Seeking Alpha

Timothy D. Naegele's  Instablog

Timothy D. Naegele
Send Message
Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He practices law in Washington, D.C. and... More
My company:
Timothy D. Naegele & Associates
My blog:
NaegeleBlog
  • Ariel Sharon Is Missed

    By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

    It seems like ages since Ariel Sharon slipped into a coma from which he never returned, much less as a political force in this earthly world. Yet, perhaps he was there after all, resting with the knowledge that he was a man of his times, who had shaped and reshaped history.

    He was a complex human being who produced seemingly inconsistent policies. By being the architect of Israel's settlement expansion in the West Bank and Gaza, despite Palestinian and international protests, he appeared to be forever at odds with the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, and thus an opponent of peaceful coexistence between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and lasting peace in the Middle East. Henry A. Kissinger noted some years ago: "For most of his career, Sharon's strategic goal was the incorporation of the West Bank into Israel by a settlement policy designed to prevent Palestinian self-government over significant contiguous territory."

    However, he came seemingly full circle and withdrew from Gaza and removed Jewish settlers from both Gaza and the West Bank, and returned their lands to the Palestinians. Like the hard-liner Richard Nixon who opposed communists and their ideology throughout his life, yet opened the door to China, Sharon was an enigma. Both were skilled chess players; and perhaps Sharon supported expansive settlements merely as a bargaining chip that would be discarded when it served the interests of peace, or no longer had any strategic value.

    He seemed to be a pragmatist who concluded that it was in Israel's best interests to defend only those lands that were militarily and politically defensible, and sacrifice the rest, and to jettison the settlers who had served as pawns in a larger chess game. By zigging and then zagging, and by being a key player in the establishment of the right-wing Likud Party and then breaking from it to found the centrist Kadima Party, Sharon proved to be an able and skillful politician right up to the end of his career.

    He fought in a Jewish militia opposed to British control; and he served in Israel's war of independence with the Arab states and in subsequent wars, and was considered a war hero by many Israelis. He was wounded in a battle to break the siege of Jerusalem and carried its effects all of his life, including near blindness in one eye; and he was grazed by a bullet in the head during a battle many years later.

    He visited the Temple Mount to emphasize Israel's claim of sovereignty, outraging Muslims and provoking widespread violence; and he is blamed for the ruthless killing and suffering of countless Palestinians. Yet, his strength was being more in tune with Israeli public opinion than anyone else. Ghazi al Saadi, a Palestinian commentator, described Sharon as "the first Israeli leader who stopped claiming Israel had a right to all of the Palestinians' land." He added: "A live Sharon is better for the Palestinians now, despite all the crimes he has committed against us."

    Like Yitzhak Rabin before him, whose mantle he assumed, history will judge Sharon's accomplishments and speculate as to what a difference his continued leadership might have meant in the future. It is certain, however, that Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu is no Ariel Sharon, nor does he hold a candle to Rabin. Indeed, Rabin's widow Leah-who was described by Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and former Prime Minister Shimon Peres as a "lioness"-believed it was the climate of hate that Netanyahu created during the election campaign of 1995, which laid the groundwork for a Jew to assassinate her husband. She never forgave Netanyahu and detested him.[2]

    The fact that Netanyahu attained his coveted goal of leading Israel again, after his scandal-ridden previous attempt at it, may have changed the region's history forever. He was the nemesis of both Rabin and Sharon, two giants; and his return from political oblivion may still be marked by untold chaos at a time when political and military adventurism and demagoguery are the last things that are needed from the leader of Israel.

    It was a fateful day, however, when a born-again Christian and a Jew, one slim and fit and the other decidedly rotund, shared a helicopter ride; and Sharon gave then-Texas Governor George W. Bush a tour over the Israeli-occupied territories. On that day and in the days that followed, a bond of mutual respect emerged between Bush and Sharon that would survive the roller coaster of international politics. They were a political odd couple who seemed to instinctively trust each other at a time in history when trust was a rare currency vis-à-vis the seemingly intractable problems of the Middle East.

    Trust has been a missing ingredient during much of the political life of Netanyahu, who has been perceived as being untrustworthy by countless Israelis and leaders of other nations. Indeed, he has served as a foil against which Sharon's accomplishments may be viewed and measured. Sharon emerged as the right leader for Israel at the right time, just as Rabin had done before him. Netanyahu's presence on Israel's political scene makes Sharon's greatness and that of Rabin stand out in bold relief by comparison.

    Sharon's stroke and coma deprived the Bush administration of its closest working partner in the Middle East. The clock began ticking in the region again; and there have been reports that Israel will attack Iran's nuclear installations. I am forever reminded of what a prominent American (who is a Jew and a strong supporter of Israel) told me several years ago: "I have long thought that Israel will not make it, if only because of what are cavalierly called WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and its very tight geographical compression. All else is immaterial, including the Palestinians, or us, or the nature of Israel's [government]."

    I was stunned by this person's words, and I have reflected on them many times since. Henry Kissinger added several years ago: "Far too much of the debate within the Palestinian camp has been over whether Israel should be destroyed immediately by permanent confrontation or in stages in which occasional negotiations serve as periodic armistices." I do not subscribe to the notion that anything is inevitable or "written." However, it is courageous and visionary men like Rabin and Sharon who have guided Israel through perilous times, when lesser men would have foundered.

    Netanyahu campaigned on a hard-line platform that would grant to a new Palestinian state only a fraction of West Bank land; and effectively, he has brought the peace process to a screeching halt because he opposes such a state entirely, whether he articulates it or not. When Likud suffered a defeat in the Israeli elections, with Netanyahu at its helm, he characteristically tried to deflect blame from himself by claiming that a comatose Ariel Sharon was responsible for the political "crash."

    The Wall Street Journal put it mildly in an editorial: "[Netanyahu's] attempt to blame a dying and helpless Mr. Sharon for Likud's drubbing . . . was not a class act." Indeed, it was tasteless, opportunistic, and among the reasons why so many people view Netanyahu as being pathetic and demonic-but it was certainly consistent with his treatment of both Rabin and Sharon.

    Most Israelis believe at least one of two long-time dreams is unattainable; namely, the idea of a "Greater Israel," and of a negotiated peace with the Palestinians. Contrariwise, the Palestinians have steadfastly refused to repudiate their dream of a "greater Palestine," stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, which-in the words of Yossi Klein Halevi, an Israeli journalist and writer-"would supplant and destroy the Jewish state."

    Halevi further opined: "The settlement movement ignored the moral corruption of occupation and the demographic threat to Israel's identity as a Jewish and democratic state posed by the forcible absorption of several million Palestinians into Israeli society." And he added: "Israel will almost certainly find itself without Greater Israel-and without peace. . . . Confronted with the possibility of a nuclear Iran committed to Israel's destruction and with a terrorist state emerging in Gaza and the West Bank, Israelis need the sustenance of dreams."

    President Bush pledged to help create an independent Palestinian state before the end of his second term, which suffered a fatal blow with the loss of Sharon, and ended Sharon's personal ambition to set Israel's permanent borders too. The Times of the UK quoted one official as saying: "It [was] unbelievable. He was the Prime Minister. Nothing moved without going through him. Everything was connected to him and then he faded away," the official said, with a click of his fingers.

    Perhaps the return to business as usual showed the strength of Israel's democracy and political system, which has been surprisingly stable; or maybe it was a sign that his stroke had not shaken the country to the same extent as the assassination of Rabin. Or maybe it was simply another reminder of how fame is fleeting, and the public's attention span is short in Israel and other media-driven societies, especially in the age of 24-hour news cycles. Yet, Sharon is missed; that much is certain-and I never thought that I would write those words or feel this way.[3]

    I disagreed with his settlement policies for many years, believing they were harmful to the settlers who trusted him because ultimately they would feel betrayed; and that such policies were unnecessarily confrontational and antagonistic to the Palestinians. However, I have missed "Arik," and I know people in various parts of the world, Jews and non-Jews alike, feel the same way. He was a giant of Israeli politics. More than that, he was a lion-albeit a rotund one-God love him.

    © 2014, Timothy D. Naegele


    [1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate's Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, which specializes in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and http://www.naegele.com/naegele_resume.html). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal. Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who's Who in America, Who's Who in American Law, and Who's Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g.,www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com; see also Google search:Timothy D. Naegele

    [2] See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/israels-senseless-killings-and-war-with-iran/ ("Israel's Senseless Killings And War With Iran") and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/the-madness-of-benjamin-netanyahu/ ("The Madness Of Benjamin Netanyahu") (see also the comments beneath both articles).

    [3] See also http://world.time.com/2014/01/03/israel-wakes-up-to-ariel-sharon-as-former-prime-minister-nears-death/?iid=gs-main-lead ("Israel Wakes Up to Ariel Sharon as Former Prime Minister Nears Death") and http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/01/ariel-sharon-war-of-independence-disengagement-settlements.html ("Ariel Sharon's decisions shaped today's Israel") and http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/01/23/060123fa_fact_shavit ("THE GENERAL"); compare http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/03/ariel-sharon-final-mission-peace-israel ("Ariel Sharon's final mission might well have been peace") with http://mwcnews.net/focus/politics/35072-sharon.html ("The Guardian Laments Sharon")

    Jan 06 6:51 PM | Link | Comment!
  • Is Obama The New Nixon?

    By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

    Barack Obama said recently:

    I am not a dictator.[2]

    For many Americans who detest him totally-at the very least-this statement is all too reminiscent of Richard M. Nixon's famous words:

    I'm not a crook.[3]

    The parallels are emerging rapidly; and Obama may suffer a similar fate.

    Both had serious psychological issues: in the case of Obama, stemming from the fact that he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia without his natural father; and his mother shipped him off to live with her parents in Honolulu, at a very young age, where he remained until he left to attend college on the American mainland.[4]

    He is a Narcissist and a demagogue; and his reelection in 2012 merely elevated and reinforced these qualities in him. Indeed, he has come to believe that he is invincible, politically; and he has set about to change America, much like Nixon did after his landslide reelection victory in 1972.

    In an earlier article about Obama, I asked:

    In the final analysis, will he be viewed as a fad and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who is forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history? Will his naïveté have been matched by his overarching narcissism, and will he be considered more starry-eyed and "dangerous" than Jimmy Carter? Will his presidency be considered a sad watershed in history? Or will he succeed and prove his detractors wrong, and be viewed as the "anointed one" and a true political "messiah"? Even Abraham Lincoln was never accorded such accolades, much less during his lifetime. And Barack Obama's core beliefs are light years away from those of Ronald Reagan.[5]

    Has Obama reached the apex of his presidency; and will his fall from grace, high atop "Mount Olympus," be devastating for the United States and the American people? Only time will tell.

    © 2013, Timothy D. Naegele


    [1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate's Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, which specializes in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and http://www.naegele.com/naegele_resume.html). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal. Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who's Who in America, Who's Who in American Law, and Who's Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g.,www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com; see also Google search:Timothy D. Naegele

    [2] See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/01/obama_i_am_not_a_dictator_im_the_president.html

    [3] See, e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh163n1lJ4M

    [4] See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

    On most issues, I was politically in tune with former Senator Edward W. Brooke, for whom I worked; I am not with Barack Obama at all.

    See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/ (see also the footnotes and comments beneath the article)

    [5] See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

    Jul 14 10:27 PM | Link | Comment!
  • Justice And The Law Do Not Mix

    By Timothy D. Naegele[1][2]

    Justice is in the eye of the beholder, and not some absolute standard that is clearly and quantifiably definable or identifiable. However, human beings have a sense of what is just and what is not, which is often governed by their belief systems and experiences in Life. The law, on the other hand, is an imperfect discipline governed by grossly-inflated egos and political considerations, and flavored by incompetence and arrogance.

    Is the law ever just? Perhaps this question is the proper starting point. "The law" is not some idealistic and intellectually pure result, resting on a cloud somewhere. Rather, it is a hard-edged and hard-fought amalgam of competing ideas and biases, dictated by judges who are imperfect at best-and often egotistical, callous, mean-spirited, power-hungry, self-righteous, condescending and, yes, incompetent and arrogant. They can smile at you, just as easily as they can slit your throat and never think twice about doing it.

    How on earth can the dispensers of that magical ingredient, justice, do so when they are "unsavory" themselves? How can they judge another person when they often bring distorted realities and moral visions to the process? Many of them, at least in the United States, are former prosecutors who seemingly have never laid eyes on an innocent criminal defendant. To put on black robes does not change their mindset. Indeed, many seem to relish the power trip. Shakespeare's famous quotation-"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"-must have been written in some light-hearted moment with the dark and sinister characteristics of judges in mind.

    Having been a lawyer for more than 45 years, and having received two law degrees from prestigious American law schools, I can honestly say that the thought of becoming a judge has never crossed my mind. Indeed, when I arrived at Berkeley for my first year of law school, I was stunned by how many of my classmates had dreamed of becoming lawyers most of their lives. The pinnacle was to become a judge, which was repulsive to me. While I read many learned and well-written opinions in law school, I never figured out why anyone would want to be a judge.

    We had fine law professors who taught the best of the law; and they instilled in us a belief in the purity and sanctity of the law. Forty-five years later, I do not doubt their sincerity at the time, but I have never encountered a sitting judge who met their expectations. The best reason for being a judge was told to me one day in chambers by a California Superior Court judge, who said that it was easier than practicing law. I respected him for his honesty and candor, and his willingness to tell the unvarnished truth. Most judges would never do that. It was refreshing. He smiled when he said it, and did not slit my throat or even come close. In fact, he decided in my favor.

    If the law is little more than decisions made by judges based on whether they got up on the wrong side of their beds or not, or took umbrage with a lawyer or client, then is there any rhyme or reason to it, which makes sense judicially? I concluded ages ago that the proceedings in most American courts are remarkably close to "Law West of the Pecos by Judge Roy Bean," the hanging judge. In Bean's court, the law was what he said it was, and nothing else mattered. Too often in U.S. courts today, very little has changed. Judges have become the law unto themselves. Any citation of legal precedents is met by judges whose eyes glaze over, because many of them were taught in law schools where the purity and sanctity of the law did not matter. Brute force governs far too many courtrooms.

    State courts-certainly those in California-are a total joke. Judges routinely ignore the applicable law, or twist the law to suit their desires. It is a travesty, and really no law at all. Our federal courts are somewhat better, only because federal judges have law clerks who actually research the law; and federal judges are mindful of the fact that they can be overruled on appeal. Owing to the fact that our Supreme Court takes so few cases these days, and most of its cases are heard for political reasons, our federal courts of appeal become the only real checks on the actions of District Judges.

    At the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., there is a statue of "Justice" with blinders on her eyes to depict the impartiality and objectivity that the word justice is supposed to represent. However, another interpretation can be given to the statue; namely, blindness to injustices that occur each and every day in our legal system. More than eight thousand petitions for certiorari are filed with the Court every year, yet the number of cases that are heard is usually less than one hundred. Justice William Brennan was the last jurist to read such petitions. They are now read exclusively by the individual justices' law clerks, who decide which cases the Court hears and those that are never heard.

    As a practical matter, the American system of justice no longer exists-because the presumption of innocence no longer exists. In U.S. courts, even though it is not articulated-certainly by the judges themselves-there is a presumption of guilt instead of innocence in criminal cases. Any appearance of bending over backwards to help the defense is window dressing and largely form over substance. Many judges are courteous, but their long knives come out before the process is completed. Others do not mince with words, and are tyrants from Day One. Still others defy one's imagination with respect to how they got there. They do not understand the law or facts of the cases, nor do they care; and they seem to be political appointees who have overstayed their welcome.

    The United States is a nation where rogue prosecutors reign, whose goals in life include the prosecution of even the innocent. Federal, State and local prosecutors ruthlessly and gleefully pursue countless numbers of innocent Americans for a multitude of crimes that were never committed; and the judiciary has allowed this to happen. Corruption is rampant among federal prosecutors and those who work with them, such as FBI agents. No amount of rational thinking or discourse can be applied to a system that is inherently and systemically corrupt.

    A federal official with reason to know told me that between 15-20 percent of the indictees in our federal courts are probably innocent. Some are elderly who have been charged with cheating the Social Security system-America's retirement benefit program-and they are scared to death, so they agree to plea bargains rather than fight for their innocence. The latest figures indicate that 97 percent of convictions in federal courts were the result of guilty pleas. In 2006, the last year for which data was available, the corresponding figure for State courts was 94 percent.

    Indeed, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in a recent U.S. Supreme Court opinion-quoting other sources:

    [Criminal justice today] is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials. . . . [Plea bargaining] is not some adjunct to the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system.[3]

    He added-again quoting other sources: "[L]onger sentences exist on the books largely for bargaining purposes."[4]

    What Kennedy neglected to mention is that "criminal justice" today in the United States is not a system of justice at all, at least for many Americans. It is appalling that so many innocents are swept up in our criminal system. Even if they do not go to prison, the mere fact that a prosecutor comes after them and they have to deal with the system is brutal and tragic. Lives are wrecked in the process by zealous prosecutors and callous judges, who should be consigned to prison life themselves-where they would come to understand the true meaning of justice.

    Fortunately, America has a very good public defender system, at the federal, state and local levels; and this helps a great deal, although far too often its lawyers are burdened with very heavy caseloads, and the accused may not understand that they can avail themselves of such assistance. Anyone who thinks that prosecutors are advocates of truth and justice is living in a "Mary Poppins" fantasy world, and knows nothing about how our legal system really operates. It is seldom if ever discussed or written about, yet it is often said-by lawyers-that the only thing separating prosecutors from guilty criminals is the "badge."

    Also, in criminal prosecutions, there is often the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence, in some instances intentionally, which gave rise to the guilty verdicts against former United States Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska being set aside, and a dismissal of the case against him. It is another travesty and miscarriage of justice that three years after the federal judge set aside the verdicts, the wrongdoers within America's Justice Department have not been subjected to criminal prosecution, convicted, and sent to prisons-where true justice would be meted out-instead of getting "slaps on the wrist" for their criminal misconduct.[5]

    To be fair and put things into perspective, victims of criminal conduct need and deserve protection as well; and the guilty must not be sheltered or coddled if there are to be deterrents against the commission of crimes, especially those of a violent nature. Also, many crimes are not reported or dealt with, such as rampant fraud that is occurring over the Internet each and every day, and bilking sophisticated and unsophisticated Web users out of billions of dollars. Clearly, none of us would like to be a "jailed innocent," but similarly we do not want to be harassed by vicious or other criminals either. Those people who are truly innocent should not enter the criminal system; and innocent victims must be protected at all costs.

    It has been noted that if we want to be 100 percent certain that no innocent will end up in jail, the inevitable result is that nobody will be in jail. There is no such thing as perfect evidence or a perfect judge. Indeed, as noted at the beginning of this article, the law is an imperfect discipline and process. Also, it must be recognized that the cost of criminal and civil litigation in the United States and globally is staggering; and it takes years to resolve complex litigation. The cost of business litigation in America's federal courts often exceeds $1 million on each side of the action; and this figure does not include the cost of a trial or appeals.

    Lawyers are trained in law schools to be advocates, and sometimes this becomes a curse. When they represent clients in divorce proceedings, the last thing that estranged couples need is their respective lawyers "stirring the pot" to earn greater fees, and increasing the acrimony that exists already. However, it happens, which is why lawyers are ill suited to handle such proceedings. Also, male lawyers prey sexually on their distraught and emotionally vulnerable female clients, which should give rise to automatic disbarments. Both the American Bar Association and State bar associations "turn a blind eye" and do little or nothing to curb such abuses. Like rogue prosecutors who are sheltered from discipline, so too are lawyers in divorce proceedings who abuse their positions and power. This is among the many reasons why non-lawyers in the United States and elsewhere view lawyers with such contempt and disdain-not dissimilar to how they view leeches and vermin.

    Without the law though, we would have anarchy and chaos. Yet, there is a certain amount of inherent anarchy and chaos within the legal system itself. Harsh economic times produce demands on lawyers and courts, and bring citizens in contact with the system who otherwise might not be there except for their economic plight and hardships. Whether the issues involve housing foreclosures or evictions, or the loss of jobs or dissolution of marriages, the American legal system is taxed like seldom before. Budgetary constraints dictate shorter court hours and over-burdened judges, and closed courthouses and furloughed prisoners to ease overcrowding. What is certain is that the situation will become worse between now and the end of this decade, at least in the United States.

    Perhaps the only saving grace about the American legal system is that it may still be the best in the world, albeit very imperfect and flawed. Indeed, it is the only legal system that I can address with a modicum of understanding and authority, having spent my entire career thus far dealing with it. Unfortunately, too few lawyers are willing to speak out and criticize the profession, and "tell it like it is." The judiciary is almost completely blind to the problems, because its members are at the root of many of these issues. Also, the American Bar Association is essentially worthless; and State bar associations are not much better. I am a member of the District of Columbia Bar, which I have always been proud of though.

    These are a few of the very serious problems that face our system of justice and fairness for all, which demand attention. They are not easily fixable or remedied, yet they are at the tip of an enormous iceberg of problems. There is a real question as to whether our system can be "fixed." Much like family members or loved ones of alcoholics or drug addicts, it is arguable that we cannot fix or change our legal system. All we can do is take care of ourselves, and hope that we never come in contact with it. There are even those who believe that quantitative and qualitative analyses can and must be applied to "redesign the judicial structure . . . into a practical process with an understood functionality and imperfection"-in the words of one engineer with a keen sense of justice.

    © 2012, 2013, Timothy D. Naegele


    [1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate's Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, which specializes in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and http://www.naegele.com/naegele_resume.html). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal. Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who's Who in America, Who's Who in American Law, and Who's Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g.,www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com; see also Google search:Timothy D. Naegele

    [2] This article was published originally in Europe and distributed globally by Twill magazine; see http://www.twill.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/justide_and_the_law_do_not_mix.pdf (issue #15, pp. 8-11); see also http://www.twill.info/ and http://www.twill.info/?p=1850

    The author wishes to thank Fosco Bianchetti, Twill's Editor In Chief and Manager, for publishing it. He was a pleasure to work with, always.

    [3] See Missouri v. Frye, Case No. 10-444. Argued October 31, 2011-Decided March 21, 2012 (emphasis in original); see also http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-444.pdf

    [4] See id.

    [5] See also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/the-united-states-department-of-injustice/

    Jul 14 9:28 PM | Link | Comment!
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »

Latest Comments


Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.