The Pirate Bay: Some Thoughts

There's a huge amount of context necessary to truly understand the story of The Pirate Bay. John has provided a good deal of it, but there are some other relevant facts that I know off the top of my head.

There's a strong component of corporate/governmental bullying to this. The RIAA and MPAA in the US have been pushing very hard to get the Swedes to convict the Pirate Bay folks for a long time. Trouble is, the Swedish government brought criminal charges once before -- and failed to convict. The fact is, Sweden is not the US, and the American government (which felt obligated to back up companies which had probably contributed to a lot of Congressional campaigns), which pushed very hard for this conviction, really has no right to demand that Sweden convict its citizens of something which before now wasn't actually a crime in Sweden. The operating theory seemed to be that "we (RIAA/MPAA/Sony/etc.) hate this behavior, therefore it must be illegal."

I'm not dead certain, but I'm not sure any laws changed between the first prosecution and this second one. If that's the case, as you point out it's hard to expect TPB to know that what was being done was illegal, since the court system itself rejected that argument previously (though presumably those charges were brought under a different law, assuming Sweden has double jeopardy rules) and one would expect them to have brought their strongest case first.

Finally, there's a technical aspect here. Any technology of this kind is inherently capable of piracy. TPB essentially provided addresses of providers, which you then had to go to yourself to get the content. It's important to remember that TPB hosted none of the pirated content whatsoever. What they provided was a free platform to index files. If John Doe wants to provide File X to the world, he would have to host it from his own internet connection, but he could make the file easily accessible to large numbers of people around the globe via TPB. This, along with a small forum to allow discussion of each file, was the only service provided by TPB.

That may still sound bad, until you recognize that this is exactly what Google does. It was pointed out more than once during the trial that if you're looking for a particular torrent, you'll get more hits with Google than with TPB. Does being more specialized really make TPB worse than Google, considering that both provide exactly the same service? If Google does everything TPB does and then some, then isn't Google even more guilty? How does lack of other services make the services which are provided illegal?

Another technical issue is with removing all copyrighted content. Let's say we want to really do this. Let's say we want to stop people from downloading "The Dark Knight." How can we possibly know that every file called "The Dark Knight" is actually the movie which is copyrighted? The phrase itself is not trademarked; anyone could make any work of art with his own ownership and call it "The Dark Knight." If it's a video file, then it may look exactly the same as the copyrighted motion picture. The file could also be called "asdfasdfasdf" and actually contain the movie "The Dark Knight." There is no way to correlate the name of a file/torrent with its content except to download it, which is illegal if it turns out to have been copyrighted. So legally, you can't download the torrent to determine its contents, but you also can't assume until you have downloaded it that you know what's in it to know whether it's copyrighted or not.

This is akin to demanding that Google not link to sites which plagiarize content. How could you do this, even if you tried? What database would you compare against? How could you keep it current? How could you know which was the original and which the copy? And so on.

All that being said, clearly The Pirate Bay was built for the purpose of allowing illegal file sharing. That's obvious from everything they've ever done. What I object to is the assumption that because it can be used for illegal means that it "must be" illegal, which often seems to be the working theory. This is as invalid as it has always been: other things which can be and often are used to aid in illegal activity include cars, guns, and computers. That capacity for illegal activity doesn't make manufacturing or selling these items illegal. That's at least in part because these items have many legitimate uses, as do TPB and BitTorrent itself (an exhaustive list of legitimate BitTorrent uses would be long, but one which immediately comes to mind is the update process for World of Warcraft). What has prompted this action on the part of the various corporate entities is that it's very hard to stop all the individuals committing individual acts of copyright infringement -- so in my view the legal argument against TPB is based entirely on convenience, rather than law. It's a lot easier to turn off the hose than to try to catch all the water. Thus, they'll do whatever then can to turn off that hose, regardless of how weak their legal arguments for doing so may be.

I also object to the dubious legal theories which are applied to this sort of technology which draw distinctions without a difference. I can't see how any law which can convict the founders of TPB would not apply to Google as well. The idea that being "primarily for the purpose of piracy" really means anything is hard to defend. If you make a large enough corporation angry, they will attempt to prove that any technology is used "primarily for piracy" (as the movie industry once did with VHS).

In the long run, of course, fighting sites like TPB is like trying to dump buckets of water out of a sinking boat. When one memorable major player went down in a fight like this, Napster's centralized architecture died and gave rise to decentralized, ad hoc networks of file sharing which have no one point that can be shut down. TPB was already working on this sort of technology for its file-sharing protocol, and it will no doubt be seen very soon. The fundamental problem is that consumers want services and products that the companies who make this content refuse to provide. As long as that's the case, more and more piracy will occur.

NEWS: The Pirate Bay sentenced to prison; fined millions.

Read the article for yourself here.

What is in a name?

So, four Swedes who setup a website that allows visitors to search, access, and download indexed torrent files, and they called it, "The Pirate Bay." Right or wrong, frankly they should have seen this coming a long time ago. Titling your website with the word "pirate" is like confessing to piracy before a court officials that so rarely understand fully the technology involved.

In fact, that is a much larger legal problem in today's world: courts are operated by judges, clerks, and attorneys, none of whom are required to hold degrees in science, tech, or engineering. The same is true of the police who investigate Internet-based crimes and the juries who so often render verdicts. So, how do courts determine whether net-based activity is criminal or merely novel?

Courts often are forced to rely on expert witnesses, whose services are financed by the parties involved, that are financially motivated to testify in favor of the party compensating them. The experts are supposed to provide opinions on the scientific issues involved, in spite of this bias, and also the grounds/bases for these "expert opinions." Being myself largely ignorant of Swedish legal procedure, I do not know whether experts were used in trying the Pirate Bay owners for criminal copyright infringement, but I have no idea how else they would do it. I also know, from experience, that experts can, and usually do, differ in their opinions.

Regardless, a court filled with people who think that words like "torrent" and "tracker" refer to storms and hunting, respectively, have sentenced 4 people to jail time and fined them millions of dollars. I have a limited background in computer engineering, and I am also an attorney. In spite of this, I cannot bring myself to say that what they have done is illegal, or even wrong.

Does posting to the net technology that is capable of being used to commit a crime constitute an illegal or immoral act? To the first, I cannot say, as I am not an expert in Swedish copyright law. However, to the second, I think it depends largely, in my view, on for what purpose those posting the technology intended it to be used.

Say I create a brand new device for use splitting rock. Let us call it dynamite. Suppose I intend it to be used by the highway department in mountainous regions to create safer roads. My intent was to enable the government to create safer roads. However, what if others use my dynamite to commit acts of terrorism and destruction? Is the inventor/developer of an explosive device or material responsible for how others use it? Most of us would say no, but what if we marketed and sold (or even gave) our explosives to terrorists that we knew would use it for immoral, reprehensible purposes? Most of us would say that is wrong.

The Pirate Bay could have been used for perfectly legal, moral purposes and file-sharing (swapping free, unrestricted material or material licensed for sharing). However, it was also susceptible to being used illegally. Did the Swedes intend for it to be used it illegally or immorally? I think so - after all, they named the site "The Pirate Bay."

They marketed their website and programs to those who would consider themselves "pirates." It is hard to believe that they intended anything good. Is the name conclusive evidence of their intent? Hardly. However, the name certainly serves as the best available evidence we possess of their intentions. Also, they failed to take measures to prevent or report illegal activity, suggesting that they were consenting to it. Rather, they dealt with illegal activity on a complaint-driven basis that could never be expected to be effective.

So, were they engaged in immoral activity? I think the name is telling of their mindset. Was it illegal? That is even more difficult, since file-sharing hasn't been the subject of much legalisation or judicial precedent, but why try to buy an ocean-based platform reputed to be an independent, sovereign nation, if you are not worried that you are breaking a few laws (check out the article if you think I am kidding)? I think the evidence demonstrates that they believed their activities were illegal, whether they were or not. Would it not be better to err on the side of obeying the law?

Do not think that I am coming out against file-sharing. There certainly are legitimate uses for the tech, and some artists actually permit their fans to swap files containing their work (e.g. Motley Crue). Also, I often ponder the legality of downloading television shows that you missed on TV, since they are broadcasted publicly at any rate. It seems silly to think that watching TV on the computer is less legal than watching it on the TV or recording it with a VCR then editing out the commercials. Certainly, however, there is an area where sharing copyrighted material not available for free is definitely illegal. At best, file-sharing is a grey area of the law and potentially dangerous activity.

My bottom line? Perhaps governments should establish legislation directly covering these areas rather than leaving their citizens to wonder if they are abiding by or breaking the law. It seems unfair for the state to leave people guessing until a judge or jury informs them that what they did was wrong. Nothing like finding out people broke a law that didn't really exist on paper then seeing them get thrown in jail for it to make people hate the government.

And, if the Pirate Bay folks have a reason to cry foul, then that is it. Did they have fair notice of the law and the potential punishments for breaking it in this fashion (if indeed they broke it at all)? If so, the I say they got a fair shake. Otherwise, regardless of what their intents were, it seems like they got a pretty raw deal.

Whatever happens, I will not lose any sleep at the punishment of people who had the audacity/stupidity to call themselves "The Pirate Bay." For all intents and purposes, they were begging to be sued. Still, a part of me wonders if they were really begging for jail?

NEWS: Why was this guy on the streets?

Warning: this post, the links, and content are probably not appropriate for younger readers (which is frequently the case with news unfortunately).








Check the article out here.

Summed up, a regstered sex offender (who once was in trouble for failing to register) is killed by the father of a girl he tried to rape. He breaks into her bedroom via the window naked save for laytex gloves and a mask, and the girl screams. Daddy does what any father would be tempted to do: he crushes the life out of the offender. No one knows, really, whether this was an intentional killing or an accident, but few will mourn the passing of this severely disturbed individual. My question is, why was he out on the streets?

It makes no sense to me, and this is why I, a former prosecutor, am especially grieved. A man now has killer another, with good cause, in front of his family. The intruder, who clearly needed to be confined with full access to mental healthcare, is dead. Was he sick? Yes. Was he evil? Yes (we all sin and come short of God's glory, though). Could this entire tragedy have been completely averted? Yes. However this man slipped through the cracks of our justice system is a mystery to me, but this incident should spark some serious reform if we care to prevent similar tragedies in the future. This could have gone far, far worse.

Free Legal Tip No.2: what type of help do I need?

Do you need legal advice? Do you need counseling? Do you need pastoral care? Do you need a mediator/arbitrator? Do you need a financial or tax advisor? This post is about how to determine what type of professional services you may need.

We all hope that we will never need "professional help." Most of us, however, will need professional help at some point in our life. Since professional services rarely come free, most of us would prefer to pay for only those professional services we actually need, but how do we really find out what those are?

First, it would be wise to start by identifying and examining your needs/desires. If you are starting a business, then you probably do not need emotional or trauma counseling (unless you are really stressed out by the prospect of starting a new business), but you will likely need legal, business, and/or financial advice/services. On the other hand, if you are a soldier returning home with post-traumatic stress disorder, then trauma counseling may be just what you need most.

Second, it would be wise to research who offers professional services/counseling that addresses the needs/desires that you have identified. If you are suffering from a heart attack, then an attorney will rarely help with your physical symptoms. If, however, your heart attack began when your vehicle was struck by a drunk driver, then an attorney may be able to help you obtain funds to cover your medical expenses and vehicle damage from either the drunk driver, his insurance company, or from your own insurance company (under an uninsured/under-insured motorist claim, for instance).

Third, it's always a good idea to decide which professionals to see in what order. In our heart attack example, it's probably a good idea to see a heart doctor at the hospital to address your medical needs and stabilize your condition before you go see an attorney about getting money to
pay your medical bills.

This may all seem obvious, but we have used clear-cut examples. Sometimes the line between the services offered by professionals is blurry. For instance, what if your spouse served you with divorce papers because he mistakenly believed you cheated on him? Believers might seek pastoral counseling to decide what God's Word encourages them to do. Marriage counselors also may try to help married couples deal with the emotional and psychological situation, and attorneys (legal counselors) may try to help the couple negotiate the terms of their reconciliation or separation. Anytime a couple reconciles, separates, or divorce, there are legal issues involving their material possession, wealth, and how to share or divide them (depending on whether they are reconciling or separating). Mediators are also useful to facilitate agreements between the couple, and financial/tax advisors can help deal with economic considerations.

Does every married couple need the services offered by all those professionals? The answer is that, while it is not necessarily true that they will need all the aforementioned services, it is possible that they will need some or all of them. How does our married couple know which professionals they need to consult about their issues? Remember our 3 steps above, and give careful consideration to them: (1) identify and examine the issues/problems; (2) research what professionals offer relevant services; and (3) decide who to see in what order.

A few tips on the first step:

• Be thorough in identifying the issues (sometimes it is human nature to ignore painful issues);
• Examine them carefully to see whether they are physical/medical issues, emotional issues, psychological issues, spiritual issues, financial issues, business issues, and/or legal issues;
• Be certain not to try and limit issues to being just one type of issue when it might fall under several categories; and
• Prioritize the issues by importance.

Once the first step is complete, keep the following in mind when handling step no. 2:

• Research does not have to be complicated - check first with people you trust that may be able to refer a professional s/he used in the past that provides the services you need;
• The Internet can be a valuable resource, but it should not be the end of your search - try to talk to the professionals you find in person or at least on the phone before retaining their services;
• Your insurer/employer can often provide referrals, especially to professionals covered by any insurance policies/employment benefits;
• Don't forget to research professionals for each type of service you may need;
• Research price upfront;
• Ask questions of any professional you hire;
• Be wary of professionals recommending other professionals (i.e. are they paid for their referrals by the recommended professional?);
• Get second or even third opinions/estimates;
• Get your agreement with the professional in writing; and
• Seek wise counsel.

Regarding step no. 3:

• Make certain you are in a healthy physical/spiritual position first;
• Prioritize your goals - sometimes certain things (especially in the legal and financial/business realms) have to be done within a certain time-frame or you lose/waive some right or thing, while other things that may seem most important to us can be handled just as well after seeing to things that involve time constraints;
• Keep an eye on the cost of services you receive (it rarely helps to get half of the services you need because you failed to budget for or negotiate services that you can actually afford or finance);
• While counseling for your mental and emotional health is great, do not let your legal rights go unprotected or otherwise expire while seeing a mental health professionals (otherwise you are just going to add more stress to your already impaired mental condition - remember that your psychologist does not necessarily understand that your legal rights may be waived by inaction or delay);
• Try, if you can, to think ahead and plan for the long term.

Example1: If you are chemically dependant on drugs, you may not want to get into trouble with the authorities, but you need to seek medical help first. Legal advice does little to help dead people (even estate planning must be completed, typically, while you are still alive). However, if the doctor says your condition is stable, you might want to delay checking into that rehab clinic for substance abuse counseling until you have spoken with an attorney (you might want to know, for instance, whether entering rehab will constitute a confession of illegal drug use that can subject you to criminal penalties or cost you your job). Also, talking to a financial advisor might be a good way to find out if financing that rehab clinic will put you into bankruptcy. There may be more cost-effective alternatives to that clinic in Beverly Hills you heard about on Entertainment Tonight. Also, will your treatment expenses be deductible on your next tax return?

Example 2: If you have kids, one of whom is disabled, and you are not in good health, then you probably need to consider estate and tax planning (I don't advise anyone to wait until their health is bad to do estate planning). First, you need to be alive long enough to do the planning, so check with your physician first. Second, your condition (and also the disability of your child) is a red flag that you might need to do some medicaid planning (tricky stuff). Attorney offer estate and medicaid planning advice/services. Some estate planning attorneys will do your gift/estate tax and other tax planning themselves, especially if it is a smaller estates. Other times, the attorney may need to consult a tax professional or accountant when planning your estate. However, accountants and tax professionals cannot do your estate plan alone, so it's best to go to the attorney first. If the attorney will need to consult with another professional, then you may want to inquire about the costs involved. Perhaps you can negotiate the fees or even recommend a more cost-effective provider. Finally, you may need to consult with a mental/emotional care provider (i.e. counselor, therapist) to deal with the stresses and anxiety of planning your estate (some people are really disturbed by the process of planning for death). Your church elders/pastors, if wise and faithful, can likely help you in different ways at every step of this process (by recommending professionals, by praying with you, and by helping you weigh the options).

***Disclaimer: I am an attorney, but I am not YOUR attorney, meaning that the advice in this blog post is general advice for the masses and not tailored to anyone's specific needs/concerns/issues. I advise anyone with a legal question or a conflict to speak with an attorney and give that attorney the benefit of all the facts. Obviously, the best legal advice will come from a skilled and trustworthy attorney fully acquainted with the situation you are facing rather than someone offering legal tips on a blog.

Free Legal Tip No. 1: Avoid Court by Making Peace

If you are reading ATI (this blog), then you most likely believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, made flesh, and sacrificed for our sins. Assuming this is true, then you should be aware that Jesus had a few things to say about resolving conflicts. I am writing this post not only because I am interested in the subject personally and professionally, but also because I believe that many if not most churches have dropped the ball in this area.

To start the ball rolling again, lets look at Christ's words:

" 15If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18Truly, I say to you,whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt 18:15-18).

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God" (Matt 5:9).

These verses are famous. Notice, these scripture are not directed at non-believers. They are a command to children of God to resolve their disputes in a way that is different from how the secular world resolves its disputes. When was the last time you heard of or saw someone take a dispute before the church body or leadership? Again, many churches have dropped the ball, but so have many believers. After all, the process starts with the believer, not with the church.

First, Christ advises us to attempt to resolve disputes among believers privately, by discussion between just the persons involved (see Matt 18:15). If a private discussion does not resolve the dispute, then Christ advises us to bring it before 1 or 2 other believers (Matt 18:16), but if the conflict continues, then Christ advises us to take it before the Church (Matt 18:17). Where someone refuses to listen to the Church, Christ advises us to treat him in the same fashion as a non-believer (Matt 18:17). Regardless, Christ has taught us that those who seek first to make peace shall be blessed (Matt 5:9).

As an attorney, I often see people, even believers, taking others to court. Often, the decision to sue someone is a person's immediate reaction to a conflict/dispute, and that is unfortunate. It is true that I get paid to handle litigation (civil lawsuits), but it is also true that I get paid to help people find less expensive, less damaging ways to resolve their problems. My favorite method is "Christian conciliation," which is a fancy way of saying: resolve your disputes Biblically!

There are many reasons to look to the Bible when presented with a dispute. The first is, obviously, to please, honor, and glorify God. Every conflict/dispute is an opportunity to for those involved to glorify God by following His Word. A second reason to resolve a dispute Biblically is that the Bible promises that persons striving to make peace will be blessed (Matthew 5 does not qualify that statement). Probably, any remaining advantages to Biblical resolution of disputes/conflicts flow from that blessing. However, to be more specific, there are three more really good reasons to resolve your disputes Biblically: (1) it works; and (2) it focuses on reparining damaged relationships not just chasing money; and (3) it is almost always cheaper/more cost-effective than going to court.

The following is a common fee structure for a superior court in Georgia: $85 to file for divorce; $80 for other civil actions (including business disputes and personal injuries); and $25 each time the sheriff has to serve someone with process (at least once per each defendant in a lawsuit). These fees are in addition to those of your attorney. Attorneys handle most cases on an hourly rate or a flat rate based on a projected number of hours at an hourly rate, so the longer it takes to resolve your dispute, the more it will cost you.

Litigation begins with the filing of a complaint and continues through judgment and all appeals. This process can take years to complete. The discovery (investigation) phase alone can last up to 6 months or more. While litigation might result in you receiving a money judgment, there is never a guarantee you will win. If you lose, then you are worse off than when you started. If you win, you may still get a judgment for an amount less than the cost of bringing the lawsuit, making the lawsuit a waste of time and money. Even if you get a huge judgment, it has to be collected, and it is tough to "squeeze blood out of a turnip," so to speak.

So, what is the Biblical alternative? First, try to work out your disputes privately, just like Christ encouraged. Often, conflicts can just be "taked out." Sometimes, in more difficult situations, negotiation resulting in a written agreement can be used to both prevent and settle disputes (it is often helpful, even at this stage, to get a legal professional to actually draft any written agreements to ensure that they will work in court, but you can also do it yourself).

If you cannot resolve a conflict with a fellow believer privately, then get a couple brothers/sisters from church to listen to all sides and help you work out the dispute. If that doesn't work, then get your pastor and the church involved. Surely you trust men and women of God to judge your dispute more than you would a secular judge/jury?

If none of these options work, then Christ tells us treat that opponent as a non-believer (assuming s/he is a believer to begin with). When that happens, it is time to discuss your options with an attorney (if you have not done so already). Remember, if you truly cannot afford to hire an attorney - there are non-profit organizations like Legal Aid available to assist you.

A good attorney will listen to your problem and walk you through the pros and cons of each option available to you (as opposed to just telling you what to do with no explanation). A good attorney should also advise you that there are alternatives to litigation and courts, even when dealing with non-believers. Your attorney can often negotiate a settlement or help you in obtaining a mediation or arbitration of the dispute. Mediation involves sitting down with a skilled mediator who listens to both sides and helps them find a mutually agreeable solution to the problem that the parties sign off on as a legally binding settlement. Arbitration is an alternative to litigation and trials where an arbitrator hears both sides and issues and issues a legally binding decision (much like a judge).

If you hire a Christian attorney (I know we're rare, but we do exist), then he will (hopefully) introduce you to Peacemaker Ministries (http://www.peacemaker.net/), which provides believers with Christian mediation and arbitration services that will focus on repairing the relationships involved rather than just the conflicts.

As a last resort, you can still take your opponent(s) to court. Christ advises us treat believers who refuse to resolve their disputes Biblically as though they were non-believers. Sometimes, it is best to "turn the other cheek," but this does not always result in making peace. Peacemakers are blessed, not peacefakers (the term "peacefaker" was coined by Ken Sande, president of Peacemaker Ministries and author of "The Peacemaker").

Ignoring a continuing, ongoing dispute is not making but faking peace by turning a blind eye to the conflict. There are disputes that have to be actively resolved, and "turning the other cheek" does not mean that we can just ignore all our problems until they go away. I could write a whole post on discerning which disputes can be overlooked and which ones cannot, but suffice it to say that there are disputes/conflicts (such as physical abuse, marital strife, employment disputes...) that must be resolved and cannot be overlooked if peace is to be made. When such a conflict arises, it is always wise to seek the Lord's will first. It is also wise, when someone is physically hurting you, to immediately seek legal counsel and judicial intervention to keep you safe until a solution is found and peace can be made.

Whatever you decide, remember that, as a Christian, we must consider both what gives glory to God and what will result in peace. Often the best way to discern what will give God glory in a situation is to read His Word, mediate upon it, and to pray. God will lead you out of the darkness.

Bottom line: going to court isn't cheap, and while it might get you some money, it rarely glorifies God or repairs any damage to the relationships involved. Also, there are usually alternatives available that are more efficient and cost-effective.

***Disclaimer: I am an attorney, but I am not YOUR attorney, meaning that the advice in this blog post is general advice for the masses and not tailored to anyone's specific needs/concerns/issues. I advise anyone with a legal question or a conflict to speak with an attorney and give that attorney the benefit of all the facts. Obviously, the best legal advice will come from a skilled and trustworthy attorney fully acquainted with the situation you are facing rather than someone offering legal tips on a blog.

Update regarding our earlier post on sexual immorality.

I recently read a blog about the former Regent dean of students I referenced in our earlier post on sexual immorality. Cited below is a comment I made at that blog in response to the absolute hatred being slung at Christians by the commenters. The source of this hatred? Because one Christian, formerly a law professor and dean, has stumbled, the world believes that Christians are hypocrites. Please, if you read my response to the commenters below and have an opinion, feel free to express it in the comment section below.

"I think it is important to remind people that Christians (those who actually follow Christ's teachings) profess to be neither perfect nor without sin. In fact, to be saved, one must admit that he is a sinner in need of Christ's sacrifice to pay the penalty for that sin.

Every sin is an offense against God. Every single one, no matter how great or how small, and sitting in a jail cell does nothing to undo that offense in the eyes of the Lord. There is nothing a human being can do, on his or her own, to reconcile or "make amends" with God.

Stephen McPherson has admitted to sinning against God and to breaking the law of man as well. The jail time will pay his debt to society. Only Jesus could pay his debt to God.

Being Christian is not about being righteous or sinless. It is about admitting that you are a sinner struggling with temptation to do evil and accepting Christ's blood as the sacrificial price to cover each time you fail in that struggle.

Stephen McPherson is no hypocrite. By being a Christian he is a self-professed sinner. Though his sins may be reprehensible, they are not unforgivable. He was forgiven the moment he accepted Jesus.

I do not approve of what he had admitted to doing with those girls, but he will be punished, and it is not my place or your to judge him. Rather, we should forgive him because we know that we have also sinned, though perhaps in different ways. If you ever want to be forgiven, then you must first forgive. At least, that's the Biblical perspective."

IMPORTANT NEWS: Obama's agenda filled with social issues and priorities, NOT just economic.

See the full report here, courtesy of the American Family Association, who copied it straight from the White House website. Rather than focusing on the economy, our president's priorities include support of abortion, special treatment for homosexuals, and expanded hate crime legislation. Sure, the economy is in his revised agenda now, but it's a very small part.

What is it about the unborn that our president hates? Why is his first and highest priority in office to target a fetus rather than a terrorist or the national debt? Whatever his politics, is killing the unborn children of this nation really more important than national security or the economy?

Speaking of the economy, how will affording special rights and privileges to homosexuals, at the taxpayer's expense, improve the economy? This hardly seems the time for more government funded programs and legislation. I do not wish to see homosexuals persecuted. I disagree with their beliefs, but they have rights already. They CAN get married and enjoy the same financial benefits the law affords married couples. They have to marry someone of the opposite sex, however, just like the rest of us, as God intended. I don't want them to lose any rights, but the law already affords them the exact same treatment and rights as any heterosexual person. Legislation based on sexual orientation, like legislation based on race, can only serve to afford them greater or lesser rights under the law than heterosexuals. Either result is unacceptable, immoral, and completely wrong.

In this blogger's opinion, hate crime laws are racist by definition, and they discriminate not just against criminal defendants, but against their victims as well by segregating them into two categories: victims of crime and victim's of hate crimes (see a more detailed explanation here). The difference? One person is victimized because the perpetrator is, allegedly, a hateful racist or bigot. The other is victimized because the perpetrator is a hateful selfish person that apparently is neither a racist nor a bigot. So, different victims receive different amounts of "justice" depending on whether a judge/jury feel the perpetrator was hateful. I feel sorry for white victims, because they will never be the victims of "hate crimes." The Reverend Lowery's benediction, approved by our president, clearly shows that it is not racist or hateful to attack whites (see report here).

President Obama must hate whites: he failed to condemn the Rev. Lowery's racist benediction, and now he wants to segregate white victims from minority victims. I respect him as our president, because I believe we Christians must support our leaders (Rom 13:1) and because I believe as Americans we should respect the office of the president. However, I do not feel obligated to respect President Obama's agenda, his decisions, or his politics. I say that, having read his agenda, seen his preliminary decisions, and having heard his politics during the election, I respect none of them.

Mr. President: you claim that you want to reach across party lines like John McCain. Is that true, or is it merely a smokescreen? I cannot see that statement as anything but a bald-faced lie in light of the agenda you have adopted. How is death to the unborn, special treatment for homosexuals, or racist hate crime legislation reaching across the lines to the republicans who are sternly against all three? The answer is that you are either ignorant of what the GOP's positions are on these issue (doubtful), or you have lied to this nation and betrayed our trust after less than a week in office.

It is my prayer that our president decides to stand by his word, reconsider his partisan agenda, and unite this nation by first addressing universal issues like unemployment and the damaged economy. I hope that you will all join me in this praying for President Obama in this way.

NEWS: Obama's inauguration to cost $170 million during worst recession in years.

See the report for yourselves here. Mr. Obama to be President Obama, and I believe in respecting the office of the presidency. However, there is a substantial difference between respect and worship. At a price tag of over $170 million, this inauguration feels like more than just a ceremony given our national leader out of respect. Why the sudden increase in spending on this ceremony? We would be naive to assume that it is purely the result of increased security and and logistical spending. So what is the stimulus for this change? I guess, as Mr. Obama says, anything is possible, but paying off the national debt is not seeming like a possibility our nation will ever attain when indulging in such careless spending.

Or, at least, that is my two cents.

ROB: I agree, up to a point. The problem is that I think we're both predisposed to dislike Obama. It's hard to overcome or even fully recognize our confirmation bias -- fitting any new facts into the picture we have, and using them to affirm our preexisting beliefs.

It's hard to really imagine being on the other side. I can see a bit of an argument, though. To an extent, if people are excited about this inauguration in some ways it's good for them to be able to come in large numbers (the opening of this event to the public being a major factor in the increased cost). It could be good and/or inspiring for some people to be able to witness this inauguration, which means so much to them, in person.

Personally I think it comes uncomfortably close to a cult of personality, and unlike some of Obama's more ardent followers I have no need for a new Messianic figure. I also think it borders on irresponsible to spend so much money going into what is likely to be a major recession (though apparently the cost to the government itself won't be higher than other inaugurations; the increase comes from Obama's coffers). On the other hand if it inspires hope and confidence in the public, mitigating the hopelessness and despair inherent in a poor economy to some extent, it could be a valuable gesture.

Movie Review: "Punisher: War Zone"

SCORE

-3 out of 5-

CREDITS

• 
  
  Frank Castle: Ray Stevenson.
• 
  
  Jigsaw: Dominic West.
• 
  
  Loony Bin Jim: Doug Hutchison.
• 
  
  Micro: Wayne Knight.
• 
  
  Directed by Lexi Alexander.
• 
  
  Produced by Lionsgate films.

PREFACE

The Bible:
"[L]earn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause" (Isaiah 1:17).

"Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 24:17).

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:38-39) (words of Christ).

"But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matthew 5:44-45) (words of Christ).

"Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord'" (Romans 12:19).

The world:

"He who does not punish evil, commands it to be done. "
-Leonardo da Vinci

"He who studies evil is studied by evil."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. "
-Edmund Burke

"The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil."
-Cicero

"They say, 'Evil prevails when good men fail to act.' What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
-Yuri Orlov, "Lord of War"

"Yield not to evils, but attack all the more boldly."
-Virgil

REVIEW

"Punisher: War Zone" is a film largely about stylized violence. The violence is so gruesome, the language so offensive, and the story so dark that I cannot endorse this movie. The target audience of this blog are saved Christians searching, as I am, for how to live a life pleasing to God and how apply His truth to the circumstances that confront us. Obviously, the protagonist in the Punisher leads a life that no Christian in this world has ever chosen to live. But then, how many Christians in this world have experienced the circumstances he has? For that reason, while I will not endorse or recommend this movie to any of you, neither will I tell you to refrain from seeing it. The point of this review, and any review on this blog, is to enable you to make that call for yourself.

Story: This film is not about violence for the sake of violence, even if it may seem that way at first. To understand the story, you need some background to the character. Frank Castle is an American veteran who, upon returning home from war, expected to find peace with his family. Instead, one day, while walking through Central Park, Frank and his family witness a mob execution, and his his wife, son, and daughter all become collateral damage in a war that the government and police were not, in Frank's estimation, truly fighting.

Those familiar with comic book on which this movie is based know the rest of the story well. For those who do not: the murderers were not brought to justice, so Frank tracked down the killers of his family and exacted revenge, but he did not stop there. A soldier by trade, Frank's reaction is to do what he does best: he declared open war on crime. Politicians talk about "justice," "due process," and "rights" when referring to crime, while they use terms like "collateral damage," "acceptable losses," and "strategy" when referring to war. Frank's family having become collateral damage in a mob war, decided that he had one last war to fight, so he pursues the enemy and victory with little caution for his own life. His goals are two: punishing the evil amd protecting the innocent so that no more families become "collateral damage." It ceases to be about revenge: Frank has killed everyone even remotely responsible for the deaths of his family before the movie even begins. Rather, Franks seeks to exterminate or "punish" evil. Thus, the Punisher is born.

The story of how Frank Castle became the Punisher is amazing, with a lot of emotion fueling it, but that is not what this movie is about. This movie is about the after effects. The origin of the Punisher is almost too much for a movie to convey (which is where the last adaptation arguably failed). Having once worked with crime victims as a prosecutor, I can tell you this: no movie can truly capture their pain. Rather than attempting to do this, the movie shows Frank's gruesome past in brief flashbacks, giving us but a glimpse of his painfult motivations.

We do not, however, need to fully understand Frank's pain to understand why he would want justice. This movie is not about justice either, though. It is about punishment, and you will be punished throughout the entire movie as you witness admittedly evil men tortured, maimed, and killed with a measure of brutality that only an obsessive sociopath could deliver. The questions the movie presents a Christian viewer is, can you understand why Frank Castle goes so far beyond justice, meaning can you understand what would drive him to compulsively kill criminals without remorse? Can his actions be justified in the Word?

Those of us who could relate to Frank's pain do not have the military training and mindset that Frank has. Had Frank been a philosopher, perhaps he'd have tried to make sense of the tragedy from a logical perspective. Frank was once in training to be a priest before the war; had he continued down that path, perhaps he would have turned to God to make sense of his loss. A person's reaction to pain is largely governed by his past experiences. People use what they know of the world to make sense of it. I think Christians are in the best position, perhaps, as we look, ideally, to the Bible to make sense of such pain.

Frank, nevertheless, was a marine. More to the point, he was part of a special forces unit, meaning he was used to making sense of the world and evil from behind a rifle. For good or for ill, this movie is about his application of the art of war as a solution to the threat of crime. When politicians use terms like "war on drugs" and "war on crime," they mean increased police measures and prosecutions, not vigilante killings. When the Punisher uses the term "war," he means it literally, and he uses military weapons to fight the enemy. In pursuing his war, Frank cuts himself off from the rest of the world, denies himself any human pleasures or fleshly pursuits, and dedicates himself to being the most disciplined soldier to ever walk the earth. Every night, he kills men that he judges to be evil, leaving us to question idf his judgments amount to justice, revenge, or something else.

PROS: And this is why the movie is about more than just violence for the sake of violence - you will have to ask yourself what you believe about crime and punishment. What does the Bible say about it? What does the world say about it? Does your government truly pursue justice, and does our system of enforcing the law and punishing criminals truly go far enough? I have placed some quotes in the preface of this review to aid you in contemplating these questions, possibly without need for watching this film.

The moment I realized this movie presented these questions and just how much it made me ponder them, was the moment I decided to write this review. That moment came when I read the quote from Isaiah 1:17 above: "Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow" (NIV, the one above is ESV). Without revealing too much of the plot, there is a moment in the movie where the Punisher kills a criminal who turns out to be an undercover agent of the FBI, leaving behind a widow and fatherless son. One could observe that Frank has done to this FBI agent's family precisely what was done to him by the mob: they are now collateral damage in a war, only this time it was Frank's war. The movie is largely about Frank's moral struggle with whether to continue the war as the Punisher, or to lay down the skull permanently (his symbol, worn on his chest).

The movie is incredibly well-acted, directed, and produced, and it is quite faithful to the Garth Ennis run of the comic, which will please most existing Punisher fans. It looks like it had a large budget, though I suspect it did not. "Punisher: War Zone" provides a different perspective of crime, punishment, and justice through amazing visuals, a well-choreographed use of stage violence, and the ongoing commentary of police officers, victims, criminals, and the accomplices of all. If you can get past the violence long enough to think about the plot, then it will really make you think about the meaning of justice versus vengeance, and whether punishment is synonymous with either of them.

CONS: I said that the commentaries of the characters will make you think. Unfortunately, the commentary most needed to analyze the ethical questions the movie presents is absent: Frank's. I suppose a by-product of being a disciplined solider is that you are a man of few words, who lets his actions speak loudest. However, as a fan of the comic, I recall Frank having an inner-monologue that gave at least some flesh to his thought processes, motivations, and reasoning. Like the comic, Frank doesn't negotiate or explain himself to the criminals he punishes, but the missing "thought bubbles" that served as Frank's narration in the comics prevent us from sharing Frank's pain and experience in the movie. The result is that a brilliant story is lost in a sea of violence that will distract most viewers, casual or otherwise, from the subtle themes and plot points woven into the film. For that reason, most will deem the violence pointless.

The violence is not the only thing in the movie that seems high-quality, though. The cinematography is amazing, and given that most of the movie occurs after dark, that is an accomplishment. Remember Tim Burton's "Batman" (1989)? The movie was so dark that it was hard to watch. Punisher does not suffer from this. Why is this a con? Because what you see so well is so gritty and ugly that you come out of the theater nauseous. The movie does not give its viewers a second to breathe.

The rare, brief pauses from the violence and cursing are shot in environments so gritty (i.e. sewers) or suspenseful (i.e. a widow's home, a graveyard) that they are also hard to stomach. Perhaps, as Roger Ebert said of the movie "Aliens," which suffers from a similar ailment, this was what the movie set out to do, in which case I have to applaud it. It does this well. The question becomes, though, can most audience members handle it? I think not. So the movie was destined to become a box office flop (though I predict high DVD sales). It is a victim of its own, built-in shortcomings. This story and its characters are not going to appeal to the general public.

The movie does not qualify as a "revenge flick" because it goes so far beyond revenge that you forget that Frank ever had a "score to settle." In fact, the movie takes place 5 years after he got revenge. That ship has sailed. Neither is this movie a harmless "action flick" like "Transporter." This movie is not the usual "comic book movie" either. Unlike "Iron Man," it is not based off of a comic written for the young. Legally, one is supposed to be 17 or older to buy the Punisher comics relevant to the movie.

It sought to do something different. While brave, that makes it a niche film. At most, it can hope to categorized as a "cult classic," or perhaps it will fall into a new genre with "Sin City," another comic-based movie that you would never want to take a kid to see.

This movie does what it set out to do, but do not take women or children to see it. I read online that a man took his wife to see this, and she cried for the rest of the night. The movie's use hardcore violence and profanity must be weighed against the only good thing it does: forcing those of us willing to watch it closely to reevaluate what we think/believe about vengeance, justice, crime, and punishment.

Final thought: This film is a movie for guys with some time to themselves, making it good for rental/purchase on DVD. Watch it alone, though. Anyone you invite to watch it with might hate you later for inviting them. Beware: unless you have read the Punisher comics by Garth Ennis (also graphically violent and gritty), you may be missing out on a lot of the context that makes the movie worth watching at any rate. My own interest in the comic and the movie are born out of my personal interest in criminal law - an interest many do not share. As an alternative, try the "Count of Monte Cristo": it's a decent revenge flick with little cursing, light violence, and a positive ending.

Bottom line: 3/5.

Race and Culture in Politics and Religion

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise" (Galatians 3:28-29).

Was there no racism or sexism in the world Paul lived in at the time he wrote the scripture above? Of course there was. If memory serves, and I could be mistaken, then Galatians was written contemporaneously with Caligula's rule of the Roman Empire, which was famous for making slaves of men of all races. Slaves were also forced to risk their lives as both gladiators and prostitutes in Rome to increase the girth of their masters' purses. So what did Paul mean?

"You are all one in Christ Jesus" was a deliberate departure from a world filled with slavery and prejudice. Remember, "The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted" (Matthew 23:11-12).

So, it is clear from scripture that, insofar as God is concerned, we are all equal. So why, for instance, would wives be called to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22)? Because, being "equal" does not make us the "same." There are obvious and significant differences between men and women, which only begin with anatomy. No one would look at a hammer and a nail and imply any inequality. Certainly, they are not the same thing, but what can one do apart from the other?

I almost hesitate to say it, but there is some truth to that same principle when it comes to races. You know, I have to tan in the sun if I don't want to look sickly, because I am as pale white as they come. Does that mean I am less valuable to the Lord than a latin or black man? Of course not: that would be absurd. Does God love me any less because I can never become pregnant? Does he love my wife less because she can never make herself pregnant?

You see how silly it is to try and sell someone on the argument that we are all the "same" in the eyes of the Lord. Make no mistake, however, because we most certainly are all EQUAL in the eyes of the Lord. We all have an equal inheritance with the Lord, provided we choose to accept it.

I specifically want to discuss racism, which from the passage above is clearly against God's design. Without taking one kernel of truth away from that statement, it is important to remember that differences are also a part of God's design. If we are true to that, then we must accept those differences and realize that they do not make us more or less equal. They are just a part of God's plan.

So why, if we are all equal, do so many people hate others based on their race, culture, or gender? To put it simply, some people are stupid. Notice that I did not say ignorant? I don't buy, in the world we live in, that people cannot figure out that this sort of hatred is wrong. They know it, but they are just too stupid to care. They cannot live with those differences alluded to earlier. Mankind quickly learned from the example of the snake in Genesis, that which is different can kill you quickly, cause you to fall. Still, to assume this is true of everything and everyone different, is stupid.

So how do you confront such stupidity? I do not claim to have the answers, but I can tell you one thing: if you try to blow out a fire, you may just make it worse. Eventually, a fire will burn out on its own, when it has expended all its fuel. If you blow on it, though, you are just providing the oxygen it needs to survive. Better to smother a fire than to blow it out.

Racism is like a fire of hatred that needs desperately to be smothered. Giving attention to a racist is much like blowing on a fire. They thrive on the conflict, and when they see organizations and people fighting so hard against them, then they feel justified in their efforts and beliefs. Racism, and similar forms of hatred are perpetuated in the same way as violence in the middle east. Every attack provokes a reaction, and each reaction makes the opposing side feel that it has struck a chord, landed a major blow, and gained publicity for its cause. Similarly, fighting the racist does nothing to change matters. If you cannot change the heart, then the racist will forever remain a racist. It is engrained deeply in his faulty world view. You cannot convince a man to abandon his hatred through reason. Rather, you have to find a way to introduce love to counter the hatred.

People in this world who cling to and spread hate want a public forum. I believe they want publicity, even if it is bad publicity, so that they can spread their hate-mongering to others. This is true: hate, like fire, spreads fast. As those living in California realize, it's often hard to find enough water fast enough to stop a spreading fire in the forest. Similarly, it is difficult to find enough love fast enough to stop the spread of hatred.

I have learned that there are substantial differences between human races, but we are all still human, are we not? Often, those differences are sensitive topics, and so they are ignored. Other times, those differences are given more attentiaion than they deserve. Personally, I find the notion of hate crime legislation, for instance, to be particularly ludicrous. After all, a crime against a person is a crime. To commit that crime, a person was motivated by hate or, at a minimum, indifference. Whether that hate/indifference was motivated by racism makes little difference. In the end, the result is the same: a perpetrator and a victim.

To segregate perpetrators (treat them separately, differently from other perpetrators) based upon their racial motivations, inevitably ends up segregating the victims too: if Joe attacks Alice for being black and Sue, who is Asian, for no reason, and if Joe then receives a greater punishment for attacking Alice, then Sue has been treated differently because of her race. See how it spreads so easily? What did Sue do to deserve this forced segregation? She was, after all, just as much a victim as Alice, was she not?

By treating our hypothetical perpetrators and victims differently, we have forcibly segregated them all. In doing so, we have stooped to the level of our hypothetical perpetrator Joe: treating people differently based upon the colour of their skin.

The solution to racism, sexism, prejudice, and other hatred is beyond my ability to craft. Thankfully, it is not beyond God's. What I can tell you is this: adopting the methodology of the haters is not the solution. We, as Christians, cannot afford to support legislation and public policies that elevate one type of human being over another. That is simply wrong.

I have not forgotten my earlier point: there are differences between people who are, nevertheless, equal in the eyes of the Lord our God. So, why do these differences not require different treatment in laws and policies? Because that would deprive them of their right to equal treatment under the law.

Whether it is affirmative action legislation that affords minorities increased access to jobs over other races, or whether its segregation laws that send a minority race to the back of the bus, different restaraunts, and different stores, we cannot afford to start commanding different treatment of races by law. Ex-Prime Minister of England, Tony Blair, once commented that statistical research showed most violent knife crimes in London were being committed by black youths. Should a law have been passed, then, to impose a curfew on black youths only?

Certainly not. It does not matter whether this method would be effective either: the objection is that we Christians have a duty to fight against inequality. Christ encouraged his disciples to accept the Gentiles in addition to the Jews and to afford them the same rights. I disagree with any legislation targeting a specific race to exact a cost or to confer a benefit. The ends never justify the means.

Rather, the Church needs to lobby for a government that supports equal rights (that's right - I am implying tha the Church should get involved in politics - another blog, another day folks). The differences between race and gender are not something that can be micro-managed by the government. The government should make rules that all must abide by.

The first amendment ensures freedom of religion and expression for a reason: government is not able to play "morality police." Sure, sometimes it tries, but the government cannot fix social issues such like racism with the stroke of a pen. Society, and the Church in particular, must accept responsibility and attend to them. Dealing with differences between race, gender, and culture is something that people must sort out for themselves. The government's duty is to achieve a safe enviornment for human beings, as a people, to interact and work through their differences. Elected officials cannot legislative love and acceptance.

The Church, however, can preach it, teach it, and live by it. We believers can spread love and equality by sharing the gospel. The truth is, no born again believer can legitimately read the Bible to promote racism. As the gospel spreads, and as believers embrace the truth of which Christ testified, hatred must die. No person can both truly accept Christ and also hate men because of their race. That would be an untenable contradiction.

So, it is time to stop introducing race into politics and government, where there is no hope of victory/success. Rather, it must be attacked at its source: hatred. You cannot change the mind of a racist by arguing with him that he is wrong. Instead, show him the Word of God. Share with him the love of Christ, and that CAN transform him.

More than once I have wandered into the "wrong" part of town. Men with dark faces stare at me, on a public street, as though I were a trespasser. The white colour of my skin makes me unwelcome in certain places. Those same people who stare at me with hatred, however, will likely find that the colour of their skin makes them unwelcome in places where mine is accepted.

Would it solve this problem to pass a law that says all races may use any public street in any neighborhood? Newsflash: the law already says that. So how do we fix it? Well, I don't believe I have ever been stared down by someone of another race, out of hatred, in church on Sunday morning. The reason? It does not synch with true Christian beliefs.

So, obviously, we need to get those beliefs out of the church building into the world where all this hate lives and breathes. Talking about racism does nothing to solve it. Talking about hate does nothing to solve it. Walking in love, sharing the gospel, and reaching out to lost souls, however, does.

And so it begins, with naught but a word of encouragement from my wife.

If something is worth doing, then it is worth doing well, or so my grandfather believed. I've learned a lot of things about a variety of topics from a lot of people: parents, grandparents, friends, loved ones, professors and paupers. I'd like to think that my greatest teacher has been the Lord, though I realize that I should spend far more time picking His brain.

Encouragement, however, is something that I have learned from three people: first, my mother encouraged me to like and appreciate myself, to have confidence and self-respect; second, my father encouraged me to believe that nothing is beyond my grasp if I work for it; and, third, my wife has encouraged me to take the first step.

My hope is that, one day, looking back on my life, people will care to ask me why, after so many abandoned attempts, I finally decided to write. Maybe, if I am blessed, they will ask what inspired me to do so. When that day comes, I will tell them that:

"It began, with naught but a word of encouragement from my wife, who convinced me that there were people out there who wanted to read the things I had to write."

No one subject compels or interest me above all others, and I find it hard to believe that people want to read what I might write about, but I try to take seriously the things my wife says. More so than myself, Stephanie has a feeling for what "normal" people do and think. Not being even remotely normal myself, I appreciate having her as a compass to point me in the correct direction. Personally, I think it is wisest to write about things that interest you, so that is what I intend to do until someone has a better idea.

Therefore, I intend to write about truth, religion, politics, law, relationships, dating, and marriage. If those subjects don't seem interrelated to you, my many prospective readers, then you probably do need to read some of the things I intend to write.

As an attorney, it could be said that I get paid to give advice. While I may write blogs that contain advice, any advice given cannot be taken as legal advice. If you want quality advice or counsel, you need to see an attorney in real life and let him/her advise you with the benefit of all the information you can give him/her (lies an omissions only hurt the advice-seeker, not the advisor). Nothing written on this site is intended as legal advice nor should it be relied upon as such. There is no attorney-client relationship between the author of this blog and any reader unless the author agrees, in writing, to such enter into such a relationship. Thanks.

Now that the disclaimer has been given, I will feel silly if no one reads my blog, but my wife believes someone will. And I trust my wife.