IS IT A LAWYER’S DUTY TO INITIATE DISBARMENT?

PROCEEDINGS WHEN SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS? What follows is an excerpt from my book, Disbarment, which deals with this weighty subject. As applied in this context, the word “duty” is, in effect, an instruction to a lawyer to proceed without discretion. Whew! This was dynamite; David sucked in a deep breath. Although hanging on every word, he coaxed himself to go slowly, soak in each meaning to make sure to climb the mountain only once! Canon 1 listed six ethical considerations, which he read with his finger pointed to each word. Then, big as life, as if the words were dancing on stage, Ethical Consideration 1-4 pirouetted in a twirl and landed like a thump. “My God,” he exclaimed.
“A lawyer shall reveal voluntarily to those officials all unprivileged knowledge of the conduct of lawyers which he believes clearly to be in violation of the disciplinary rules.”
David slumped to the floor. His shoulders sagged with the weight of his responsibility. The honor system in law school jogged his memory. There was Professor Crandon, tall, bi-speckled, bald-headed, graying, his Criminal Law professor, giving him his first law examination. No attendance was taken. Nothing. The professor left. Nobody was watching you, and yet, everyone was watching you. Each student had the duty to report cheaters. Without exception, so imbued was the system that no one dared look up during an examination to avoid the slightest suspicion. Disciplinary Rule (DR) 1-102 entitled “Disclosure of Information to Authorities” set forth what he had to do without choice. Needles pricked, his face drained.
(a) A lawyer possessing unprivileged knowledge of a violation of DR 1-102 shall report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation.
(b) A lawyer possessing unprivileged knowledge or evidence concerning another lawyer or a judge shall reveal fully such knowledge or evidence upon proper request of a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon the conduct of lawyers or judges. DR 1-102 went on to read: MISCONDUCT. (A) A lawyer shall not: 1. Violate a Disciplinary Rule. 2. Circumvent a Disciplinary Rule through actions of another. 3. Engage in illegal… Clumsily, he shoved himself up from the floor, blatantly tossing the pamphlet in the direction of the bookshelf. It hit the side, falling to the floor; he didn’t bother, nor consider, nor want, nor have the energy to pick it up. Funny. All those times he wanted to write a letter to the editor criticizing a public official and didn’t; the times when he wanted to bitch to the waitress to take back an overcooked meal and didn’t. Why? Because he didn’t want to get involved. He would keep his mouth shut and his pen silenced. Now more tha.n:ever he didn’t want to “make waves.” Feeling trapped, he began flaying wildly in his mind for ways to keep this disaster with Mason hushed up. Bewildering! A few months ago everything was going uneventfully well. Now, he was immersed up to his “eyeballs” in Mason’s unprincipled actions and feeling uncomfortably warm because of it. Rain. He longed for drenching rain. Prepared by Jerry Sonenblick, lawyer, author of the fictional legal thriller, Disbarment depicting a nefarious lawyer’s betrayal to his clients, and another lawyer’s maximum exercise of moral courage to overcome his misdeeds.

-JS

Is it true that with the use of Crowdfunding that money for business purposes can be raised over the Internet?

Absolutely true. Crowdfunding is but one platform for this purpose. There is also Kickstarter and IndieGoGo. To date, Kickstarter alone has raised more than $350 million on 30,000 projects.
The entire process is legal. Has been set up under the JOBS Act as an exemption under the Securities Act of 1933. There are rules for investors whose annual income is less than $100,000, and for those above either $100,000 in annual income or a net worth in excess of $100,000, they can invest up to 10%.
To abandon these funding rules, an investment of $2000, or less, requires that no net worth or annual income information be filed.
A Funding Portal is required to raise the money. These are independent gatekeepers for crowd funding offerings, who are act as an independent gate keeper for these offerings. There is other research and investigative work that the funding portal must do to approve the offering.
Should you wish to go forward it is recommended that you obtain the services of a law specialist specializing in securities work.
If you are an investor, you are required to conduct your own independent investigation concerning the integrity of the players and the soundness of their business.
If you are a raising the capital, you should furnish solid business information, including total background of the primary parties in the company, together with a budget as to the ways and means money raised will be used.

-JS

What can be done to save the Republican Party from” shooting itself in the foot?” Part Two

(This is the second and last of a two-part series)
Please read Part One before you proceed.
The big issues of today are:
• Immigration • Deficit reduction • Defense budget • Gun Control • New infrastructure • Additional jobs • Revise tax code • Climate control
Because of time and space limitations I shall address Immigration only.
IMMIGRATION
Let’s first be upfront. The Republicans have been primarily against immigration. One of their targets has been “the dreamers”, which refers to that group of young people that have grown up in this country, some, no doubt, are unaware that they were not legal citizens. With a few exceptions, most have gone to school in this country, observed the laws, and generally have been good citizens.

If we pass a law that allows these young people to stay in this country and eventually obtain citizenship, the Republicans in the past would have bellowed loud and clear it’s “Amnesty.” However, since President Obama’s reelection, many, and perhaps close to a majority, of the Republicans have switched gears.

As a result, Amnesty is no longer a subject for discussion. Similarly, let us no longer question political motivation. The Republicans now appear ready to deal with practical politics and solutions. The question is, what can be done to create bipartisan between the parties on this subject of immigration?

The Republicans already have done something positive. They announced that they were working on a bipartisan basis with the Democrats to come up with a workable solution. Perhaps it was unwise, but in any event, president Obama also proposed legislation on the subject. Right away the Republicans claimed that the president was “grandstanding” and said “no” immediately. Assuming, that the president’s actions were either grandstanding or in any event, ill-timed, that was the time for the Republicans to step up as statesmen, react positively to what the president proposed and suggest that for the time being his proposal be held in abeyance, until the working committee set up by the Democrats and the Republicans could arrive at their own solution. They should’ve ignored motivation; they should have” stood above the fray,” and showed that they were upstanding, mature, legislative leaders. Unfortunately, they fell into the” no” trap all over again.

Of course, let us not be naïve. Had the Republicans reacted positively, it could have been ” window dressing.” Yet, sometimes, even an artificial response can be of value for purposes of establishing momentum and purpose.

Let’s hope that the Democrats and Republicans working together can propose something original and more acceptable to their respective parties for the benefit of the country, and not for the benefit necessarily of any individual candidate seeking reelection. If they want to tighten border security as part of their immigration proposal, which is a very complex issue and very difficult to define,
why don’t they ibiththeir definition of border security, nonetheless, since there is no such things as full security, make that a simultaneous requirement, and work together from there. Once again the Republicans can be heroes if they spell out what they thinkknecessary for full security and stop just knocking proposals by Administration.idtherwise, they are to be faulted once again for seeking political advantage and not seeking what is best for society.

I say to the Republicans, as a fellow American of the opposing party, act as is expected of a statesman. Ego, self-dealings, reelection considerations, have no part in decision-making. This is true, and applies to all Democrats as well, especially those Democrats, who are highly idealistic and find it difficult to move towards the give-and-take of a reasonable solution.
Prepared by Jerry Sonenblick, lawyer, author of the fictional legal thriller, Disbarment, depicting, Mason Grewe, a nefarious lawyer, who betrays his clients, and, David Sherwood, a fellow lawyer, who is called upon to exercise maximum moral courage to overcome Mason’s misdeeds. A pitched courtroom battle presented by brilliant legal minds ensues before the Supreme Court of Arizona.

-JS

What can be done to save the Republican Party from” shooting itself in the foot?” Part One

(This is the first of a two-part series)
Although I am a lifelong Democrat, I favor the two-party system and want to keep the Republican Party alive and well. It is better this way for the overall health of the country.

So, despite the fact that I do not have all of the insider political knowledge and information, and notwithstanding the fact that I have never run for public office myself, though I confess to being a political ” junkie” at times, I shall sound off nonetheless.
The results of the last election have made the Republicans aware of the fact that they’ve got to do something. They talk about cleaning up their rhetoric, so that they appear more positive and less the party of “No.” I think they are fooling themselves. The American public is not that naïve. Quite a bit more has to be done
Having said all this I am quite aware of the Tea Party faction within the Republican Party and how difficult they can be. I’m not sure they look for solutions, because they are so ideologically inclined. I’m sure that they hate to hear the expression “the practical,” but such inflexibility will not work. What will work is to develop ways and means of arriving at “solutions.”
Instead of saying” no” to everything, and in order to clear up their image, why don’t the Republicans say to something that is proposed by the Democrats, such as “that has merit” or “we agree in part” or something else, which indicates cooperation, but reserves the right to offer their ideas towards a workable solution.
Out of necessity, the Republicans are going to have to adapt to this new approach. Let’s examine this approach with more specificity.

In broad terms, especially as viewed by the Republicans, the Democratic Party likes to pose new programs to improve conditions, most of which the Republicans believe are too costly. On the other hand, the Republicans in broad terms favor deficit reductions, smaller government, and only new programs that do not add to additional deficits. The only exception, the Republicans might allow has to do with spending for security and proper military defense.
So as a general rule, under the old rules of conduct, prior to the recent elections, if a new proposal does not fit into these parameters, they oppose it because in their opinion, no matter how worthy, higher deficits and greater bloated government will result.
If, the Republicans truly wish to improve their image, what solutions can they propose? I recognize the risk they would be taking. By making the first proposal, they open the door to getting “shot down,” because it exposes the Republicans to criticism. Despite this possible paranoia, if they did so proceed anyway, they would be taking a positive approach and would be indicating that they’re looking for solutions. What I really don’t understand is, since the Republicans do not want to raise taxes, why they don’t offer other ways to generate income?
Consider the following sources of potential income:
1. Set up of a committee, hopefully with the Democrats to revise the tax code. Perhaps, it would be wise to start out slowly, and work on the major areas first. Since the tax code is very complex, it may take 5 to 10 years. So what, get started. 2. Provide for an investigative committee, hopefully with the Democrats, to eliminate waste in government, organize tighter expenditure controls, and consider possible job elimination (notwithstanding the fact that job elimination may be politically difficult). 3. Provide for an investigative committee, hopefully with the Democrats, to remove earmarks, and spell out in advance, those few areas or subjects, where earmarks may still be allowed.

4. Provide for an investigative committee, hopefully with the Democrats to examine the expense accounts all legislators and to tighten the rules.
5. Provide for an investigative committee, hopefully with the Democrats, to examine all waste a foreign expenditures, especially military expenditures, and work out ways and means of tightening all spending.
6. Provide for an investigative committee, hopefully with the Democrats, to establish proper auditing to maintain tight controls over all government expenditures.
7. Provide for an investigative committee, hopefully with the Democrats, to investigate the establishment of toll charges for new infrastructure.
Now it is true, and I recognize that the Republicans will have to “swallow hard,” because to make these investigations, it will require more hiring and larger government, perhaps on a temporary basis, and perhaps not. Yet, the overall gain in the long run will far exceed these additional expenditures.
This is the end of Part One. Part Two will next follow in three days.

-JS

How are Lawyers Taught to Reason?

Well, an interesting question! I guess it deserves an interesting answer. The answer is I-R-A-C. So now you want to know what in heaven’s name that is all about?
OK, let’s leave it up to Professor Andrews and the following excerpt from my book, Disbarment.
“I’m sure some of you are familiar with the mnemonic device, I-R-A-C,” the professor’s voice broke through with a show of mirth, and I might add for all you spelling buffs, that the first letter of mnemonic is an “m.” “This device stands for Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion. As we study different cases, I will use it as a guide toward analyzing a case or problem. It will be a big help.
” The gray-haired lecturer picked up a typewritten sheet from his desk and blared with a show of glee, “What I am about to tell you is a gem! Feed this into your mental computer,” he said as the corners of his mouth further broadened in a smile. “Always analyze your facts — sift them, weave them, work them, look for the subtleties, and make damn sure you get your analysis in your answer.” His voice ended still bellowing, using the paper in his hand as a banner which he flagged in a sweeping motion.
Now bringing the paper to eye level, he said, “Listen to these facts: A man named Anderson, with the intent of stealing, walks into a grocery store at night, pulls out a gun, forces the proprietor to give him $49.00 in the cash register, and then flees. What common law crimes and what state crimes did Anderson commit, applying I-R-A-C?”
The professor looked up. “I shall now supply you the answer.” He began to read:
“(ISSUE) Has Anderson committed common law burglary, larceny, robbery and/or assault under the facts of the case?
(RULE) The elements of the burglary at common law involved the act of breaking and entering another’s dwelling at night with the criminal intent to commit a felony in the dwelling.
(APPLICATION) Applied to the facts of the case, common law burglary could not be established. Entry by breaking must involve force or other improper means and neither is present. Also the ‘dwelling’ at common law generally required that some part of the structure be customarily used for sleeping.
(CONCLUSION)Since the ‘breaking’ element and the ‘dwelling’ element are not present, Anderson has not committed common law burglary.
(Comment: Most states have expanded the crime of burglary. The breaking requirement has been abolished by many states and now makes any structure with walls and a roof subject to burglary. Thus, under most state laws, Anderson’s acts would be sufficient to establish the crime of burglary.)
(RULE) The elements of larceny at common law involved the taking and carrying away of another’s property with criminal intent or knowledge and the specific intent to deprive the victim of his property permanently.
(APPLICATION) Clearly, Anderson’s act of taking the $49.00 with the intent to steal the property would constitute common law larceny, a felony in the early stages of the common law.
(Comment: In most states larceny is only a felony if the property is worth more than a specified amount. $50.00 is a common dividing line in many states, and therefore larceny for $49.00 would be a misdemeanor, denominated ‘petty larceny’ in most states).
(RULE) The elements of robbery at common law included “take ten minutes.”
Practically in unison, the class arose with an air of weariness.

-JS

HOW IS A MNEMONIC DEVICE (THE M IS SILENT) OF VALUE IN LEGAL ANALYSIS?

The following is an excerpt from my book, Disbarment, which explains the use of a mnemonic device as a helpful too for legal analysis primarily for law students.

“I’m sure some of you are familiar with the mneumonic device, I-R-A-C,” the professor’s voice broke through, “And for you spelling buffs that spelled with a silent `m.’. This stands for Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion. As we study different cases, I will use it as a guide toward analyzing a case or problem. It will be a big help.” The gray-haired lecturer picked up a typewritten sheet from his desk and blared with a show of glee, “What I am about to tell you is a gem! Feed this into your mental computer,” he said as the corners of his mouth further broadened in a smile, “Always analyze your facts, sift them, weave them, work them, look for the subtleties, and make damn sure you get your analysis in your answer.” His voice ended still bellowing, using the paper in his hand as a banner which he flagged in a sweeping motion.

Now bringing the paper to eye level, he said, ” Listen to these facts: A man named Anderson, with the intent of stealing, walks into a grocery store at night, pulls out a gun, and forces the proprietor to give him $49.00 in the cash register and then flees. What common law crimes and what state crimes did Anderson commit, applying I-R-A-C?”
The professor looked up. “I shall now supply you the answer.” He began to read:
“(ISSUE)
(RULE) Has Anderson committed common law burglary, larceny, robbery and/or assault under the facts of the case?
The elements of the burglary at common law involved the act of breaking and entertaining another’s dwelling at night with the criminal intent to commit a felony in the dwelling.
(APPLICATION) Applied to the facts of the case, common law burglary could not be established. Entry by breaking must involve force or other improper means and neither is present. Also the ‘dweging’ at common law generally required that some part of the structure be customarily used for sleeping.
(CONCLUSION) Since the ‘breaking’ element and the `dwelling’ element are not present, Anderson has not committed common law burglary.
(RULE)
(Comment: Most states have expanded the crime of burglary. The breaking requirement has been abolished by many states and now makes any structure with walls and a roof subject to burglary. Thus, under most state laws, Anderson’s acts would be sufficient to establish the crime of burglary.)
The elements of larceny at common law involved the taking and carrying away of another’s property with criminal intent or knowledge and the specific intent to deprive the victim of his property permanently.
(APPLICATION) Clearly, Anderson’s act of taking the $49.00 with the intent to steal the property would constitute common law larceny, a felony in the early stages of the common law.
(Comment: In most states larceny is only a felony
if the property is worth more than a specified (RULE)
amount. $50.00 is a common dividing line in many states, and therefore larceny for $49.00 would be a misdemeanor, denominated ‘petty larceny’ in most states).
The elements of robbery at common law included the act of larceny from or upon a person or in the presence of the victim, accompanied by force or threats of grievous harm. The victim was present in the store and Anderson’s use of a gun constitutes a threat of grievous harm. Furthermore, Anderson acted with criminal intent and intended to permanently deprive the victim of his property.
(CONCLUSION) Anderson has committed the common law crime
(RULE)
of robbery.
Finally, assault at common law required the act of an attempt to commit a battery (unlawful touching of the victim) with accompanying intent.
(APPLICATION) Anderson’s threatening gestures with the gun would not be sufficient to establish assault at common law.
(Comment: Most states now recognize assault where a person puts another in reasonable fear of an immediate battery with criminal intent or knowledge. Under this expanded notion of assault, Anderson’s conduct constituted assault.)
(ISSUE) A further issue is whether or not Anderson can be
(RULE)
convicted for multiple crimes for the same
conduct.
At common law a person committing both a felony and a misdemeanor could be convicted only of the felony. The misdemeanor ‘merged’ into the felony.
(APPLICATION) Thus a party committing a robbery, involving
larceny, and an assault could only be convicted of either robbery or larceny. Most courts refuse to allow convictions of both an offense and a lesser included offense
(CONCLUSION) So, if Anderson were convicted of robbery he would not be prosecuted for larceny, which is a lesser-included offense.
`Well, lordy, lordy, I sure have been talking. It’s time for the first break. Gentlemen, and lady,” Professor Andrews nodded toward the still rigidly posed lone female in the class, “take ten minutes.”
Prepared by Jerry Sonenblick author, of the fictional legal thriller, Disbarment, which depicts a nefarious
lawyer’s betrayal to his clients, and another lawyer’s maximum exercise of moral courage to overcome his misdeeds

-JS

What are Some of My Questions About Religions?

How does one address this topic without “stepping on some or everyone’s toes?” 1 certainly don’t mean to offend and I don’t I deny anyone the right to their spiritual leanings or beliefs. Nonetheless, I wonder if a lot of people have questions similar to the ones I shall now raise, but keep them to themselves for fear that they will be “stepping on some or everyone’s toes.

The first question that comes to my mind is, since there hundreds of different religions, and each of them has their own principles and beliefs, does that mean they all have different gods? If so, which God is right? Or, though there are many religions, do they all pray to the same God, but express themselves differently in ritual, prayer, and other religious practices?

Further, although everybody is entitled to their own faith, and their own beliefs, why are some so dogmatic to think that they are” right” and everybody else is wrong, because they don’t believe in their similar faith. After all, the word” faith” is not a scientific word, it is a” belief” word based upon what you know and what you feel. What right does anyone have to declare that their strong feelings are the only correct belief?

People have different political beliefs, different moral valuations, and many other different principles. So long as they do not break any laws, they are entitled to proceed down their own “personal road,” but no right to mandate that others must join them.

This whole subject of “faith” and” belief” raises other issues. How did they come about? When it comes to religion, is it not true that we usually adopt the faith of our parents because we happen to be born into that family? What if we had been born to a different family kaarlat if that family did not believe in God and religion at all? Then what?

I read a book written by a scientist, who said that he believes in God, because science only go so far and then it leaves open further questions. It is his belief that where science leaves, God begins and knit the existence of God is the only explanation. That may very well be true, but who is God, what is God has God always existed in God exist before after the beginning of time or is it possible that guided time existed forever and shall continue to do so?

I don’t have any answers. I can only raise these questions concerning ideologues. I don’t mean to “step on anyone’s toes, but I feel it is necessary to express my feelings concerning religious extremists.

-JS

What’s this about the law being a jealous mistress?

What’s this about the law being a jealous mistress?
This is not just make-believe! In fact, in my book, Disbarment, I made the following dedication: “To the law….A lawyer’s jealous mistress.”
Although I like to be original, I cannot lay claim to this concept. On the Dedication page I further went on to say:” I believe that the concept of the ” jealous mistress” originated in the writings of Joseph Story, an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, who served from 1811 to 1845. The statement that he made in full was: “The law is a jealous mistress and requires long and constant courtship. This is not to be won by trifling favorites but by lavish homage.”
After making the said explanation, I added a qualifying statement concerning the fact that nowadays a substantial number of lawyers are women. The statement I made is:
“Authors Note: Perhaps, it would be more appropriate, if I may be so bold as to interpose, that in this day and age we would use the reference, “jealous lovers,’ to define the possessive nature of the law as it applies to both female and male lawyers.”

-JS

Is it true that if you are ” for” something, you are a liberal and if you are” against” something, you are a conservative?

What sheer nonsense! Isn’t it time that the politicos and the media stop with the labels already?

It seems, that if a measure passes which calls for either more spending or increases the size of government, it is automatically labeled liberal. On the other hand, if a measure is voted down and either the size of government is not increased or less is spent, that is conservative.

Such single-minded thought, such ideological ” black or white” talk, is blinding to good, solid reasoning . Ignored is the issue itself. What if it makes sense? What if it is worthwhile? Let’s be frank. Generally we do not like regulation; it places constraints on us. The police, for example, also place constraints upon us, but we, nonetheless, recognize the value of their regulations.

The recent recession, which began in 2006 — 2007, is of special importance on this subject. The Bush administration, which favored less government involvement, and more dependence on the capital markets to police themselves, ended up making it easy for greedy, nefarious bad guys to step in. They stepped in big-time. They loaned out billions of improperly collateralized, and often phony, loans and then sold the loans, raising billions for which they received high fees. This, as you know, plunged the country into the greatest recession our country has experienced since the Depression, which began in 1929 and triggered off numerous bank failures, overnight job terminations by the gobs, and on and on
Then, as a complete turnaround, it was during the waning days of the very same Bush administration, that Henry Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury proposed bail-out loans to the banks that were “too big to fail,” notwithstanding the fact, that many of them were being run by the very same bad guys, that got us there in the first place. There was no alternative. Rather than allow for bank runs with people standing in lines to draw their money out, massive unemployment, and many bank failures as during the great Depression.

Relief at last:
Not on your life! The government has gone after them big-time. Here’s a breakdown:
Many of the banks and investment houses have entered into settlements with the government in the millions and sometimes in the billions;
Some executive officers of investment houses, such as Madoff and Sanford, have been prosecuted and they are presently residing in a cage;
The Federal government has imposed new regulations upon the banks and tighter safety controls. In particular, the capitalization levels have been increased.
Tougher scrutiny of the banks and other financial organizations have been established; Insider-trading cases are presently ongoing, and lately, the government is examining those executives, who have traded in their own stock based upon their insider knowledge, and made excessive profits.

Conclusion:
If a person is positively inclined toward establishing climate control, gun regulation, on various immigration issues, poverty issues, or building new bridges and roads, it does not mean that person is either a liberal or a conservative. It’s all a matter of “degree.” Each issue has to be carefully analyzed on its merits to hopefully reach a reasonable conclusion. Labels are just plain inappropriate.

-JS

WAS THE TRIAL OF WYATT EARP THE MOTHER OF ALL HIGH-PROFILE CASES? (This is Part Two. Please read Part One first)

You betcha’ this was the trial that became almost mystical, and it took place in in lil ole Tombstone Arizona with Judge Wells Spicer presiding. There was no jury.
Soon after the trial began public opinion against Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday quickly changed. The Arizona Star editorialized in part: “The killing of the McLaurys and Clanton at Tombstone seems more dastardly day by day as the evidence is brought before the public.”

Wyatt Earp, who was the town Marshall, ( his brother, Virgil, was chief of police) was allowed to issue a prepared statement, which detailed the defendants had been confronted by a band of outlaws who had been threatening them for approximately a year. In the confrontation, he said, “The first two shots were filed by Billy Clanton and myself, he shooting at me, and I shooting at Frank McLaury. I don’t know which was fired first. We fired almost together.” He went on to say, “I did not intend to fight unless it became necessary in self-defense and the in the performance of my official duty. When Billy Clanton and Frank McLary drew their pistols, I knew it was a fight for life, and I drew in defense of my own life and the lives of my brothers and Doc Holliday.”

There was conflicting testimony as to what took place. Some witnesses testified that the Earps had fired on men with their hands in the air. However, a genuinely neutral train engineer, who happened to be in the area, furnished testimony, which led to the Judge’s conclusion that it was unlikely that the Earps had fired on men surrendering. This was further borne out by a dressmaker, Addie Borland, who testified that both sides were firing at the same time and if anyone had their arms upraised, she would have seen it.

Perhaps, the findings of a historian are most apt, “They (the Earps and Doc Holliday) may not have been completely blameless, but they turned out to be innocent enough.”

-JS