Spring 2013

Society enables us to order our perceptions, and it allows us to make sense of the world at large. Our most basic processes of rationalization, communication, and interaction are molded by society and behavioral fine tuning. Aristotle contended that, as a political animal, man could not exist without society, that without it he would cease to be human.[i] However, even with society so deeply tied to who we are as people we recognize freedom as a departure from these ties and celebrate its principle.

Freedom, for most of us, means an independence from the operations of mass society and the pressures it instills. Freedom is the state of being aware of one’s own place in the world, taking responsibility for it, and deciding for one’s self how best to act: striving for authenticity. This ability to act authentically may be accessible to different people in different degrees. However, it is widely accepted that, as humans, we all have some ability to act authentically. If this is true, it stands to reason that freedom exists on more than one level and can be experienced in different degrees. In any event, we accept that freedom is real. Society, then, has only provided us with a set of tools; society is not the essence of human existence in and of itself. We can, and we often do, wish to live without its influence.

When we accept that human beings are more than dependent parts of a giant sociological body, necessary and important questions arise. If so much of our consciousness is ordered by society at large, where and how does freedom exist? Where does personal freedom begin? How is freedom related to free will? We must recognize and answer these questions in our own lives before we can claim to be free; if we cannot explain to ourselves our personal freedom lies, then we cannot be sure that it exists at all.

Before going any further, we must make a distinction between “freedom” and “free will.” Freedom, for the purposes of this article, is defined, described and examined as a state of consciousness, a state of mind.

The term “free will” is a broader and more denotative concept dealing with the connections that occur in relating consciousness to action. Ultimately, “freedom” plays a role in influencing action through exercising “free will.” However, this article will not include an extensive analysis of “free will.”

Free will is the conscious undertaking of a decision, but freedom is the state of mind that drives the actions of free will. For the time being, our references to freedom are references to a state of conscious awareness only.

The dictates of human society reach only so far into human consciousness. With this, a necessary question arises: where do these dictates end? Or, in other words, just how far do they actually reach? The process of socialization begins at birth. We begin to learn the structures of family, we learn to recognize cues and patterns. Eventually we learn to predict specific occurrences. If our expectations are not affirmed, we begin to ask why, and if we are resourceful we try to find answers as to why this is the case. When we reach this stage, we have begun to acquire what is known as common sense. At some point, we begin also to develop a vocabulary, which becomes an integral part of our capacities for complex reasoning. By this time in early childhood, we have already been exposed to an incalculable number of external influences and lessons both from society and the world at large. These lessons and influences have begun shaping who we are and who we are to become.

While we are developing as individuals, we are also unconsciously developing personal locations with the framework of society. In his book, Invitation to Sociology, Peter L. Berger describes the dynamic of a person’s “location” as one that sees him or her completely surrounded by the influences of society, which are present on levels ranging from families to local communities to mass society.

            If we return once more to the picture of an individual located at the center of a set of             concentric circles, each one representing a system of social control, we can understand a             little better that location in society means to locate oneself with regard to many forces             that constrain and coerce one.[ii]

Ironically, the same system that is responsible for the great many forces working to “constrain and coerce” us has also given us the tools we need to reject these forces or mitigate their effects on us. When we turn to self-reflection and begin to realize where society has influenced and continues to influence our lives, we begin to know where its jurisdiction ends. The dictates of society in human consciousness end where we are able to reflect on our inner selves, and recognize the dictates for what they are: external influences.

This consciousness of self that we may develop as individuals in freeing ourselves is a virtual no-man’s land. It is the space existing between blind irrational adherence to invisible forces and true freedom. To recognize the influences that society has over oneself is to also recognize a part of oneself that is beyond his immediate reach. When an individual does this, he has become aware of the location of his self, but this is not the same as having actually acquired freedom.

In fact, freedom is not a permanent state of consciousness. It is not acquired at all but rather accessed by the individual who knows its location. Its location is what concerns us at this point; since we have determined where the dictates of society end, we can move on to the next of our necessary questions: where does personal freedom begin?

Personal freedom begins with a recognition followed by a conscious act of withdrawal. An individual first recognizes the controls society has over him. He then proceeds to withdraw from these controls through a process of detachments – the individual going through this process may still go through the motions of everyday life appearing to any onlooker as though no revelation or recognition had ever come to him, but he withdraws as a matter of necessity and choice; he is aware of what he is doing and why he is doing it. On the subject of detachment Peter Berger wrote:

            The person who retires from the social stage into religious, intellectual of artistic domains             of his own making still, of course, carries into this self-imposed exile the language,             identity and store of knowledge that he initially achieved at the hands of society.[iii]

It is true that we cannot suddenly, through some act of will, forget the things we have learned throughout our lives, but freedom does not require us to do so. The level of detachment Berger describes is harsh, but it is a necessary step on the path to freedom.

Freedom results when one no longer agrees to blindly participate in the consciousness that society has prescribed for him. In its most unadulterated form, freedom is the ability of a conscious psyche to decide for itself how to process the information it receives from society and life experience. To acquire access to self-awareness and freedom of like this is a great achievement for any human being. Most of us have neither the time nor the wherewithal to come anywhere actively cultivate a sense of freedom within us. This is why it is important to recognize that freedom is accessible and achievable in varying degrees.

For most of us, freedom involves a more uncomfortable resignation than we are likely willing to admit. We see that society has been able to construct extremely useful systems and protective shields. We may decide that some stones are better left unturned, and any degree of freedom we have acquired consequently becomes a tool for dealing with relatively mundane affairs; not everyone who has accessed a bit of freedom spends his time probing the dark and distant corners of a world that exists in a place beyond ordinary definition, rather some their sense of freedom just to occasionally relax.

It seems paradoxical that something that has exerted so much control over our lives and defined aspects of our lives in so many ways can be cast aside (at least to some extent) with such relative ease. What is even more amazing than the fact that freedom is a somewhat easily accessed state of consciousness is mankind’s general disregard for its value. The fact so many people seem more willing to trudge down a mindless path to a wholly inevitable end without experiencing freedom in its truest forms is disappointing.

What we have determined is that the dictates of society in human consciousness extend only so far as they cannot be recognized; when we are able to understand the hidden forces that influence us, we have discovered a new type of self-awareness. After having this discovery, if conditions are adequate, an individual begins the process of accessing freedom. Freedom does not negate social interaction, social consciousness or social dependency. It only supposes a type of keen awareness, a knowledge of the fact that we are the products of our membership in society in an almost total sense, knowledge that we can actively strive towards freedom, and that we accept responsibility for the ourselves and how we choose to live.

It could be the French maid costume, anal sex, allegations of domestic violence and pedophilia, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.   Or it could be the years of amour fou, of obsession and lust, of the jealousy and emotional torture that those two put each other through.  It may be the brutal way that Travis Alexander was killed, shot with a .25 caliber pistol and stabbed 27 times, his throat slit from ear to ear, and left for dead for several days in the shower of his home.  Whatever it ultimately is, whether it’s our love affair with sex or our fixation with other peoples’ lives, our society is hooked on Jodi Arias. 

 Jodi and Travis had a short-lived love affair.  After their break-up in 2007, the two continued to maintain a physical relationship, much of which was explicitly documented via text messages, handwritten letters, e-mails and Google chat messages to one another.  Jodi and Travis even took to the Internet to express their feelings for one another, both posting on their individual blogs about each other.  Then in June of 2008, Jodi rented a car and drove from her home in California to Travis’ home in Mesa, Arizona.  Little is know about what actually happened when Jodi reached Travis’ home.  Logged in the memory card of Travis’ digital camera were images of the two forlorn love birds in sexually provocative positions.  What police also recovered from the camera were images of Travis on the bathroom floor, bleeding profusely.  Jodi was traced back to the crime scene by a latent bloody fingerprint on the bathroom wall, and from some of her hair on the wall of the blood-stained hallway.  The trial of Jodi Arias for first degree murder began in January, and we have all been baffled and stunned by the lies, cover-ups and details of an ill-fated love affair since. 

Why the obsession with cases like Jodi Arias’?  What does our preoccupation with tales of lust and murder say about us as a society?  One notion is that we see ourselves as pegs in a massive and powerful system, to which any of us, at any given time, could be the next powerless victim.  We have grown to live in a constant state of vulnerability as the dichotomy between the powerless individual and the omnipresent state.  As Walter Mosely poignantly stated in Newsweek magazine, “most of us see ourselves as powerless cogs in a greater machine; as potential victims of a society so large and insensitive that we, innocent bystanders in the crowd, might be caught at any time in the crossfire between the forces of so-called good and evil.”  In other, less articulate terms, we fear being Jodi Arias.  It doesn’t help that we are buried under the weight of crime shows and other purveyors of entertainment making us believe, more often than is actually the case that at any moment we will be the ones alleged to have done something we did or didn’t do.  On the other hand, our understanding of human capability is so limited, our potential is so infinite, that each of us can barely scratch the surface of what we are made of.  To a weird extent, maybe we see ourselves in these accused murders. 

The Arias trial will wrap soon, and the 12 jurors will return a verdict.  Either way, once Arias is either a free woman or behind bars, we will certainly find ourselves the next Jodi Arias.  

In Jungian Psychology, the word Individuation refers to a process of development or change that takes place within the mind of a patient. It is in fact the main goal of psychoanalytical therapy and the purpose of every technique, theory and idea used by C.G. Jung to help his patients achieve their goals in therapy. The main idea underlying the process of individuation is that, from time to time, and under certain conditions, we are likely to lose grip of our self-understanding. When this happens, it is often the case that we simultaneously lose touch with the roots of our motivations.

            Throughout essays, writings and work, Jung gives highly detailed descriptions of the dynamic structure and theory of Individuation. For the purposes of this paper, I am interested only in pointing out a few key points made by Jung about the area of analytical psychology. Instead of discussing Jung’s ideas in a strictly reductive or constructive manner, I have undertaken to explain them differently, in my own words with appropriate references included.

            All of our meaningful experiences in life are psychological in nature. We all develop complexes based on the associations we make between external objects and ourselves or between our ego-consciousness and our perceptions of things that are unconscious (or only semi-conscious).

            The individuation process is concerned first with separating and understanding the motivations of an individual from their neurotic or psychotic manifestations; the intrusion of unconscious material into an individual’s conscious attention, when these intrusions are troublesome, paralyzing, or expressed in an excessively negative manner, must be addressed and dealt with.

            The second goal of Individuation is the integration of new or improved self-knowledge with everyday life.

            As Jung states in a lecture first published roughly 100 years ago, “Analytical treatment could be described as a readjustment of psychological attitude achieved with the help of a doctor."[i] The obvious implication of this idea is that psychoanalytical therapy functions as a partnership between doctor and patient which purpose is the liberation of the individual from a state of self-imposed, if inescapable, psychological dysfunction.

            The concept of Individuation deserves our respect because it demands that we respect ourselves. We all face challenges in life that present themselves in a variety of ways. We associate to these challenges differently based on our personalities, life experiences, personal histories, present states of mind, etc. Each of us goes through a highly individualized mental process in meeting with these challenges, and collectively we deal with them in ways that are specific to us as individual human beings.

            Jung expands on this idea by outlining some basic concepts about attitude and personality in relation to the individual and society:

            There are, of course, extremely durable collective attitudes which permit the solution of             typical conflicts. A collective attitude allows the individual to fit into society without             friction… but the patient’s difficulty consists precisely in the fact that his individuation             problem cannot be fitted into a collective norm.[ii]

Because we are humans and share collectively in a common store of potential experiences and ideas, the way we end up dealing with the challenges we face as individuals are often similar in not identical to each other. However, this does not disprove the fact that individuals do not experience these challenges uniquely. The mental/psychological processes that we first go through in meeting the challenges must also be experienced in ways that are specific to who we are as individuals. This one of the main premises of Individuation theory: in order for our personalities to develop, we must, before attempting anything else, learn to tell the difference between what belongs to us personally (values, beliefs, attitudes, conceptions, etc.), what belongs to our environment, (social pressures, societal institutions, the motivations and behaviors or friends or family members, etc.) Once this has occurred, an individual, or patient of psychoanalytical psychotherapy, will most likely be able to see more clearly the relationship he has to the influences of his personal unconscious, and the collective unconscious as well.

            When we encounter challenges of a specific nature, (for instance, the contents of our unconscious psyches, archetypes, new experiences with the collective unconscious, the process of personal development, dreams, symbols, etc.) we react to them through an infinitely complex and yet nearly effortless task of information processing and redistribution. However, if we subscribe to Jung’s view that the archetype called self includes both inner and outer worlds (subjective and objective realities).[iii] Whether these forms are of a concrete, scientific in nature or more in the realm of psychic realities and personal truths is beside the point.

            What may begin in the mind as an “empty and purely formal [or static] structure, nothing but a facultas praeformandi,”[iv] takes on a perceivable form when it enters into the light of conscious attention. This happens to be the same manner in which non-psychological events present themselves to us, thereby becoming experience and becoming psychological in nature. If a sudden event takes place in an otherwise normal environment under normal conditions, we have no more control over the fact that it has happened than we would over troublesome unconscious contents that have affected our ego-consciousness. We have no more means or chance of preventing an unpredictable event than we have at being able to control the contents of the personal or collective unconscious. We must simply react to what has happened, whether this event has taken place in our minds, in the street, a warzone, a prison, or any other imaginable place.

            The process by which unconscious psychological contents achieve their perceivable forms is itself unconscious, and although theories exist to validly explain it, they seem at best to be inconclusive. It could be argued that our knowledge of the unconscious aspects of the human psyche is comparable to our knowledge of such things as space exploration, astronomy, theoretical mathematics, or physics. We can, up to a certain point, make definite statements based on our observances about these subjects. Our understanding of them, however, is far from complete. Jung’s theory of archetypes, a collective unconscious, and the personal unconscious point to a fact that is somewhat staggering when we take notice of its implications; we know only a small portion about the mechanisms driving forms and structures that allow our minds (and ourselves as living organisms) to function.

            Yet, paradoxically, our conscious attention and ego would usually suggest the opposite: that we are very much in control, at least of our own minds, and we generally understand the world and our environments well enough to survive in them without too much difficulty. To a certain this is true; a lizard, for instance, needs nothing more than a keen survival instinct (comparable to ego-consciousness in humans) to be successful at what it does. However, with the evolution of human intelligence came human psychology, which for any number of reasons adopted a form so complex that, under most circumstances, only a small part of it would be needed in order to address the issues of survival and social functioning.

            I would like now to refer back to a statement I made at the start of this article. That Jung’s theories have the potential to be applied in contexts and to subjects other than psychotherapy. It seems clear that the experiences we have within the privacy of our own minds (witnessing archetypes, recognizing symbols, dreaming) insofar as they involve the task of sense-based information processing and perception, are very similar to the experiences we have in relation to external events, other individuals, and the great forces of society and culture. If a person were to dream that he came face to face with a ferocious beast in the wilderness, his psychological state would likely—though not necessarily—share more than a few characteristics with the experience of the same event if it were to take place in a person’s “objective” reality (aka the “real world”). If it came upon someone to dive into treacherous ocean waters to save a shipmate from drowning, the rescuer might well experience some or all aspects of the individuation process when he has had an adequate chance to reflect on his actions.

            At this point, I would like to add some background information about the unconscious and collective unconscious (objective psyche) in general. Both concepts, both things, are integrally related to the process of Individuation. The process by which unconscious contents achieve their perceivable forms is itself unknown, or at best known in theory. For instance, in dreams it is only in rare instances that we are lucid enough to conjure the specific images and situations we wish to perceive. Therefore, we are often taken aback or possessed by the contents that rise up from the depths our unconscious psyches when these disrupt the flow of conscious processes that we had previously taken for granted as our worldviews.

            Challenges of this nature may come to us when we least expect it, or we may simply be fascinated enough to go on seeking them out on our own through practices like meditation or active imagination. In other cases, me may repress some or all aspects of these challenges to our reality-based egocentric worldview and refuse them, and consequently refuse ourselves the opportunity for development and growth.

            When this occurs, more often than not, repressed contents will remain persistent in their strivings for expression and attention from the conscious mind. Even if an individual succeeds in developing a non-regressive means of dealing with bothersome unconscious contents, the task is more or less pointless if he does so only to avoid working harder to repress them; that is, if he does not, in any way, endeavor to understand the content’s meaning for him as an individual.

            The individuation process dictates that when unconscious contents come demanding conscious recognition, the must be taken seriously, and they must be addressed. Furthermore, we must attempt to understand them, or at the very least, in some form or fashion, we must integrate all or some of these contents into our ego-consciousness, and into our overall personal awareness in order to effectively deal with the challenges we face, grow and develop as individuals.

An auction.  I know what you’re thinking, “I am a poor law student.  How can I possibly afford anything at an auction?”  Here’s the good news, you don’t really need anything more than the $10 it costs to get in.

On Friday, April 5, the Public Interest Law Foundation (PILF) will hold its annual silent and live auction.  The doors open at 5 pm and there will be food, drink, live entertainment, and the grand finale: a live auction with auctioneer Professor Thomas Golden.  Legend has it Professor Golden sets the live auction tone with a primer in auction contracts.

Come, hang out, have fun and if the mood strikes you bid.  And if you think items will be out of your reach, think again.  This year there are silent auction items ranging from admission for four to the Japanese Friendship Garden at Balboa Park, two tickets to see The Nutcracker, Kaplan Bar Review course, and even a night of bowling for you and some friends with some of the professors who teach important bar courses.

According to sources, last year’s winner of the bowling with TJSL professors used some of their time to have an impromptu review session.  So 3L’s this could be a chance to get that extra edge that will help you prep for the July bar.

Bid or not, by coming to the auction, you will help support TJSL students in their work with Public Interest Law.  All proceeds go to a scholarship fund.  This money is then distributed to TJSL students who will spend their summers working to address issues of homelessness, violence against women, human trafficking and much more.

The 11th grade class of the Business and Law Academy at Crawford High School prepared months in advance to compete with 19 other high schools in this year’s mock trial competition hosted by the San Diego County Bar Association. As the students, CLIMB chaperones and Mr. Luttbeg, Crawford teacher of the academy, piled onto the bus, they all began the trip to the San Diego County Courthouse while chanting “I believe that we can succeed!” The students were excited to look so sharp in fresh business attire; for many of them, this was their first time wearing such clothes. Heads buried in their notes, trying to quiet the nerves with focus on the trial facts, possible motions and useful objections- the students were in the zone.

They were met at the courthouse by their two litigation attorney coaches, Amy Hoffman and Shereen Charlick, who have dedicated as many months as the students, preparing them to be ready for anything in the courtroom. The three-day competition was held at the county courthouse, where the students conducted their trials in real court rooms. The students were divided into prosecution and defense teams where they were presented with current teen criminal issues. These students impressed the adults with their astounding skills in applying proper courtroom etiquette, appropriate objections and knowing the facts of their case inside and out. As the trial proceeded, the confidence of each student beamed within the courtroom, making them very stiff competition for the opposing teams. 

At the end of the two hour long mock trial, the students received many compliments on their professionalism, respect to their opposing teammates, knowledge of the law and presence in the courtroom by attorney judges. With smiles stretching from ear to ear, the students left the room commenting on their favorite moments of the trial and suggesting constructive criticisms for the next round, wanting to do even better.

The 11th grade Crawford High students were not just participating in the mock trial, they owned it. The months of preparation were evident to the spectators, judges and opposing team, and they were a threat to reckon with. For most of these students, they would have never imagined to be participating in such a rigorous competition, let alone be a coveted competitor. Their effort and belief in themselves was possible by Mr. Luttbeg, who is a retired San Diego attorney well known within the community; the attorney coaches, who have truly become an integral piece in these students’ journeys; and, the CLIMB mentors, who are Thomas Jefferson students who lead class discussions and lessons every week at Crawford High School and chaperone for school events like the mock trial competition.

If you are looking to empower high school students, and truly make a difference in their lives today and in their future, come to CLIMB’s information meeting on March 13th, at 12 pm in Room 325.

CLIMB, or  the Crawford Law Institute & Mentorship Bond, is a program created to mentor high school students within the Business and Law Academy at Crawford High School. CLIMB connects with these students through various programs such as the PALS program, speaker series and culture nights, hosted at Thomas Jefferson.  The Culture Night program is organized by CLIMB members whose goals are to expose the students to a certain subject matter that generally would not be available to them within their school curriculum. In the past, the subjects have been, “Spoken Word,” “Exercise and Healthy Living” and “Mass Media and Politics.”  , CLIMB will be hosting a Culture Night on “Expression of the Arts,” on March 14 at TJSL in Room 325 from 4:15-5:30 pm. All Thomas Jefferson students are welcome to attend as well as Crawford High School students.

By: Josh Desmond and Sara LeProwse

Bootlegger’s—located at 804 Market Street—on the corner between 8th and 9th Avenue—is a great American pub to try if you are looking for a southern feel.  The atmosphere is reminiscent of the old west mixed with the new trendy vibe of the Gaslamp District.  If you are looking to grab a quick bite or drink, this place has it all. 

As you enter, their signature western wrap-around bar is located directly in front of you.  For both men and women, the bar is adorned with overhead flat screen tv’s that extend all the way around to the walls; perfect for any professional sports season.  If you do not prefer watching sports at a bar, feel free to exit through the garage doors to the main bar scene and enjoy the sights and sounds of San Diego.  Ready for any weather, Bootlegger’s is prepared to raise the garage doors for additional seating outside or to close them and keep the atmosphere rowdy inside.

Finally, when one goes to Bootlegger’s, please take notice of the custom artwork.  My understanding is there is an artist on staff that draws for the pub, but whoever it is, they deserve your attention.  Whether it is the prohibition era drawing where women are protesting men drinking liquor, to the beer can sanctuary, the menu listings above the front door, or the bull horns at the very back of the bar, Bootlegger’s is very trendy and has adequate room for all, both seated and standing. 

If you feel more righteous and deserving, upon reservation, Bootlegger’s does offer a back seated area with comfy padded couches and the full Texas welcome as you are surrounded by the history of bourbon and the illusion of plenty of barrels of bourbon at your disposal. 

*Disclaimer: No bourbon is actually in the barrels, but the bar is stocked with your favorite drink for a nominal amount, just ask your server.*

I will provide one insight that may persuade you otherwise from going to Bootlegger’s.  On Friday night after 8pm, the staff and the patrons did turn a bit too rowdy and obnoxious for me, so I would advise one to try Bootlegger’s at your own risk.  Otherwise, from my point of view, most other nights Bootlegger’s is the place to be for entertainment, good food, and a cool drink. 

For a nightcap or a pregame, Bootlegger’s will offer you an authentic experience far removed from their name.  Now for more on the refreshments and the food!

More than half of us have probably been there.  Probably all of us have at least been by Bootlegger.  I’ve had my ups and downs with this place.  The happy hour crew in there is pretty cool.  The bartender doesn’t try too hard, the place isn’t packed, and the weird guy that wants you to believe he’s the next Steve Jobs keeps to himself. But after happy hour . . . well, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

I’m a sucker for a good deal, and happy hour at Bootlegger is pretty darn good.   $4 drafts (yes, all drafts, not just domestics), wells, and house wines—Check.  Plus all the appetizers are $5.  It’s not the kind of place that gives you half the food because you only paid half the regular price.  Nope, Bootlegger gives you full size portions for half price.  The Buffalo Chicken dip is awesome, although I could go without the celery in the dip.  We also had the Ahi Tuna, which has become a new addiction of mine (I may or may not have dreams about it).  But funny enough, the Ahi Tuna Poke really wasn’t stellar, so I’m not sure how they messed that one up.

The real treat, as far as I’m concerned, is the fact they have Batch 19 on draft.  You can find the stuff in bottles all over the place, but draft beer is a little more special. Batch 19 is brewed by Coors, which I understand is making all the craft beer lovers out there cringe, but give it a shot, it’s not your typical Rocky Mountain Water.  This is a prohibition-style lager, which refers to the type of hops they use to brew it.  It’s a caramel color and in true Coors fashion, little-to-no head on the pour.  It’s got a sweet taste to it like honey and the hops are very mild.  It’s really easy to drink and for $4 a glass, why stop at one?

Bootlegger’s is not a bad place to take a quick break from all things law school.  It’s close, relatively cheap, and the best time to go is during the afternoon.  So plan your next date with your favorite mate and we’ll see you at Bootlegger’s.

It was announced last week that the Department of Justice has joined a whistleblower lawsuit against Lance Armstrong and other Team USA cyclists (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/sports/cycling/justice-department-will... ).  Armstrong and his teammates were previously sponsored by the United States Postal Service.  Pursuant to the parties’ multi-million dollar sponsorship contract was an express provision whereby the cyclists agreed not to use performance enhancing drugs.  In the wake of Armstrong’s recent public admission to doping, it appears the Department of Justice seized an opportunity to join an ostensibly cherry-picked lawsuit.  Still, the DOJ will need to show just how the USPS was damaged by Armstrong and the other named defendants who doped if it hopes to recoup on its earlier investment (that is, of course, assuming the case does not settle first).

Meanwhile, there has still yet to be a single prosecution against Wall Street Executives in the wake of the financial collapse.  A recent Frontline exclusive (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/untouchables/) examines this anomaly and poignantly details the idleness of the DOJ with respect to getting tough on Wall Street fraudsters.  In our Business Associations course we study the Sarbones-Oxley Act, presumably because it is a relevant tool in prosecuting corporate scandals at the highest levels.  However, when the DOJ cannot or simply chooses that it will not bring charges in response to what so clearly amounts to criminal conduct, unfortunately Sarbones-Oxley is likely to become moot.

While the distinction between joining an already filed lawsuit and issuing a formal criminal indictment is clear enough, the DOJ’s lax approach on Wall Street’s shady dealings furthers the regrettable notion that justice is only found where it is convenient.  Lance Armstrong cheated, but so did a large number of banks.  While Armstrong is already considered a lying, cheating bully in the court of public opinion, it should be the DOJ’s priority to put the bankers in actual court before they go after Armstrong and his bike.

Within twenty-four hours of Frontline’s damning report airing, the head of DOJ’s Criminal Division, Lanny Breuer, resigned (http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/frontline_hits_hard_on_the_lac.php?page=1 ).  Credible journalism might not be dead after all.  Unfortunately, the poetic justice here is less satisfactory when it takes Frontline and other investigative journalists to wage the DOJ’s own battles.  The financial collapse was not just the result of swindling Wall Street bankers and to suggest as much would be myopic.  Still, that is where the most egregious fraud took place and that is where accountability has been altogether non-existent.

Get ready ladies and gentlemen.  This will be a year when that one-girl-who-once-dribbled-a-basketball-and-knew-a-guy-whose-brother-played-in-high-school wins your annual tournament bracket pool. 

With Selection Sunday only a couple weeks away, the field is wide open with nearly ten teams who have a legitimate shot at cutting down the nets in Atlanta.  There are no powerhouses in college basketball this year, so picking a winner (and more importantly winning your tournament pool) will be as challenging as ever.  In other words, Rocky the Octopus has as a good of a chance at picking the winners as you do.

But, if you follow these simple steps, victory shall be yours!

1. Forget anything that happened before January.  Oh, did your alma mater beat the #3 team in the country in November?  Big deal.  The early season tournaments and non-conference games, while exciting to watch, don’t mean anything in the long run.  The great teams don’t hit their full stride until conference play.

2. Speaking of conference play: it matters.  Winning a conference regular season title or a conference tournament is a great sign that a team is ready for a long run come tourney time.  You have to go all the way back to 1997 to find a team (Arizona) that won the National Championship without winning either a regular season conference championship or a conference tournament championship in that same season.  So if you find yourself with a matchup that you are unsure about, go with the team that has already proven they are championship material.

3. Don’t sleep on the Mid-Majors.  The great thing about college basketball is that once the tournament starts any team can make a run (unless you are a 16/15 seed).  No teams do this better than the Mid-Majors.  They capture everything we love about the tournament.  A small school, from a small conference, making a great run to the Elite Eight or Final Four while taking out some of the big boys.  George Mason in 2006.  VCU in 2011.  Butler in 2010 and 2011.  You should definitely pick upsets.  You should definitely have a Mid-Major school (See: Butler, Gonzaga, Wichita State) getting to the Sweet Sixteen and beyond.  However, you should definitely not pick a Mid-Major to win it all.  No team outside of a (current) Power-Six conference has won the national championship since Texas Western in 1966.  Pick the Cinderella, but just make sure you don’t take her all the way to the Ball.

4. Go with the proven Coach.  Does it seem like teams such as Michigan State, Duke, and North Carolina always make the Final Four?  It is no coincidence.  Teams that have coaches like Tom Izzo or Mike Krzyzewski will always have a coaching advantage against whomever they are playing.  Great coaches are able to get the most out of their team and are able push their team beyond their own capabilities.  Simply put, winning the national championship requires a great coach.  In the last 20 years, there have only been three coaches that won a national championship that the general public most likely wouldn’t consider “great”: 1) Nolan Richardson, Arkansas 1994, 2) Jim Harrick, UCLA 1995, and 3) John Calipari, Kentucky 2012.  When in doubt, pick the team with the better coach.

5. Don’t listen to the talking heads.  You can’t turn on CBS or ESPN to watch a game without some “expert” spouting their unsurpassed knowledge about college basketball.  Don’t listen to what Seth Greenberg, Seth Davis, or Digger Phelps has to say.  There’s a reason sports commentators don’t reveal their bracket picks to the public – they don’t have a clue who is going to win!  Go with your gut instinct before you are influenced by someone like Doug Gottlieb.

There you have it folks.  The one and only guide you’ll need to win your next college basketball tournament pool.  Following these five simple rules will guarantee you a first place finish.  If for some reason you don’t finish in first place, don’t blame me…I just pick the teams who have cute dogs as their mascot.  

On Wednesday, February 26, JLR hosted the first ever “Burgers, Beer, and Banter.” During the first of what will surely become a tradition, different people looking to see their professor outside of the classroom thought it would be great to have a chance to talk to a professor; and boy was it. Professor Susan Tiefenbrun did not disappoint. 

“I am a card carrying Democrat, and I don’t drink beer” Professor Tiefenbrun told the group. "But she does have quite the life story!" Said Rachel King. 2L Professor Tieffenbrun started by explaining her start as a young Jewish woman from a family of immigrants that moved to the Bronx, New York, in 1917, escaping from Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution. The astounding orator went on to explain how she overcame many social and physical obstacles to become a very well known personality both here at TJSL and in the legal community nationwide. Did you know that she is not only a lawyer, but she has her masters and PhD in French and can speak 9 other languages including English? And she did all of this while being a mother of three, changing careers three times, facing adversity and moving completely across the country on her own. 

Professor Tifenbrun was the first of a long list of professor's that JLR has lined up to speak at what is sure to become a welcomed tradition here at TJSL.: "I'm really excited to hear what other professors have to say and how they got to where they are"  Brittany Walker, 2L.

After the success the first ever “Burgers, Beer, and Banter,” The event looks to be a regular hit, another "Beers, Banter, and Burgers" is planned for March 20th, "but this time, at a bigger venue." Chase Victorson, 2L. We hope to see you there.