By Mark David Blum, Esq.

Many are the times that lawyers quip about the perceived relative ignorance of a judge or jury when determining the outcome of a case. Most times, these whines are promulgated by losing counsel. I personally have felt that individually, some a few judges and jurors may leave plenty lacking. Collectively a jury will most times work very hard to do what they feel is the right thing. More often than you think, judges and juries will reach the right decision even if it is for the wrong reasons. They are just as capable of coming to the wrong conclusion.

That being said, I would also add that one of the most astute political comments I have ever read was offered by a middle aged blue collar Black man. It was during an A-2 felony drug trial and during my turn at jury (de)selection, I came upon this unassuming man. Being he was the only Black candidate for the jury and the Defendant was Black, I began a gentle inquiry. Specifically, I asked him if he had an opinion about the nation’s War on Drugs.

His response has been one of those statements that you hear and which stay with you for a very long time. He looked me right in the eye, then lowered his head and looked down (a cultural thing) and said, “a government which declares war on its’ own people has no legitimacy.”

More than a decade has passed since that day and those words first were uttered aloud in a Court of law. Yet, every time I repeat them, the meaning and impact of what that juror was saying strikes harder. Such a simple sentence so very much summarizes how we see ourselves as free Americans and the dreams of the true American promise. We see ourselves as autonomous of government intervention unless absolutely necessary and with our consent. Government is just the guy down the street who ran and got elected; someone we would never see as our enemy.

That principle: “A government which declares war on its’ own people has no legitimacy” explains much of the disarray and conflict within our own nation. We are in two camps; throwing one label after another to define the other. One team believes in everything their government is doing, see their leadership as being on the right course with a benevolent heart, and have adopted the “my government, right or wrong” attitude.

The other team, however, finds no such solace. Neither team agrees on the fundamental cornerstone … that despite political differences, we all see the government as the legitimate representative of the People. It is only the policies or process in which the teams fight and disagree.

No longer is that the case. Many millions question the government as legitimate. They sincerely believe the White House was stolen by cronyism in the Supreme Court and voter tampering nationwide. Government is not only dominated by one party, but the other party is completely shut out of the process and the Halls of Government are being used for the good of the party in power, not for the overall good of the nation. The party not in power has lost the core trust it needs for government to sustain itself. For good or for bad, this is the path we upon which we are now traveling. The very legitimacy of government itself is at the heart of most political discourse.

When a people do lose faith in their government or see the government as having declared war on its’ own people, then indeed the government will have no legitimacy. The best example is by way of my own work. No lawyer can claim a 100% win rate because ‘winning’ is not always an option unless you consider mitigation to be a victory. Losing a heartbreaking criminal case or having an unexpected defeat in a civil case can be a serious kick in the groin. Yet, each time a party loses, so long as they felt that the playing field was level and the lawyers did their job and the judge listened and was fair, then a loss does not implicate our justice system and cause the litigant to turn on his own government.

It is truly amazing how in a criminal case, citizens of this nation voluntarily walk into courtrooms from Washington State to Washington D.C. despite knowing full well they may not walk out of there. So much do we trust our own system, that even the most sociopath amongst us most times surrenders and bends to the will of the State; even offering up decades of their freedoms. Despite sitting in Attica, a defendant who has had a fair trial will blame lying witnesses, stupid girlfriends, or whatever. But, their trust in the integrity of the system is not challenged and will work zealously within the system, despite the futility thereof.

So, about Nevada:

First, I read an article published in the Los Angeles Times on June 8, 2006 titled, “In Las Vegas, They're Playing With a Stacked Judicial Deck, Some judges routinely rule in cases involving friends, former clients and business associates -- and in favor of lawyers who fill their campaign coffers.” Shocking details therein show how, “at the heart of the Las Vegas court system are 21 state judges who hear civil and criminal cases, and who can be assigned anywhere in Nevada, but who are called district judges because they work out of courthouses in the judicial districts where they are elected. These state judges often dispense a style of wide-open, frontier justice that veers out of control across ethical, if not legal, boundaries. The consequences reach beyond Nevada, affecting people in other states, especially California.” The article goes on further to comment how, “Las Vegas is a town, however, where some judges, operating in a new $185-million Clark County courthouse two blocks from casinos, wedding chapels and strip clubs, routinely rule in cases involving friends, former clients and business associates, even in cases touching people to whom they owe money.”

The next day, June 9, 2006, the Las Vegan Sun published an editorial in response to the Times story whining about how “embarrassed” they were about the content of the Times story. The editorial then went on to admit openly that it is common knowledge that “juice” buys justice in Las Vegas. One judge has no qualms admitting it. Ironic it is that while admitting the system is corrupt and knowing about it and doing nothing about it, the Sun is embarrassed at the exposure? It seems to me that we should be embarrassed to call Las Vegas part of the United States.

These two articles and the two follow-up pieces by the Times sent screaming back into my head that line from the lonely juror. “A government that declares war on its own people has no legitimacy.” My original intent on June 12, 2006 was to lecture Las Vegas and the world about the dangers of what happens when the system is no longer perceived as legitimate by those it is designed to serve. I saw Las Vegas’ “embarrassment” as a serious danger and threat to our nation. I worried what happens when people cannot get the help and protection and fair dealing they expect from their government. It was my intent to warn about the risk.

Then, a judge in Reno was shot by a sniper that same day; June 12th. A nationwide manhunt was underway. The next day, they discovered another murder linked to the shooting and all of it had to do with a Family Court custody / child support dispute.

Obviously, I do not condone or applaud the shooting or homicide. I cannot tell you how much I too am terrified. A lawyer was murdered yesterday in Iraq trying to assure a fair and just trial. When a lawyer was shot six times in front of a court house, many folks thought it was funny and the jokes poured in. Three thousand other lawyers will not attend the funeral of a lawyer; pre-empting hours of television. The general consensus among the population is that lawyers are expendable. Consequently, when I hear of judges or lawyers or law enforcement being targeted for doing their jobs and enforcing the law; I am greatly concerned. Those who do not recognize the authority of the State or submit to her laws, present a danger greater than a terrorist. To them, the government no longer has legitimacy and the only option they see, is to stand and defend against the entirety. When bands of people start to feel the same way, you find Tea Parties and Massacres. If the poison spreads, revolution and civil war are not far behind. Remember our own history when the English crown lost its’ legitimacy to govern because of the perceived arbitrary and unfair manner in which laws and taxes were applied.

In the days following the Reno shooting, I kept a close eye. From all reports, the shooter was an otherwise law abiding and well adjusted successful businessman who loved his kids and hated his ex-wife. There is nothing unusual about that situation and I have dealt with it many times over the years.

Indeed the system can be harsh and come down with crushing pain on a losing party. In the years following the so-called liberation of women, men (metro sexual men) who wanted to get laid, began to argue women’s issues as part of their campaign promises. Trying to fix a then perceived inequity in how custody and child support is handled, politicians everywhere enacted laws with fixed dollar amounts for support, brutal and unforgiving collection practices, and little to no defenses or other considerations are allowed. The poisonous slogan, “do it for your children” infected the honor of the system and took decision making out of the hands of judges and turned them into mathematicians. Discretion fell by the wayside and a custodial parent usually hit the lottery insofar as tax free money.

Many MANY are the destroyed and devastated fathers who have been brought into the custody and support system and whose financial health and future were turned inside out by a heartless calculating system. They scream, they yell, they hate the ex’s, and they detest the unfairness of the system. Yet, these same persons don’t shoot, they don’t stab, and they don’t plant bombs … at least not the judges and lawyers … at least most of the time.

If you listen to the rants of those who do indeed shoot or take action against those who work the system, they tend to make the same argument as my original juror. In their minds, the system no longer has any legitimacy. To them, based on their words, the system has become an oppressor where the Judge is not impartial and unbiased, but has become either an advocate for the opponent or refuses to create the perception of fairness and equal dealing. If you can imagine how you would feel if in your mind, the judge was cleaning out your savings and giving it to your ex spouse and not listening to you and not giving you a chance to be heard. I have seen it; the anger takes on a whole new tone and the very system that separates us from the anarchists and protects us from a Wild West lifestyle, trust in the system is lost and the issue shifts from a personal level to a more base level … one of citizenship and identity.

So, I was not at all surprised when I heard the so-called reasons the perpetrator used to justify his horrendous acts. The Reno shooter made the same arguments. Mack's message to the world, sent though his Bay Area cousin just after the shooting, was that the family court system in Reno is unfair and unjust.” Reading more, you see a man trying to puff up his income for securing business loans and contacts, and reducing income for child support and alimony purposes. It was all about money.

If you read the police observations, this shooter did not fit a profile. Something in him “snapped” and in the period of time between the violent killing of his wife and when he deliberately aimed and took a long distance shot at the judge, an angry and disgruntled man who hated his ex wife changed into someone who let go of his trust in the legitimacy of the system. Rightly or wrongly, the man perceived the system and the judge were being unfair to him and he transferred his own rage and frustration onto that system and took aim at the robe.

But from reading further, it appears that perhaps the shot was not aimed at the robe. It may look like someone who has lost touch with his core values. Having read of the opinions shared about the victim from members of the Bar, perhaps the shooter was just a run of the mill murderer. From all accounts, the Judge was a no-nonsense, call it as he sees it, gruff and in your face, type of judge. Some felt his mind would be made up before hearing from the litigants. More than one felt he behaved unfairly in court. I am sure every judge hears complaints of this nature and I do not give much credence to Bar related rumor mills.

Yet, I also know from personal experience that even here in this County, there are judges who do tend on occasion to leave litigants and lawyers feeling that perhaps the field was not so level. Of all the hundreds of judges perhaps in front of whom I appeared, only three are clear standouts. If a litigant ever lost control in this County … not the name calling, water pitcher throwing anger … but really acted out against the system, and one of these judges were involved, I might understand. Obviously I would not condone such an act, but I can understand the pressures that can come to bear which are unreasonably exacerbated by real or perceived unfairness in the robe.

In the days following the shooting, Reno’s Senior Family Court Judge, Charles McGee spoke to the media about Courthouse security. His focus corroborates my assertion. He said, “I think some of it has to do with learning you can assert the authority of the court in a very formal way. You can talk to the loser and say, 'You may not understand any of this but I'm going to explain to you what decision I made, why I made it and what legal principles were involved. I don't care if you hate me, I just want you to go out of here understanding it was a rational process and not one that was the result of outside influence or some kind of bias on my part.'" That perception, a rational process and not personal, is critical to the honor and stability of the system.

Because indeed, a government that declares war on its own people, either one at a time or in groups, has no legitimacy. Period.