s wisdom of June 28, 1964. That speech could just as well be made today:

… our African brothers have gained their independence faster than you and I here in America have. They’ve also gained recognition and respect as human beings much faster than you and I. … And in a short time, they have gained more independence, more recognition, more respect as human beings than you and I have.

And you and I live in a country which is supposed to be the citadel of education, freedom, justice, democracy and all of those other pretty sounding words.

Happy Belated Birthday, Malcolm and thank you.

The Limits of a Noble Dream

Yesterday was the birthday of a great world citizen, The Late Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The efforts of Dr. King and the many Americans who sacrificed their lives and well-being in the struggle against social, political and economic injustices make this law firm’s existence possible. Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech and “The March on Washington” of August 28, 1963 are the most popular symbols of his and others’ campaign for peaceful resistance to America’s homegrown terrorism that, ultimately, took his life and the lives of other non-violent resisters to American inhumanity towards Americans.

As we celebrate the world’s great civil rights martyr, we must keep his vision in context and work towards understanding the implicit limits of his “dream,” sound bites of which we listen to each year, on this American national holiday.

In reality, Dr. King’s dream should not be ours today. In the speech, Dr. King quoted Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, in his appeal for a more civil and humane America. Dr. King’s dream, for all its glory and brilliance, has its limits which include our current American legal framework, which has an historical origin that is exclusive of most Americans then and now under its rule. In reality, our current legal regime places limits upon realization of our dreams. The dream does not address fundamental questions: “Can ‘We the People’ pre-exist the Constitution, as opposed to being created by it? Indeed, are not ‘the People’ the most important legal creation of any constitution?”

The dream is illusive because it speaks of an America that is not ours. Our America is the America in which Dr. King made his speech, in the “symbolic shadow” of Abraham Lincoln, signer of the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 . Our America’s is the America whose former President and author of that toothless document freed slaves only: (1) in American slaveholding states; (2) that seceded from the Union; and/or (3) in those portions of confederate states under Union control at that time. Men, women and children classified as slaves in the rest of the Union, including those here, in Maryland, were not impacted by the Emancipation Proclamation.

Our America is that America in which The Late President Abraham Lincoln wrote:

My paramount object in this [Civil War] struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps to save this Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save this Union.
(Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley, editor of New York Tribune, August 22, 1862)

Certainly, Dr. King, the scholar, knew this, but drew upon America’s revision of Lincoln’s history when he referred to Lincoln, explicitly and implicitly. Now, today, we must move in a new direction–forward; a direction in which the shortcomings of our nation can be embraced, so that it can become a true example for all of humanity. For those who view Dr. King’ dream in the most narrow context of African-Americans and whites “holding hands”, you are encouraged to take this opportunity to re-read the speech and/or listen to it, in its entirety.

United States v. Javed Iqbal and Saleh Elahwal

In 2006, an American grand jury indicted two men, Javed Iqbal, a lawful permanent resident of the United States and United States citizen, Saleh Elahwal, for:

(1) conspiring to provide material support to Hezbollah from September 2005 through August 2006;

(2) providing material support or resources to Hezbollah from September 2005 through August 2006;

(3) conspiring to engage in prohibited contact with Hezbollah or its agents from September 2005 through August 2006;

(4) providing satellite services to Hezbollah’s television station, Al-Manar from September 2005 through August 2006; and

(5) conspiring to provide satellite services to Hezballoh’s television station, Al-Manar, from March 23, 2006 through August 2006.

The charges sound very serious, assuming that such allegations, if true, should be prosecuted in American courts with American taxpayer dollars, as Hezbollah is based in Lebanon, not the United States. Further Hezbollah’s mission derives from the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

As this case is being prosecuted in American courts with American taxpayer dollars, the allegations, which, at present, appear to be much less complicated than they sound, can be simplified, as follows: (1) Iqbal and Elahwal provided Al-Manar, television station of Hezbollah, to viewers in New York; (2) Al-Manar has been added to the State Department’s Terrorist Exclusion List, due to efforts of the Coalition Against Terrorist Media; and (3) Iqbal and Elahwal provided Al-Manar’s programming, amongst its services to customers in New York. Despite what readers may believe, the "terrorist" designation process is imperfect, with serious implications.

The American Civil Liberties Union raised First Amendment concerns in August of 2006. After all, if Iqbal and Elahwal did nothing more than provide another channel and alternative viewpoints to their paying customers, is it worth it to American taxpayers to bear the cost of this particular criminal trial? Let's hope that in the days to come, prosecutors will do more to show why such a case should be prosecuted in American courts with American taxpayer dollars, at this time.

Federal Recognition of Virginia’s Indigenous Tribes

Current TV recently aired an interesting story about eight indigenous tribes of Virginia that, despite having served a prominent role in the survival of early Jamestown settlers in the 1600s, to this day lack recognition by the United States as “Indian Tribes.” The piece highlighted the irony that although indigenous peoples settled the land we now call The United States of America prior to Jamestown’s colonization by Europeans 400 years ago, the federal government has extended neither formal recognition of existence to the tribes nor benefits that flow from its legislated recognition process.

Benefits of federal recognition include the ability of indigenous tribes to:

1. Establish semi-sovereign tribal governments;
2. Have reservation lands placed in trust and protected by the federal government from being purchased or taken by non-indigenous tribes;
3. Enter into agreements with the United States government;
4. Access federal resources for education, housing, and health benefits;
5. Acquire cultural grants; and
6. Acquire tax breaks.

It is a cruel irony that Jamestown’s European colonization would have been highly improbable, had it not been for the kindness of the indigenous peoples, who they ultimately killed by slaughter or exposure to disease. As the tribes prepare to celebrate the Quadracentennial with Virginians and, indirectly, with America, the injustice that lies beneath the surface of day to day life will become harder to ignore, with the continuing efforts of such groups as the Virginia Indian Tribal Alliance for Life (VITAL).

What if ...?

What if the defendants in the Duke University Lacrosse Team Rape Case were African-American and the alleged victim was a white female?  Would there be a difference in the way the media covered the trials?  In the way lawyers for the defendants spoke about the case, to the media?  The questions within these questions were answered by Professor Kimberle Crenshaw years ago in “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color” and, more recently, by Duke University Women’s Studies Professor Mark Anthony Neal, in (White) Male Privilege, Black Respectively, and Black Women’s Bodies.  The National Organization for Women issued a statement about the media’s treatment of the case, which we believe is equally accurate.  Whatever the outcome of the case, there are ethical questions raised by the statements made by the attorneys representing the defendants in that case to the press.  The case, like all others, should be tried in the courts and not the media, whatever of the outcome.

Color-blind Constitutionalism

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, and its sister case.  There is ample discussion about the factual background and issues presented on legal news sites and legal sections of general news sites.  These are the newest Supreme Court cases in the modern era of what legal scholars refer to as “color-blind constitutionalism.”[1]   

We urge all to become educated about this modern wave of constitutional thought, which serves to undermine and reverse much of the civil rights work of the 1900s that inspired people around the world, including Nelson Mandela.  Color-blind constitutionalism is:

[A] formalistic, colorblind view of civil rights that had developed in the neoconservative ‘think tanks’ during the seventies.  Neoconservative doctrine singles out race-specific civil rights policies as one of the most significant threats to the democratic political system.  Emphasizing the need for strictly color-blind policies, this view calls for the repeal of affirmative action and other race-specific remedial policies, urges an end to class-based remedies, and calls for the administration to limit remedies to what it calls ‘actual victims’ of discrimination.

Kimberle Williams Crenshaw, “Race, Reform, & Retrenchment: Transformation & Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law, 101 Harv. L. Rev. 1331-87 (1988).

As Professor Derrick Bell explained, “[t]his formalistic color-blind approach to civil rights jurisprudence runs counter both in ideology and in form to either antidiscrimination efforts, which took express account of the social and political significance of race.”[2] 

Also referred to as “the rhetoric of innocence,”[3] the color-blind constitutionalism approach evokes much emotion.  After all, isn’t it reasonable to conclude that we each should be given the same opportunity to acquire access to education or other limited resources?  Who would disagree with such a simple moral notion? 

Unfortunately, our world is far more complicated.  As a nation, we must all pay “taxes” for the benefits we derive from our citizenship here.  Conflict ensues when we are left to compete for seemingly limited resources.  Even the most well-intentioned citizens can become hostile when their interests diverge from those of a particular minority group.[4]   

This is not an argument for the system currently referred to as "affirmative action.  There are more efficient ways to include, more significantly, African-Americans in economic, social and political contexts.  Mere numerical inclusion of those determined to possess "minority" status should be replaced with real inclusion policies directed toward the group that has contributed so much, historically, to current America's status as the world's sole superpower.

In any case, the real danger lies in our present reality, when policies designed to remedy discrimination stand to be stricken and a void is left in their wake.  If we are correct, color-blind constitutionalism will serve as the Court's "logical" impetus to rule in favor of majority-group parents in these cases.  When harms are readily identifiable (i.e., statistically), measures are required to remedy inequities.  Let's hope we're wrong.

---

[1] For a detailed discussion about this important concept, read Chapter Four of Derrick Bell’s text, Race, Racism & American Law, Fourth Edition (2000), entitled “Color-Blind Constitutionalism: A Rediscovered Rationale.”

[2] Derrick Bell, Race, Racism & American Law 133 (4th ed. 2000).

[3] See, Thomas Ross, “Innocence & Affirmative Action,” 43 Vand. L. Rev. 297 (1990).

[4] For more on interest convergence, follow the link. 

Congratulations, Mr. Mayfield?

We appreciate the wisdom of the United States’ decision to settle the civil lawsuit filed by Brandon Mayfield and his family.  The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation falsely accused the Muslim Oregon attorney of participating in the March 11, 2004 Madrid train bombing.  The FBI claimed that Mr. Mayfield’s fingerprints were found on a detonator found by Spanish investigators near the scene of three of the four bomb blasts.  Judge Robert E. Jones issued the warrant for Mr. Mayfield’s arrest and ordered that Mr. Mayfield be held by the FBI pursuant to the USA Patriot Act’s material witness provision.  The FBI was wrong.  It stands to reason that American taxpayers should not pay more for the United States Government’s prosecution or defense of the respective criminal and civil lawsuits.

All’s well that ends well?  Not so.  Just yesterday, at a press conference, Mr. Mayfield said: 

“To this date, the government has refused to tell us where they placed their electronic listening devices and cameras, leaving myself and family to forever wonder if they were listening to our most private conversations, watching our most intimate interactions.” 

Families, End of Marriage & The American Courts

The American legal system is a far less than ideal forum for resolution of family conflicts.  By its very nature, its process is an adversarial one.  There is a plaintiff, or a person who brings the lawsuit against the defendant other.  In the family context, cases are brought by a wife against her husband; on behalf of an illegitimate child against his parent, etc. 

The advocates of the parties are attorneys.  At the outset, it is important to recognize that attorneys are people who were trained to compete against one another from the day they entered preschool.  Attorneys competed for slots in college before competing for slots in law schools; they competed for grades once they entered law school and they jockeyed for positions within law school, just before competing for jobs after law school.  Attorneys are trained to compete against other attorneys—to “beat” other attorneys and to “win” at the game that is the American legal system. 

In the family law system, as is the case in all litigation, there are declared “winners” and “losers.”  Unless the case is dismissed voluntarily, the judge will rule either for the plaintiff or the defendant.  No family member wins in family law litigation.  These are but some of the challenges faced by parties looking to utilize this adversarial process to resolve marital or family discord.   

Attorneys, by far, are the biggest winners.  We charge legal fees to the husbands and wives who further deplete their post-nuptial resources to pay for legal representation in the cases brought for or against them by former significant others, who turn to legal advocates to compete against one another.  At least two attorneys stand in the shoes of the wife and her husband.  These advocates, with their own interests, make decisions that affect not only their bottom line, but the lives of the wife, her husband and their children.  The more conflict that arises throughout the process, the more the attorneys stand to earn.  Like an airport taxicab, the legal “meter” runs quickly and the parties may end up paying far more than they expected when the “ride” began.

 

Family court is emotional.  Shouldn’t it be?  In Maryland, it is such an emotional court that it may be the only civil court in some jurisdictions staffed by an armed bailiff or sheriff.

If you and your spouse are contemplating divorce, it is a good idea to talk with one another before talking with attorneys.  If you are already embroiled in litigation against the person who is your former significant other (and especially if you have children of any age):

1.                  Count up the costs.  How much has legal representation cost you thus far?  How much is it likely to cost you, once the process concludes? 

2.                  Be brave enough to talk with your spouse, alone and without counsel.  This may save you money, because if you work together on a binding separation agreement, you may have more resources left to enjoy once the process concludes, ideally with a settlement of legal claims.

3.                  Consider the possibility of resuming your marital relations.  As a pro-marriage law firm, our hope is that you will always be open to the possibility of resuming your marital relations.  Children of divorce face many challenges in our already complex world.

Don’t be embarrassed about having commenced a lawsuit against your spouse or about having engaged in litigation.  Focus, instead, on your nuclear family that includes your spouse.  As long as there is no physical abuse of any kind by either spouse, remember that when you married, you vowed to remain wed for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do you part. 

Be prepared to chalk up the litigation, the attorneys and their costs as items falling within the “for worse” category of your vows and move forward, together, as a family, outside of the court.  If you can do this, your children, whose best interest must guide your everyday decisions, will benefit most and your family, collectively, will win, despite having gotten off track through the litigation process.  Your marital union may become even stronger for it.

4.                  Assuming the worst—that your marriage comes to termination—work towards a peaceful and amicable resolution.  First, hire counsel that is willing to consider the fact that you once married your legal adversary and that you have children together and, therefore, are best served by working towards an amicable resolution of the issues.  A good question to ask an attorney is whether he or she is married or has a family; whether he or she has divorced.  The answers to these questions are important and may help you to understand your attorney’s perspective on family law litigation.

See if your courthouse has an amicable resolution process.  Some Maryland courts have family law clinics, staffed by law students, who help couples with simple divorces to bring their marriage to an end, amicably.

5.                  Be patient!  Don’t be in a rush to get divorced, especially if you have children.  It may be good to enter into a settlement agreement and to allow time to pass.  You can do this without filing a lawsuit in court and you can keep your family matters private.  You and your spouse can establish legal parameters and you can agree on such matters as alimony, child support and use and possession of the marital home and vehicles. 

Then, you should wait.  See how you feel about divorce one year from the day you enter into the separation agreement.  If you’re really patient, wait two years.  Throughout that period, continue to work with your spouse, understanding the legal truism that you are still husband and wife and, if you have children, you are still equal parents of the children.  After that time has passed, meet to discuss the future and decide, together and civilly, what you will do, ideally over lunch or dinner at a fine restaurant.  Your union is worth at least that much.      

                           

This is not to say that this law firm has not represented individuals in family law matters in Maryland courts.  We have represented clients in divorce, child support and paternity.  However, our approach takes family into consideration, recognizing that the American legal system is not best suited for resolution of family conflict.  We always encourage parties to work towards resolution of the matters outside of courts, to the fullest extent possible.  We work to keep private matters of families out of the public record as much as possible.  After all, does the general public need to know about your personal family affairs?  Husbands, wives, sons, daughter, fathers and mothers would do well to stay out of the courts, which are not, for the mostpart, family friendly. 

Abeer Qasim Hamza al-Janabi was born on August 19, 1991 in Baghdad.  She was the 14 year-old girl who had the misfortune of being in Mahmudiyah, Iraq, on March 12, 2006, during the American occupation.  Yesterday, Specialist James P. Barker, one of four soldiers charged with crimes against Abeer and her family, (in his case: conspiracy to commit rape and premeditated murder; conspiracy to obstruct justice; premeditated murder; rape; arson; and housebreaking), pled guilty to murder, rape and arson in military court.  As part of his plea agreement, Barker will be spared the death penalty.  

Barker and his fellow soldiers raped and killed Abeer, after having planned to do so and after agreeing to kill anyone else in the house at the time they planned to commit the rape.  The details of the act are gruesome, but the soldiers were accused of not only gang-raping Abeer, but of burning her body to conceal the rape.   Abeer’s sister, Hadeel, was six years old.  She was shot to death, along with Abeer’s father, Kaseem and mother, Fakhriya.

America granted our soldiers immunity from Iraq law on June 27, 2004, just before returning Iraqis their “sovereignty.” Understandably, Iraqis protested en masse and even asked the United Nations to revoke that immunity.  Did we say that American, Paul Bremmer, “ordered” that Iraq’s 1969 Penal Code would apply to all Iraqis on June 10, 2003 and, simultaneously, suspended some portions of that Code, as well as the death penalty?  While the Interim Iraqi Government later re-instituted the death penalty for some crimes, including pre-meditated murder, such as the rape-murder executed by Barker et al., Iraqis do not determine the fate of American soldiers who commit even the most egregious crimes against them. 

Post-9/11, this firm represented a person accused of aiding the international terrorist regime.  That foreign national living in America was held accountable by America and pursuant to American legal standards.  Doesn’t it make sense that we, as Americans, who travel to and reside in other lands, be held accountable for our actions pursuant to local legal standards, especially when we impose even local standards on non-Americans in their localities?  Shouldn’t we be tried by the local people, in their courts, pursuant to their laws?  If Iraqis can try a complex case against their President, Saddam Hussein, doesn’t it follow that they could they try the rape-murder by American soldiers?  What of international law protections for civilians during war?  While rape in war is not new, shouldn’t forward-thinking people be concerned about direct justice for Iraqi community members, on their soil, in their courts? 

Perhaps some day, Abeer, posthumously, and her community will be granted the authority to have justice done by them, in their own way.  Such is just.  We don’t mean to apply that, even in this instance, the death penalty is the appropriate remedy.  Whatever the appropriate remedy may be, it seems that the people of Iraq should determine that remedy and we should respect their decision.

The Dominant Gaze

Have you ever heard of the concept of “the dominant gaze?”  If you haven’t, you should know that it helps to explain how an American President, with the support of both houses of Congress (… and that’s Democrats, Republicans and Independents), ends up at perpetual war with borderless intangible enemies.  It explains how, in America, war, the threat of war, and all that is war (including bombing, murder, rape, pillaging, mutilation, foreign occupation …) is preferred to conversation and diplomacy. 

The dominant gaze explains how the spread of the American concept of democracy is viewed as a positive endeavor, in spite of the inherent failures and fundamental flaws of American democracy, dating back to before the ratification of the American Constitution, which codified those failures and flaws.  The dominant gaze explains how Thomas Jefferson is, even today, viewed as brilliant and forward-thinking for freeing, at his death, the nearly 200 husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, nieces and nephews he “owned” under the guise of American law, including the American Constitution.     

The dominant gaze explains America, itself.  It explains how farmers in rural America, who speak, proudly, of having lived in their communities for generations, miss the bigger picture of this country’s own occupation of this place we now call America (no, this land is not our land).  It is the vision of some that is said to see for us all. 

The dominant gaze explains how _______ (fill in the blond-haired, blue-eyed celebrity of your choice) represents the physical manifestation of American “beauty.”  The dominant gaze explains how you know, without seeing either the commercial or cast, that any mainstream movie, entitled “America’s Sweethearts,” could not feature African-American actors.

When I taught Critical Race Theory at Georgetown University, I asked students, at the end of each lecture, “so what?”  What difference does it make that you understand the concept of the dominant gaze?  It makes all of the difference in the world.  With an understanding of the concept of the dominant gaze, you can ask the important questions.  For example, in America, should African-Americans consider themselves Democrats, Republicans or Independents?  Whose interests have been served by either group, throughout American history?  Whose interests will be served in the days to come?  Is the lesser of two evils argument enough to make you vote for either candidate?  Is a pat on the head and a kick in the rear your concept of political representation? 

The dominant gaze also explains the concept of merit. After all, in America, who says what merit is?  Is what merit is constant or fluid?  Who says that Denzel’s performance in Training Day was Oscar-worthy, whereas his performance in Malcolm X was not? Who is the gatekeeper?  The “decider?” 

If the dominant gaze represents a vision other than your own, shouldn’t you say so? If you’re getting the same old tea bag with new cold water, can you really expect to enjoy the hot cup of tea you ordered?  If you’ve waited long enough, what are you waiting for? Why take the risk of more of the same?  Of not having your reality portrayed?  Improved?  At the very least, the dominant view is one way of looking at things.