SY AND WHEAT

(Scott Saul posted a legal question so interesting that we are posting it below this post. Scroll down, and read Scott's question, and confine your comments under that post to possible answers.)

We received this email:

Rumpole, I do not know if you were at ceremony for the dedication of Sy's memorial. Stan Blake was his usual ebullient self. He pulled out a bag containing dozens of black books from all his years in private practice, saying he learned to keep track of his cases from Sy just the way Sy did.

Barry Wax, representing FACDL Miami mentioned you; apparently you have been on his case to get the memorial done. Barry was also the driving force behind getting the picture framed along with Sy's famous Black Book and some nice words by Milt Hersch.

Sy's son spoke, and so did David Markus, who noted he shared and office with Sy for more than 20 years, and that was longer than many marriages these days. Also in attendance was Sy's long time secretary Ibis (spelling?). Both David and Ibis seemed near tears.

As I mentioned, there are some wonderful words by Milt Hirsch, memorializing Sy, hands outstretched, pleading his defense on behalf of his client. Milt's written words and David's small speech both refer to the fact that Sy was the lawyer of the people. He gave people pride in the fact that they hired someone who would be going to court fighting just for them.

Sy worked in our building for over 45 years. He started his criminal defense practice sometime around 1962!! When you think of all the giants who have worked in our building: From Judges like Ed Cowart to lawyers like Ed Carhart, the fact that Sy and only Sy has earned a special memorial and a place in our hearts and memories is something special.

I'm glad the memorial of Sy is up, and I know, as Stan and Barry mentioned, that when I'm having a tough day, I can always walk by and take a look at Sy's picture, and smile, and that will help get me through the day.

Rumpole says: Well said.

WHEAT:

There has been some discussion on the order signed by the Judge, linked in yesterday's post, ordering an attorney to take a case he did not want to handle.

We have many thoughts on the subject, but for now we will say this:
There is nothing surprising in the Judge's order. It is just the chickens coming home to roost. We live in a society whose laws are built around altruistic collectivist ethics. You are not entitled to the fruit of your labours when measured against the need of the collective good. Don't believe us? We leave you with these two items:

1) The Florida Bar Oath, states in part:

"I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay anyone's cause for lucre or malice. So help me God."


2) The decision in Wickard v. Filburn 317 U.S. 111 (1942);
The Wikipedia explanation is HERE

What the case holds is that Congress, through the Commerce Clause has the power to stop a farmer from eating the wheat he had grown. And if the Government can do that, what makes us think the Judicial Branch of Government doesn't have the power to force a lawyer to take a case?

From the Supreme Court decision:
Appellee says that this is a regulation of production and consumption of wheat. Such activities are, he urges, beyond the reach of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, since they are local in character, and their effects upon interstate commerce are at most "indirect." ...

The maintenance by government regulation of a price for wheat undoubtedly can be accomplished as effectively by sustaining or increasing the demand as by limiting the supply. The effect of the statute before us is to restrict the amount which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing to meet his own needs. That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution,taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial...
It is said, however, that this Act, forcing some farmers into the market to buy what they could provide for themselves, is an unfair promotion of the markets and prices of specializing wheat growers. It is of the essence of regulation that it lays a restraining hand on the self-interest of the regulated and that advantages from the regulation commonly fall to others. The conflicts of economic interest between the regulated and those who advantage by it are wisely left under our system to resolution by the Congress under its more flexible and responsible legislative process.

Rumpole explains the philosophy behind the last paragraph that is highlighted:

Some people produce things that other people need. The needs of those that need it outweigh the rights of those that produce it. Need is the standard. Congress has the power to decide who needs what. And when Congress decides someone needs something, the person who produces it must give it to the person who needs it.

In Florida, a Judge has decided someone needs representation. That person's needs outweigh the rights of the Lawyer to his or her own work. The Lawyer must subject their own personal welfare to the needs of the collective. To the greater good. The lawyer must take the case. This is called altruist collectivist ethics. And as a side note, we mention that just about every proclamation in Nazi Germany was justified on need, and for the public good.

When you see someone championing the rights of the needy, and demanding the sacrifice of someone's skill, talent, or money, you can be sure of two things: 1) The person making the demand is not the person with the skill or talent; 2) The person making the demand usually has their own self interest in obtaining power (elected office) or expanding their power. More people need than produce, so the people expand the power of those that give them what the producers make. Vox Populi.

See You In Court with our well worn copy of
AtlasShrugged