The Jeffersonian

The TJSL Moot Court Honor Society had an eventful semester filled with plenty of hard work, determination, and travel. Moot Courters went across the west coast to compete in some of the most prestigious moot court competitions, spanning from Washington state to Oregon. The semester was one of professional growth and everlasting memories.

Members devoted tireless hours during winter break, midterms weekend, and spring break. However, the sacrifices were well worth the rewards as members worked closely with numerous faculty members who generously devoted their time to helping members excel at understanding and presenting a vast array of legal topics.

The first competition of the semester was the Phillip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition, which took place in Portland, Oregon. The team was comprised of Edith Polanco, Elizabeth Atkins, Daven Ghandi, Rachel Travis, and Danielle Tailleart. Jessup is the world’s largest moot court competition with over 550 law schools from over 80 countries participating in the competition annually. The competition is geared at simulating fictional disputes between countries. It requires relentless time and dedication by the students who participate as it takes a year to work on the problem reared towards international law.

Atkins said, “Jessup requires the advocates to learn international law by researching it, writing about it, and now arguing it; it expands the advocates’ understanding of law around the world.” Overall, the knowledge that Jessup competitors gained is one that every member saw as the highlight of experience.

However, the Jessup competitors also valued the rush of competing and building memories and bonds with their teammates. When asked about the competition, Travis’ sentiments served as the perfect example of what a valuable and worthwhile experience competing can be. She said, "The competition itself was exhilarating. I was a competitive athlete growing up, but haven't competed in years. I almost forgot what it was like to get the butterflies in your stomach right before you compete and the rush you get while in competition mode. Now that Jessup is over, a little piece of me is gone. The five of us worked so hard for seven months and then in two days we're done, it's over. Though the process was difficult and at times I wanted to throw in the towel, if I weren't graduating in December, I would 100% do it all over again. The knowledge, the prestige, and the friendships you gain throughout those grueling 7 months, make it all worth it."

The second competition of the semester was the American Bar Association National Appellate Advocacy Competition (NAAC), which took place from March 6th to March 8th. The team was comprised of Moot Court members Shahin Shahrostambeik, Chelsea Grover, Devin Mirchi, Taelor Cole, and their coaches Marisol Gonzalez and Ricardo Elorza. The issues for their competition were heavily based on civil procedure, allowing the moot courters to first handedly apply what they have learned in the classroom.

When asked to describe the feeling of competing, Grover said, “The competition experience was incredible. Something that I will never forget is the feeling that overcomes you immediately before you do your first oral argument of the competition. It is a mix of extreme fear, self-doubt, and nervousness. You feel like you are going to forget your argument, not be able to intelligently answer the judges’ questions, and not be able to mask the anxiety in your voice. But then something amazing happens! You begin speaking, and all the negative feelings go away. You're left with nothing but adrenaline and confidence.”

Grover’s sentiments were echoed by her teammate, Cole, who said, “Competing was such a rewarding experience. While my heart literally stopped every time I approached the podium, as soon as the questions started I was less and less nervous and felt confident in the answers that I provided to the judges. My teammate and I received some really positive feedback and great practical tips for us to use once we are out of school. It’s great to get that insight while in school because it’s not something that can be read or taught.”

Similarly, Mirchi said, “Each round is an adrenaline rush; it’s a feeling that has no equal in law school. It took a lot of work to get to the competition, but in the end it was all worth it. I was able to learn so much about the appellate process, oral advocacy, and strategy. It was an experience I wouldn’t trade for the world.” Shahrostambeik said, “Although the process was overwhelming and extremely time consuming, it was a great experience because I had the opportunity to argue my case in a federal courtroom and had the pleasure of working with a great group of friends." Like Jessup, the ABA NAAC competition was one that provided the competitors with a wonderful experience of preparing for a successful legal career in oral advocacy.

The third and final competition for the spring semester was the Giles Sutherland Rich Memorial Moot Court Competition in Palo Alto, CA. The competition took place from March 12th to March 15th and the team was comprised of Moot Court President Pamela Rivera, Sean Russell, and Michelle Ribaudo who served as the team’s coach. This year's problem was based on patent law and covered claim construction and publication, and required the competitors to prepare briefs as both the Appellant and Appellee. As challenging as the preparation was, it was not the only challenge that Rivera and Russell faced. Three days before their briefs were due, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz, with its decision directly affecting the arguments of the competitors. Nevertheless, the teams’ hard work and diligence helped them succeed in the competition.

For Rivera, one of the most rewarding parts of the competition was furthering her knowledge of patent law. She explained the importance of the faculty members generously devoting their time in helping Moot Courters prepare for their competitions. Rivera said, “Professor Brenda Simon was instrumental in our oral argument preparation by providing great insight into the intricacies of patent law.” As for the actual experience of competing, Rivera explained how nervous public speaking used to make her. However, she joined Moot Court to conquer that fear, and has done just that with the help of the competitions and opportunities offered by the Moot Court Honor Society.

For Russell the competition was more about personal growth. Russell said, “I was also able to reflect on my own flaws and grow because I had a wonderful team supporting me.” He additionally added, “The old saying 'hard work pays off' is certainly true with moot court competitions and I realized the more work put in during the early stages will make the finishing touches much easier.”

In addition to their shared sentiments over the experience of competing, each member additionally shared the deepest of gratitude in the efforts of the professors who generously gave their time in helping the competitors become their absolute best.

While Moot Court is a wonderful opportunity for perfecting oral advocacy skills, it is also an opportunity to expand one's understanding in a vast array of legal topics. But the most important take away from moot court competitions is the memories the members form when competing, along with the opportunity of having a wide range of legal doors open for their legal careers.

TJSL has been hosting Diversity Week for as long as Professor Maurice Dyson can remember. “We work to highlight the contributions and culture of our law students that help enrich our law school,” said Professor Dyson regarding the series of events that will take place from April 6–10, at TJSL (see the tentative schedule of events below).

Each year, events are organized to bring to light issues of equality, access, and inclusiveness. The hope, according to Professor Dyson, is that TJSL will promote ideals to help develop an “intellectually and culturally robust exchange of ideas and to raise awareness [of] these issues in the legal landscape.”

Professor Dyson and the student organizations that helped produce this year’s events believe it is important to “increase access to justice” for those communities that are underserved. Professor Dyson believes these communities may become “the bread and butter for legal practitioners developing niche markets.”

The Diversity Week organizers work to create networking opportunities for students to meet and engage with successfully practicing attorneys in the community. Professor Dyson’s desire is that the week’s events will create chances for everyone to “engage in important discourse . . . and have an opportunity for one-on-one exchanges.” The goal here is to give students and attorneys important platforms that provide meaningful opportunities as professionals as well as possible mentors.

To devise the most successful Diversity Week possible, the committee, which includes organization representatives from Armenian Law Society to OUTLaw, decides what events to organize and what their focus will be based on. According to Professor Dyson, it is the students’ energy that makes Diversity Week a success.

This year’s tentative schedule of events is as follows and those who are interested in attending do not need to do anything special – As Professor Dyson put it, just “come with an open mind, a healthy appetite for the luncheon and prepare to be engaged!”

Note: Events may change based on availability of speakers or other uncontrollable issues.

Monday, April 6th 11:30-1:00 p.m., TBA, Sponsored by APALSA

6:00-9:00 p.m., Documentary/Panel of Community Attorneys, Sponsored by APALSA, 8th floor.

Tuesday, April 7th 11:30-1:00 p.m., Genocide Documentary, Sponsored by Armenian Law Students, Rm. 227. 4:30-6:00 p.m., Event Sponsored by Outlaw, Rm. 320.

Wednesday, April 8th Diversity Luncheon, Sponsored by All Student Organizations, 8th floor. 11:30-1:00 p.m. (day students). 5:00-6:00 p.m. (evening students).

Thursday, April 9th 11:30-1:00 p.m., Critical Race Theory Paper Presentations, Rm. 320.

6:00 p.m., Panel of Community Attorneys, Sponsored by La Raza, 8th floor.

Friday, April 10th 11:30-1:00 p.m., Immigration Law Reform Roundtable, Sponsored by La Raza, Rm .225.

6:00-7:00 p.m., Panel of Community Attorneys & San Diego Law Schools (Women of Color), Sponsored by BLSA, Rm. 227.

7:00-8:00 p.m., Post Panel Networking Mixer, Sponsored by BLSA, 8th floor.

Students, faculty, and alumni of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) gather annually in Charlotte, North Carolina for a crowd- drawing basketball tournament in early March. The tournament features 11 colleges and brings tens of thousands of people to the “Queen City”, grossing over $30 million in recent years. The Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association (CIAA) weekend has become an anticipated weekend for local businesses. Hotels of course get their share of travelers looking to stay and dine.

Unfortunately, no one visiting a Charlotte Ritz- Carlton anticipated paying an additional 15 percent on top of every purchase they made, no matter how big the tab or the size of the party. During the weekend, a photograph of a receipt surfaced showing the purchase of 4 alcoholic beverages, some sweet potato fries, and this unexplained yet expressly stated CIAA service charge totaling $10.20. To add to the issue and insult, the hotel placed small table tents stating that there would be a $125 hourly minimum to occupy a lounge table and the fee could only be waived if the amount was consumed in drinks and food.

Since the tournament, controversy around the hotel, and this temporary service charge, has caused many to believe that this was a “black tax:” a fee posed to African-American customers during a large event attracting mostly African-Americans. The hotel released a statement to the local news station providing, “Due to the size of CIAA event, we instituted a modest 15% service charge for our lobby beverage servers, on whom the event places significant demands throughout the weekend.” Consequently, this wasn’t enough to stop the questions many still had.

Customers and now the Department of Consumer Affairs want to know just how the hotel made this decision and how common this practice is. Specifically, was this type of fee imposed during Speed Street, an annual, NASCAR-related downtown festival whose patrons tend to be mainly white? Its an event that generates great traffic as Charlotte housed the NASCAR Hall of Fame in 2010.

Early last week the Attorney General sent a 2-page inquiry to the Ritz-Carlton that asked for clarification and a response to seven specific questions within ten days. These questions were as follows:

1) When did management decide to impose the surcharge? 2) What was the purpose of the surcharge? 3) At what dates and times during CIAA Tournament was the surcharge imposed? 4) Did the hotel impose the surcharge uniformly on all patrons during the time period it was imposed? 5) How and when did the hotel disclose to the consumers that their bills would include the surcharge? 6) From an accounting standpoint, what did the hotel do with the money collected via the surcharge? 7) Has this hotel imposed similar surcharges for other events? If so, please list the events, the dates of the events, and the amount of the surcharges imposed at those events.

The Attorney General and many local and national media outlets are currently awaiting a response. The hotels response would help clarify the intent behind the surcharge and other fees imposed at their facility. However, such clarification could reveal unfair business practices and trigger further action by the Department of Consumer Affairs.

Listening to your favorite song(s) on the radio you may instantly notice a song from decades ago that your parents or grandparents use to listened to. The song is intertwined in the melody or beat of the current song. You might find yourself subconsciously comparing the song and sound that was sampled in conjunction with the present song you are enjoying. Sampling music from other artists has become an integral part of todayʼs era of music spanning across many genres. Music influences people everyday and it is what inspires many producers to compose portions of past recordings - known as sampling - and incorporate them in todayʼs music. However, there is a fine line between sampling with the proper permission and unlawfully infringing upon recordings from the copyright owner.

“Blurred Lines” is a contemporary R&B song infused with a disco funk sound with vocals sung by singer/ songwriter Robin Thicke, featuring rapper T.I. and produced by the Grammy Award winning musician Pharrell Williams. The song was released in March 2013 and received immense success by becoming one of the best-selling singles of all time, selling over 14.8 million copies and receiving accolades through Grammy nominations.

The celebration began to tumble downwards once the family members of the late legendary Marvin Gaye accused the song collaborators of copying the sound of the R&B hit “Got to Give It Up.” This accusation led Thicke, Williams and T.I. to sue Marvin Gayeʼs estate for making an invalid copyright claim.

After much speculation during radio talk shows, entertainment segments such as Entertainment Tonight and TMZ, the question became whether Robin Thickeʼs “Blurred Lines” actually infringed upon the copyright of Marvin Gayeʼs song “Got to Give It Up.” The battle then began between both parties and depositions were released in September 2014 with Thicke stating that he was intoxicated when recording the song in studio. Itʼs rumored that Williams, who has had an infectious hit song “Happy” and is a judge on “The Voice,” told jurors that Gayeʼs music was part of the soundtrack of his youth; yet allegedly the seven-time Grammy winner didnʼt use any of Gayeʼs influential songs to create “Blurred Lines.”

On March 10, 2015, just two years later to the month the song was originally released, a Los Angeles jury awarded three of Marvin Gayeʼs children $7.4 million in damages, holding Thicke and Williams but not T.I. liable for copyright infringement for using components of the 1977 hit “Got To Give It Up.” Thereafter, Marvin Gayeʼs daughter analogized her reaction to the feeling of liberation, “Right now, I feel free,” said Nona Gaye after the verdict. “Free from . . . Pharrell Williams and Robin Thickeʼs chains and what they tried to keep on us and the lies that were told.” Days following the verdict, Gayeʼs children released a letter stating their viewpoint on the decision: "[g]reat artists like our Dad intentionally build their music to last, but we as the caretakers of such treasures, have an obligation to be vigilant about preserving the integrity of the music so that future generations understand its origins and feel its effect as the artist intended, and to assure that it retains its value."

Singer John Legend has voiced his concern of the verdict possibly creating a slippery slope to the Hollywood Reporter saying, "you have to be careful when it comes to copyrights, whether just sounding like or feeling like something is enough to say you violated their copyrights." Although sampling has been a commonality in the music industry, the recent verdict may now have an eerie effect on other producers, songwriters, and musicians when deciding to use parts of songs to create their own musical masterpiece. Further, those who respect and seek the assistance of Williams hit-making skills may be weary of jumping to his services due to such judgment and backlash over the last few years. Just as there are many lessons to be learned in the business of the music industry, sampling is no different.

So, it has come to an end. The three or four years in law school, bar study, the hellish bar exam, and now you’re a lawyer without a job. What are you going to do? Well, there are several options as we all know. We explored many during our time at TJSL, while some we just heard about. What I want to focus on here is the BIG ONE . . . opening your own firm . . . going solo . . . being your own boss.

I contacted several of my (dare I say) friends and alumni from our esteemed institution to complete a short questionnaire on the benefits and pitfalls of going solo. Of course, the people I contacted are all solo or small firm practitioners, so predictably the answer weighed heavily in favor of doing it. In the interest of fair disclosure, I am also sitting at my desk looking at the business plan binder with my wife, which I have continued to work on for the past few months. I will be going solo as soon as I become an attorney. The following are the answers to the questions I posited (Author’s note: I thought the best way to convey the answers is to let the attorney’s own words speak for themselves, so this became a longer article than usual).

Q: What would you say is the most important reason you went into solo/ small firm practice?

Jeremy Evans: Freedom of making my schedule, excitement of bringing in new clients, and the opportunity of having the sky as the limit in both helping people and my community, and in earning potential. – Jeremy Evans ’11, California Sports Lawyer

Renee Galente: Quality of life. I had none working for a firm, and my life revolved around other people's schedules and timelines in addition to the court's and the client's. As a business owner, I work long hours but the great thing is that I can take time when I need to for myself, except when I’m in trial. I'm much healthier now as a result and much happier. – Renee Galente ’08, Galente Ganci, APC

Alex Ozols: I think the most important reason why I decided to get into small firm practice is because I wanted to be my own boss. I have my own style of doing things and for me it was tough to always have someone telling me what to do. – Alex Ozols ’12, Ozols Law Firm

Q. What is the biggest pitfall you experienced in opening your firm?

Phil Shapiro: You have to set up a strong and reliable referral system. You have no one to your right or left to answer questions, or to check and correct your work. – Phil Shapiro ’85, Law Office of Philip A. Shapiro

Renee Galente: I don't think there have been any pitfalls (quickly knocks on wood). Once you start a business there's an urge to build and grow. But there's nothing wrong with being small and mighty.

Frank Pabst: Raising initial capital was a major concern and I would rank it as a pitfall to opening my firm. – Frank Pabst, Widener Law ’06, Law Office of Frank R. Pabst  

Jeremy Evans: The hardest thing to do in opening a business is the making the decision to open your own business. You are putting it all on the line. Having done it, not much compares to the joyful thought that you did something worth doing and that you gave it your best shot. That is what every day is like for me despite the ups and downs of billings.

Q: What is the biggest benefit to being in solo/small firm practice?

Renee Galente: Being able to pick your cases. As an associate at a firm you work the case you're given whether you believe in your client or not, whether you like the case or not. As the person who runs the business and takes the cases, you get to decide whom you represent. It’s a completely different dynamic. And it's a wonderfully strong position to be able to say that you like and care for your client, instead of just represent them.

Alex Ozols: Being your own boss. You can schedule vacations whenever you want, you decide when you are going to schedule your court dates and in the end you make all the final decisions in your business.

Q: What would you tell a student interested in going into practice as a solo or in a small firm right out of law school?

Phil Shapiro: IMMMEDIATELY start to set up a referral list. Start collecting business cards and write notes on them. Send (not text) thank you notes when appropriate. Go to as many legal meetings as possible, especially local Bar Association. MAKE AND CARRY BUSINESS CARDS, everywhere.

Alex Ozols: You certainly need to be able to take risks and you need to want it more than anyone else. Don’t worry about what other people are doing or what someone who is twice your age said about opening up a firm. Just know the market, make connections at every chance you get and again, don’t be afraid to take risks.

Jeremy Evans: First, soul search to make sure you want to go into solo practice. Second, meet with as many of the best attorneys in town and seek informational interviews regarding solo practice to gather facts, information, things to avoid, and things to obtain. Third, make the decision to go solo and never look back.

Frank Pabst: You need to have a mind for business or a business degree of some kind to effectively run a firm.

Renee Galente: DO IT! And do it 100%. You can't "part time" run your own business or run your own business while looking for a "real" job. If you're going to do it, make it awesome. Make it yours.

Q: If you could do it again, would you? Why?  

Alex Ozols: In a second, I have wanted to be a lawyer since I was a little kid. I would never want to do anything else. If someone told me I could have any job in the world the answer would be a lawyer. For me its not about the money or anything else that comes along with it, you only live once and I think everyone should be able to follow their passion and do whatever they want. This was my dream and now I am living it.  

Phil Shapiro: I would do it again, but I would acquire better habits, especially in billing procedures. I let that go too long. Frank Pabst: Absolutely, being self-employed is the greatest reward.  

Jeremy Evans: Yes, no question, no doubt. For me, it has been one of the most freeing activities. For what is the American Dream, but to build something upon a solid foundation and to see it grow?  

Renee Galente: Hell yeah. I don't think I could ever work for anybody else again after this experience. If you're dealing with bullshit, you're the one who has either created it or allowed it to affect you. And you have the power to stop it at any time. That's empowering and a strong position to be in. And it feels damn good.

So, there you have it. Predictably in favor of doing it, and strong things to ponder while deciding. I agree with everything these fine attorneys had to say (I did write the piece after all). Mostly, I agree with Renee - Will you do it? Hell yeah.

The Padres’ Executive Chairman, Ron Fowler, and CEO, Mike Dee, have been busy making moves and spending money over the offseason to better the team. After finishing 17 games behind the division-winning Dodgers, posting the worst offense in baseball and missing the playoffs for the eighth straight year, it was time for a change. Fowler reflected, “We knew we had to re-energize the community . . . . After looking at our numbers in terms of attendance and looking at the interest in the marketplace, we felt we had to do some investment spending.”

The teams ownership group, led by Peter Seidler, began making changes before the end of last season by dismissing the General Manager Josh Byrnes, and hiring A.J. Preller, who was the Assistant General Manager for the Texas Rangers.

Offense is what the Padres needed after averaging a major league worst at 3.30 runs per game last season. So offense is what they got when Preller went out and acquired three talented outfield sluggers that include a Rookie of the Year, former MVP candidates, as well as an All-Star catcher, and a promising young third baseman. Their projected new-look lineup is right-handed power hitting heavy, which will play well with the confines of Petco Park since the left field fence has been brought in three feet and lowered one foot because of a new scoreboard.

Back in December, Preller aggressively transformed a lackluster team into a strong playoff contender when he made five trades within a 48-hour time span, which included 24 players and 6 teams.

Will Myers, one of the biggest offseason additions, is a 24-year-old rare specimen that is being called the best hitting prospect in baseball. After being named the Rookie of the Year in 2013, he had a disappointing 2014 season. Padre fans shouldn’t worry though as his talent and upside are far beyond anybody else the Padres have had while entering their prime in years.

Justin Upton, who is entering a contract season, has been one of the most productive hitters in baseball over the last three seasons. His raw power is exactly what the Padres need to jumpstart their offense and put runs on the board. After the production Upton has posted in his first seven seasons, the 27-year-old will be looking to get paid at the end of this contract season so look for him to be as productive as possible all summer.

The culmination of the deals was the acquisition of Matt Kemp. Kemp was the runner up for the MVP in 2011, and arguably should have won, especially since the winner Ryan Braun was caught using performance-enhancing drugs. Although Kemp has had health issues since that stellar 2011 season, he had a well-rounded 2014 season, batting .287 with 25 HR’s and 89 RBI’s. The 30-year- old Kemp has looked solid through his first eight spring-training games, batting .429 with two homeruns. He said he’s happy to be in San Diego and feels healthy going into the start of season, as opposed to the last couple seasons when he was rehabbing and nursing himself back from an injury during spring.

In the infield, the Padres addition of Will Middlebrooks brings more promising young talent to the team. Middlebrooks had a great rookie season in 2012 with Boston, hitting .288 with 15 HR’s. He has had a disappointing couple seasons since then as a result of injuries but still managed to hit 17 HR’s in 2013.

If he can stay healthy then there is a lot of upside for the 26- year-old.

Derek Norris was picked up to take over behind the plate. The 26-year-old is entering his third season and coming off of an All-Star 2014 season. His ability and patience at the plate allows him to consistently get on base, which is something the Padres lineup has been lacking in seasons past.

As well as adding the dynamic offense to the lineup, Preller made a few good pitching acquisitions. The biggest of them is the addition of James Shields, who signed a 4-year deal worth $75 million a few months ago. Shields has arguably been one of the best pitchers in baseball over the past few seasons. He won 14 games last season and has won more than 10 games every season for the last eight seasons. His durability over a long season is what the Padres need to bolster the front end of a rotation that battled the injury bug all last season.

Preller, and the Padres ownership group have high expectations as the results of their offseason work. After all the acquisitions and deals, their projected Opening Day roster will have a payroll of $94,184 million, which is only 4 million more than last season and $24,855 million below the 2015 projected average. With money spent comes high expectations of money to be made. The Padres usually average 3 million fans a season; after only drawing 2.2 million last season, the ownership group is hoping to bring in over 3 million fans this season. Season ticket sales, individual game ticket sales, and merchandise sales are all up and expected to continue rising through opening day.

As well as the front office, fans have high expectations for the 2015 season. If the acquisitions don’t look enticing on paper then think of it this way, the Padres haven’t had an outfielder hit 25+ homeruns since Bubba Trammell hit 25 in 2001 and now they have three flashy new outfielders that are more than capable of hitting 25+ homeruns.

The front office has done all they possibly can to insure the team lives up to the expectations of the fans. In 2016, Petco Park will be hosting the All-Star game, which has potential to draw a lot of revenue for the owners, the franchise, and the city; but only if fans are excited about baseball. Transforming the team into a playoff contender is the best thing the owners could have done to get fans excited about baseball in San Diego.

There is an old saying, “The third time is a charm.” For millionaire real-estate heir Robert Durst however, the third time may be his jinx. Since the 1980’s Durst has been intimately linked to a missing person’s case and two murders, the victims all being close friends or family. Now, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office has placed the spotlight directly on Mr. Durst, charging him with 1st degree murder for the death of his close friend and confidante, Susan Berman.

This recent charge stems from a fifteen- year old cold-case, in which Berman was found dead, shot execution style in her home, days before she was expected to speak to police regarding the disappearance of Durst’s wife in 1982. Although Durst had not been considered a suspect in the 1982 disappearance, it has been widely suspected that after years of marriage filled with violence and discord, that Durst was intricately involved in his wife, Kathleen McCormack’s disappearance. In between McCormack’s disappearance and Berman’s death, Durst was charged with the murder of his friend and neighbor, Morris Black, in Galveston, Texas, after admitting that he not only shot Black, but also chopped up and disposed of his body. Through expert legal maneuvering, he was acquitted of murder, after his lawyer’s successfully argued that Durst had killed Morris in self-defense.

Now, over a decade after the death of McCormack, for which Durst has long been the main suspect, new evidence has come to light from an unlikely source. HBO’s documentary The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst, chronicles exactly what the title implies and offers a candid look at the man who has been shrouded in mystery for so many years. While Durst expected and indeed welcomed the questions posed to him by the film’s director, Andrew Jarecki, he probably did not expect the series to be his potential undoing. In the final minutes of the season finale, Durst walked off-screen with his microphone attached, and made a very cryptic statement to himself, “What have I done?” “Killed them all, of course.” The next day, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office filed 1st degree murder charges against Durst for the death of Susan Berman, and immediately sought to extradite Durst from New Orleans, where he was staying under the alias Everette Ward. Although unconfirmed, Los Angeles authorities believe that Durst was only days away from fleeing to Cuba, before being arrested by New Orleans authorities in the hotel lobby in which he had been staying.

Allowing the statement to be admitted as evidence, however, will require prosecutors to maneuver around some tricky rules of evidence. Chief among the legal obstacles is the hearsay rule, which generally does not allow out of court statements or confessions to be admitted as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless it falls under one of the many exemptions or exceptions. In this case, the strongest argument for allowing the recorded statement is that it is a party admission.

For prosecutors, however, Durst’s statements are simply icing on the cake. In 2002, while on trial for the murder of Black, detectives from the Los Angeles Police Department were comparing handwriting samples from two separate letters; one sent to police indicating the location of Berman’s body, and the other addressed to Berman. The handwriting on both letters are strikingly similar, and indeed, exhaustive forensic examination has concluded that both letters were most likely written by Durst.

Known as an “eccentric millionaire” Durst agreed to be filmed for the documentary after his attorney repeatedly advised him not to, probably because the director of the series, Andrew Jarecki, is the same man who directed the 2010 film All Good Things, which starred Ryan Gosling playing a fictionalized version of Durst. The film was less than flattering to Durst, and for the most part showed Durst to be a severely disturbed man. It indicated that he was solely responsible for the disappearance of McCormack and the deaths of both Black and Berman. If Durst is indeed guilty of Berman’s murder, it is extremely puzzling that he would volunteer himself to be a part of a television series directed by a man who clearly vilified him previously. It could be that Durst and his attorney believe this is precisely why the public should be slow to point fingers at the 71 year old, and that Durst purposely placed himself in the spotlight because he had nothing to hide.

Innocent or guilty, Robert Durst is certainly an odd man, and this case is sure to be one of the most captivating celebrity murder trials since the acquittal of O.J. Simpson in 1995. Shortly after being arrested in New Orleans, Durst can be seen smiling at cameras fully clad in an orange-jumpsuit and handcuffs while sitting in the back of a police car. More recently, the Texas judge who presided over Durst’s 2002 murder trial, Susan Criss, has come forward with some shocking revelations. Shortly after testifying at a parole hearing for Durst, she found a dismembered cat on her doorstep, and she believes Durst was responsible. In an interview on CNN Criss said, “I saw something right at the foot of my sidewalk, and at first I thought it was a dead rat . . . I realized it was a severed cat head with the front two legs attached . . . it was done perfectly, it was clean . . . I knew he had a history of destroying animals and cutting up animals and doing terrible things to them.” With Durst’s attorney attempting to have Durst placed in a psychiatric ward, it may be that they are gearing up for an insanity defense, but with evidence mounting against him, it seems that all good things do in fact come to an end.

Without referencing a dictionary, can you define the word terror? If you can, I envy your seemingly eidetic memory. If you can’t its ok; your confusion has been strategically placed. Words and phrases like these are what modern political scientists call “glittering generalities,” which reference words or phrases that sound very appealing, but in reality have no substance behind them. A recent example of a “glittering generality” is President Obama’s 2004 campaign slogan, “Yes We Can,” or George W. Bush’s “Either you’re with us, or you’re with the enemy.” Phrases like these are examples of terminology, which ignite patriotism and united stances towards common national goals. But what do these phrases actually mean? What can we do? Who is the enemy?

Geopolitics is a tricky business and with the advancement of social media, where information travels at the speed of light, politicians have had to learn how to adjust the framing of issues, especially issues that are widely unpopular in the U.S. In the 1940’s and 1950’s the U.S. was able to garner public support against the former U.S.S.R. and against the dire threat of “Communism.” Fast-forward to modern times, and the latest “glittering generality” has become “terrorism.” Our elected officials would have us believe that the word terror refers to any and all persons or groups who would threaten the sovereignty of the U.S. But who defines what constitutes terror and what “acts of terror” demand our attention? Was the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995 a terrorist act? Most would answer in the affirmative, and of course they would be correct, but what about the Columbine shootings in 1999, or the atrocities being committed in Sierra Leone? We have appropriately responded to global threats of terror with resounding and unflinching military force, yet it seems we blissfully ignore issues of gun violence, genocide, and poverty, even as the numbers of these incidents increase year after year.

We Americans, however, are not bad people. Our values are entrenched in “justice and liberty for all,” yet we seem to have selective hearing when it comes to which incidences of “terror” we respond to.

The truth is, it is not our fault. We rely on our public officials and media outlets to tell us the truth about domestic and world issues so that we may make sound and educated decisions when we stand in line to vote. We forget, however, that most of our politicians and Presidents are, or were, attorneys and extremely skilled at explaining facts in a light most favorable to their interests. Words like “terror” and “Communism” have become “glittering generalities,” because among other reasons, our elected officials have capitalized on our feelings of patriotism and inability to notice the slippery slope these words create. Think back to the anger, sadness, and confusion we all felt after 9/11, and the ensuing military campaigns. Phrases like “weapons of mass destruction” and “terrorism” were thrown around so often that we failed to realize, or even admit, that the United Nations inspectors found no such weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we invaded nonetheless. In fact the word “Islam” itself became vilified to the point that anyone wearing a turban, Sikh or Muslim, radical or not, was targeted as a “terrorist” or “anti-American.”

Interestingly enough, there is no real consensus on what the word “terror” actually means. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, college dictionaries, and scholars alike all attribute different definitions to the word “terror.” Most would agree that “terror” is a state of extreme fear, whether it be through violent actions or words. So then, if we indeed have embarked on a “War on Terror,” we should be attacking those who would commit genocide against African children being forced to work the diamond mines of Sierra Leone. We should be attacking those who would increase the ease and availability of military grade weaponry for common citizens. We should be attacking those who seek to ignore poverty in our own nation, leaving millions of American adults and children in extreme fear of starving to death, and we should be attacking the policies of our elected officials as to why nothing is being done.

You may say that the people of Africa, impoverished U.S. citizens, or the thousands of starving immigrants standing at our borders are not our problem, but they too live in “terror.” They too are victims of violent words or actions which have instilled in them an “extreme fear” of their unknown futures, and the more we throw around words like “terror” and “immigrant,” the more we blur the lines of the very language we speak and cherish. Those of us with a strong command of the English language must use it to help us understand our own differences, and the realities of where we chose to place our hard earned tax dollars, not to create confusion and divisiveness. It is our responsibility as burgeoning attorneys, writers, scholars, and advocates to shake off the glitter of these generalities, and to replace “terror” with hope, “immigrant” with American, and to call a “spade” a spade.

This year, the Student Bar Association (SBA) is hosting their annual Barrister’s Ball on Saturday, March 28th at the field of Petco Park! For those who have never attended, Barrister’s Ball is a prestigious awards ceremony and reception to honor TJSL’s distinguished faulty, alumni, and students. It is an opportunity for the entire law school community to come together and celebrate our institution’s achievements in a fun and formal setting.

This year, for the first time, we are hosting the event on a National Baseball League field—Petco Park, home of the San Diego Padres. Another first this year, is the performance of our very own professor band, The Innocent Bystanders! With the exceptional venue, stellar entertainment, and the even greater company, the night is sure to be one to remember! Tickets are $85 and can be bought online or on the second floor of TJSL from 10:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. If there are any extra tickets they will be sold on the day of the event for $100.

Tickets include: - A three course meal catered on the field - A drink ticket during cocktail hour - Free wine at dinner - Free entry into our raffle featuring numerous prizes - A live performance by the Innocent Bystanders - Free photo booth and professional photographer pictures - Free admission and no wait to Fluxx, Sidebar, and F6ix *Drink specials at all three after party locations!

If you haven’t yet, please make sure you buy your tickets as soon as possible, we have a limited amount this year and as every year in the past, it will sell out! If you have any questions, please email SBA at sba@tjsl.edu. We look forward to everyone’s attendance!