Professions Books

It's a book for my masters program, I have no opinion, it's a requirement.

An essential book for every American both young or old, male or female, Democrat or Republican. A delightful discovery on the need of God and guns (or perhaps swords) in the United States and the intolerance of a government in charge of all but answerable to noone. An undeniably perfect fit for todays culture.

Discover your roots from the men that gave their lives for the signing of the Constitution; true heroes. Their resolve was unquestionable and the love for country without reproach.

They brought us so far. We've walked away. Read it and weep. BK

The Federalist was an astonishing political document. Written for public consumption during the debate over adoption of the U.S. Constitution, it combined immense learning and sophistication with shrewd insights into the nature of politics in a republic. It's an essential text for anyone interested in American political history or constitutional theory. In fact, the Federalist should be essential readingt for any educated American: it remains an unparalleled example of realistic political analysis being placed in the service of political ideals.

After more than 200 years, the Federalist has lost little of its relevance. The sections on judicial review and Presidential nominations, for example, could have been written about current controversies over judges. Likewise, the discussion of Presidential war powers, or the emphasis on checks and balances as essential to the preservation of liberty, are eerily topical in an age of pre-emptive war and one-party control of Washington. Even when the analysis is wildly dated -- as with the Commerce Clause or slavery -- the reader can see how far Constitutional doctrine has wandered from the "intent" of the Founders.

The Federalist is also superb as literature: the writing is droll and eloquent, once you get used to the long, convoluted sentences. The introduction by Benjamin Wright is excellent and helps to place the text in political and intellectual context. I don't know why I wasn't forced to read the Federalist at law school! Six stars.

Note: Contrary to one review below, God is hardly mentioned in the Federalist, and then only as a rhetorical flourish. The Federalist has countless references to ancient Greece and Rome, but none to the Old or New Testaments. It is a thoroughly secular document. Religious nationalists and other conservatives should actually read it.

When you read this, you can't help but wonder where all the great minds have gone. This assessment of basic human rights and freedoms should be required reading for all kids, and repeat reading for adults with any appreciation of history and/or politics. Its lessons and statements are universal, and should not be examined as simply a part of US history, but rather how the lessons may be applied elsewhere in parts of the world that are still stuck in the Dark Ages.

We want our founders to be demi-gods and our original texts to be divinely inspired. For an example of this nonsense, please see the first review on this page.
I want to offer a vision of The Federalist in historical context. I will argue that to see it thus enlarges its greatness will allowing us to admit its faults.
In many ways, the developments that led to the Constitution of 1787 started as soon as colonists reached our eastern shores. We had at least 150 years of experimentation in writing charters and in representative governance behind us by 1787. After the Declaration of Independence the States either wrote new constitutions or reaffirmed old charters. The national government wrote the Articles of Confederation and we lived under that from 1781 to the late 1780s.
The Federalist should be seen as part of that ongoing development. More specifically, it should be seen as part of the ratification debates in New York. Largely written by Madison and Hamilton, these papers reflect the compromises that the founders made in regards to the Constitution. Madison had wanted the President to have a veto over any state laws. Hamilton had favored a President for life during good behavior (read #78 in re the appointment for life of federal judges to sense the fervor that Hamilton felt for the benefits of lifetime tenure). Neither man believed in the necessity of a Bill of Rights. Madison eventually saw the political necessity of such amendments. During the first United States Congress he wrote up the Bill of Rights and guided them through passage. This way he could make sure they did not grow too numerous.
As a whole then The Federalist should be seen as rhetorical and political arguments for passage of a Constitution that the authors had some doubts about.
Of course, as Publius they could express no doubts. Madison, Hamiltion and Jay used this pseudonym which was a typical rhetorical device of elite writers at the time. (See Saul Cornell's The Other Founders for a nice discussion of the variety of rhetorical strategies used by writers during the ratification debates.) The idea was that hiding their identities would allow readers to focus on the quality of their arguments. As a result, there are many passages that can strike the modern reader as duplicitous because Publius pretends to know nothing of what went on during the convention. Madison and Hamilton, of course, were instrumental throughout the Constitutional Convention.
Publius works his explication of the need for the Constitution by critiquing the Articles of Confederation then by going thru the new document, article by article supposedly answering all objections. His counterarguments are largely of two types. In the first type, he will state a political principle so "obvious" that any "candid" reader will instantly agree to it. Publius then builds his arguments from there. The famous paper #10 is one such chain of argument. Or Publius will demolish the arguments offered against the Constitution by pointing out that the article objected to is contained in some or many of the States' constitution and have resulted in no such problems. Many of these arguments are justly famous. Number 10 is very much worth reading. (Although I still find it curious that when Madison asserts that a man's property holdings has a great influence on the way he thinks it is celebrated as political realism but when Marx says much the same thing it is decried as class warfare. But that's just me.)
But the reader really does get a sense at to how much thought went into the various checks and balances and the competing claims of the states and the new national government. To me this is where the glory of the book lies. We as a people thought our way out of the failure of our first experiment in nation building. We avoided civil war (for a while) and did not become the victims of foreign manipulation. We don't have to make our founding fathers and mothers demi-gods. In their fully flawed humanity, they dazzle aplenty.
Finally, it should be noted that The Federalist as a piece of political rhetoric avoided some issues entirely. The main problem that most Anti-Federalists had with the proposed Constitution in re jury rights had to do with the following phrase: "such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed" (Article 3, Sec.2, Para. 3). Whig thought at that time insisted on juries being as local as possible. Blackstone stated that jury trials should be held within the county of the crime. This guaranteed that local knowledge of the crime, the defendant and the victim would be maximized in the jury pool. Trying cases in distant jurisdictions or without juries had been some of the main provocations of the British prior to the revolution. Men like Patrick Henry saw that phrase in the Constitution as a clarion of the tyranny to come from the new national government. The Federalist does not speak to this issue at all. Instead, Hamilton focuses on arguments about whether jury trials are guaranteed for civil cases and even has Publius argue that maybe we should limit jury trials a little because juries are so bad with complicated issues, blah, blah.
Should all Americans read this book? Yeah, probably. Are we the worse if they don't? Again, probably yes, but what we really need as a people is more of a sense of our history. I would rather have more people read a good series of books on our history as a whole (I recommend the Oxford History of the United States as one excellent ongoing series).
But if you want to get to know two great minds at work on political issues that are still relevant then this is your book. Forget Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau. Their philosophies are antiquarian in a way that Publius is not.

This is a MUST READ book for anyone wishing to abide by the Florida Concealed Weapons Laws. Don't leave home without it.

If you own a firearm in Florida, you must have this book! Firearm laws are numerous and complicated -- one slip and you're a felon. Gutmacher covers the whole range of situations you might face, and explains the law in understandable terms.

This book can save your life -- get it and read it now!

Why ... well probably beacuse if you carry you probably also have a concealed wepons permit and of course are an honest citizen with no felony etc convictions on you record ....

Well, because you are honest and you don't have that much exposure to police or the darker side of this world you will be just like a duck out of water in case you have to use your gun and law enforcemnt is called in .... Just the fact that you used your gun may mean that you are in deep deep doo doo because the laws, state, federal, municipal etc etc (seems like every idiot in the elected world want's to write a law of some kind) specifically detail of where, how, when and why you may discharge your weapon. Bring into play that these laws overlap and are confusing, you, mr citizen are then either in the total hands of the local police, or a lawyer that understands the gun lwas ....

Let me tell you ... if there is any advice that I can give anyone that is:

1) Buy and read this book ....

2) If in trouble keep your mouth shut ....

3) Let your lawyer explain why you used your gun .....

Fabulous book written by Jon H. Gutmacher P.A....

As a certified firearms instructor, and former prosecuting attorney, I had many opportunities to lecture on the law of firearms, weapons, and self-defense. Over the years, it became clear that very few people had any idea of how the laws were actually interpreted, and what they really meant. After being asked several times, I finally put "Florida Firearms - Law, Use & Ownership" together in 1993. Now, it's 1998, and it's in it's fourth edition!

The purpose of the book was to explain every facet of Florida and Federal firearms law that an ordinary individual would need to know, including NFA weapons, chemical and electric weapons, constitutional issues, and self-defense. The next problem was to put in it a format that was easy to understand, that was enjoyable, and that would be "fast" reading. After two thousand or so hours of work -- this was accomplished, and the book found a ready market with people who wanted to know what they could and could not do, legally. The second edition added a section on assault weapons, as well as extensive endnotes, because quite a few attorneys were using the book, and we also had a number of law enforcement agencies that had bought it, and they all wanted to have case and statutory references to verify the content.

Since then, the book just keeps getting bigger. It's sold over 20,000 copies in Florida, alone -- and is being used in over eighty law enforcement agencies, seven police academies, and is in the library of every Florida appellate court, including the Florida Supreme Court. Pretty good, for a local book.

As laws change, the book is revised, and we offer updates to purchasers twice a year. Everytime I think I've had enough of rewriting, I get a letter from someone that the book has helped, and I renew my efforts, once again. It's the only book that covers Florida and Federal laws, regulations, and cases, and blends them into an explanation of how they really work. There is also a short section on North Carolina law, since half of Florida seems to go there on vacation. Hope you like it.

I got this book shortly after I came to Florida. It is essential reading. Granted, the law itself is on-line and shorter than this book, but you need the interpretations and case law results of this book to sort out what it all really means. First class in every respect.

This book addresses an incredibly important topic - and is well written to boot. The danger of reputations ruined by carelessness, or by deliberate ill will, should be understood. In fact, this book should be mandatory for human resources personnel and any search committee that uses the Internet to check on a potential employee.

Hopefully Solove will follow up soon with another book. Sites such as Topix, provide a frightening forum for people who are less than ethical. Although Topix provides an alternative format for news, there is no oversight for accuracy or even truth. If Orson Welles had had access to the Internet, perhaps we would all have learned a valuable lesson about questioning and independent thinking. Since Welles is no longer with us, at least we have Daniel Solove to encourage us to question timely issues.

Solove's book doesn't provide answers, rather it provides situations that help you ask the right questions.

As an extra bonus it is extremely well written and an enjoyable read.

Prof. Solove's latest book is a great follow up to The Digital Person (which I also recommend). What I have enjoyed about his writings is his ability to communicate not only to attorneys like myself, but also to a non-lawyer audience. His focus on Internet privacy impacts all of us, and as anyone who follows the news knows, the explosive growth of Cyberspace places a greater burden on the individual and on the legal community to bolster protections and to guard against invasions of privacy. Solove's work explains the terrain of this new digital era in a way that is informative, engrossing, and relevant. I'm looking forward to his future scholarship in this field.

The author, Daniel J. Solove, was kind enough to send me an advance copy of this book; it scored a KnowProSE.com 10/10:

"With actual real world examples gleaned from the internet and put in the limelight, the author seems to leave no stone unturned in a quest for answers. Many people will have heard of some of the examples but few will have looked at them in such a circumspect a manner - and even fewer will have done so with a legal background.

Most of my time spent reading this book was spent nodding - I knew about 70% of the stories, but then I've been around a while and have been following the Internet closely- more so than most people on the internet. Still, in most instances the author was able to show me at least one new side to it. This seemed a job which makes the Herculean quest of cleaning the stables seem simple - there is no river to divert here, but there is most certainly a lot of manure. Perhaps the book is the start of the river's diversion. Cyber-bullying, Internet Vigilantism, libel, defamation... mountains are easily grown from molehills in cyberspace.

The book is very easy to read, it flows and takes on a life of its own. I could not put it down; even knowing some of the stories did not deter my interest. After much contemplation, I have decided to give the book a KnowProSE.com 10/10 score. Only one other book has been given that status, and both books have received this status because they were interesting books that were well written and important, and do one other thing in particular: they will stand the test of time. Daniel J. Solove is rapidly becoming to privacy what Lawrence Lessig is to copyright and the public domain.

If you are reading this review, you need to read this book. Who knows? My next blog entry might be about you. Of all the people who need to read this book, I think bloggers are the ones who need to read it the most: being aware of the consequences of what one writes is important in an age when everyone can write, but not everyone considers the consequences to others. Would that we all understood this better."

Once I started The Future of Reputation, I could not put it down. The book brings alive how online gossip, social networking sites, and blogs increasingly define who we are and how were are perceived in today's Information Age. The stories it tells are, at once, laugh-out-loud funny and terrifying. We see the lives of others distorted by vengeful ex-lovers and mocked by teachers. Online commentators shine light on bad behavior to shame people. Our reputations are out of our control.

What I loved about this book is that it asks us to rethink assumptions about how we define ourselves in an age where search engines tell our story to future employers and old high-school classmates. The book helped me appreciate that online shaming plays a new and perhaps important role in shaping behavior but also has serious costs. It offers thoughtful suggestions for what we can do about these problems without sacrificing so much of what is liberating about our online interactions. This is a must read for anyone who is interested in living a full and informed life in the Internet age.

This Book is a must read for all who Loved Kennedy.What a great man and Father.Its great reading.

It's amazing how a young man (THAT'S WHAT HE WAS WHEN HE DIED) who came from the most wealthiest of surroundings can relate to people from all fronts and walks of life, who could walk to the strongest and hardest of ghettos across this land amongst people less fortunate than he and with sincerity and fearlessness & yet still have an immediate connection with people on the other side of the fence (UPPER MIDDLE CLASS, WEALTHY) Robert Francis Kennedy was perhaps the last white man/ politician who the trust, respect, and effection of the entire human population (with the exception of BIll CLINTON) that's why you can a feel the dispair and sense of loss that people felt when he was murdered. "AN HONRABLE PROFESSION" is more than just a tribute to a man who was coming into his own but it is a tribute to the best and grestest sides of the Human Spirit,.

This beautifully written biography of the late Senator Robert Kennedy does an excellent job of focusing on not only the man's career, but the issues and questions he was confronted with, such as civil rights, poverty and the disenfranchised citizens.

Robert Kennedy had a very impressive resume -- father of 11, an undergraduate degree from Harvard, a law degree from University of Virginia, attorney, Attorney General, Senator and lastly, presidential candidate for the 1968 election.

This was a man who apparently set high standards for himself throughout his life. The seventh of 9 children, he fought to prove himself among his siblings. As a boy, he strove to develop his physical prowess. One can smile at the young Bobby, then 4 trying to teach himself to swim despite his older brothers' chagrin. The same small boy who kept jumping in deep water would, 35 years later climb a previously unscaled mountain. Robert Kennedy, by then a senator suffered from acrophobia his entire life, yet pushed himself to climb that mountain. In March of 1965 he would table his fear and, with veteran mountain climbers Jim Whittaker and Barry Prather (both of whom had scaled Mt. Everest in 1963) ascend Mt. Kennedy in Canada. He climbed that mountain out of love for his slain brother, the late President. This particular event is inspirational; this man faced his biggest fear and acted out of love.

As a boy, Robert Kennedy grappled with a mild form of dyslexia. Although by all accounts he learned to read within normal limits and was certainly an intelligent man, he learned early to combine his intelligence with diligence and very hard work. In adult life he would seek solace in classic literature; by 1964 he was able to quote long passages by authors such as Camus and Aeschylus by heart. The title of this book is a nod to the Senator's love of classic literature; "An Honorable Profession" is from "The 39 Steps" by Lord Tweedsmuir.

Diligence appeared to be the core Robert Kennedy; the man who drilled himself in academic pursuits was the man who would also set high standards for himself throughout his professional/political career. In reading this work one cannot help drawing the conclusion that Robert Kennedy was at core a good man and a sincere man and a man who would stop at nothing to accomplish all tasks he had set for himself. His daughter Kerry Kennedy Cuomo's input provides some enlightening insights into the characteristics of this complex, often driven man.

In reading this work as with many on Robert Kennedy, one can readily draw the conclusion that this man genuinely cared about people; his work with and for civil rights certainly attests to his deep level of empathy. He appeared to move and blend with equal ease among all people. Robert Kennedy could easily be described as the man for everybody. He was certainly a strong voice and considered by many to be the advocate for all.

In 1968 Robert Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles, California. His loss leaves the questions open today of what he would have accomplished had he lived to win the 1968 election.

"An Honorable Profession" : A Tribute to Robert F. Kennedy, is one of the best memorial book of rfk, there are a lot of picture and some newspapers article.
the texts are good and interesting, it is never boring.
I recommend it to all rfk admires

There are beautiful poems, touching stories, and inspirational words in this book. I learned a lot about the good and decent man and his course. I sensed the feelings and spirits of so many Americans at that troubled time. There has never been a book of tributes after reading which I have been filled with so many hopes, though so sad at the same time... Robert F. Kennedy died in the course of the honorable profession, but he did not die in vain. His course made the profession an HONORABLE one, and made people believe that we can do better, and that we can also make our profession honorable.

clear, concise...a pleasure. made my name change easy. thanks nolo!

The 7th edition of this book was my main reference as I successfully completed a legal name change. It did a good job helping me through the process without the assistance of a lawyer ("In Pro Per"). I would also suggest finding a good paralegal to help in typing up the forms.

This book packs a wallup!
It was complete, concise, and easy to follow.
I definately could not of made the change without the help of this book.
I do not recommend trying to change your name without this - it walks you through from A to Z, not missing a beat.

Excellent book.

Well written, containing all the neccessary information and forms, this book is an invaluable resource for those individuals who are interested in legally changing their name in California.

Pro's and con's are examined about Court Ordered Name Changes and Common Usage methodologies. Well thought out and written in a very readable and comprehensive style...this book answers almost any question you may have regarding the implications of changing you name.

Highly recommended....by far, the best book I have seen on the market around this issue.

I'm really enamored of Nolo Press's self-help legal guides. This one saved me $400 in legal fees. Just follow the steps outlined and it will guide you safely through even a court hearing, if you want to be able to change your passport. If, in the process, you decide you want to change any deeds your old name appears on, you can use their quite inexpensive guide to updating Deeds in California. As for typing up the forms -- neat printing does the job, too.

In her latest book, How to Mediate like a Pro, Mary Greenwood, J.D.,LL.M sets forth a brilliant and thorough summary of key points for mediation. Having served as a superintendent of schools as well as a university professor teaching Conflict Resolution to doctoral students, I recognize the voice of a finely-honed, experienced mediator. I wish I had had access to both this book (and her other book on negotiation) when I was serving in both of these positons.Practicality shines through. This is no theoretical text.

I like the way definitions are spelled out, the way that application of the 42 rules are illustrated,the other resources listed to assist in mediation, and the characteristics of a good mediator. All are very helpful.

Certainly this text together with her ealier one on negotiation are key components to success for any superintendt, CEO, or administrator. It is
a short, but pithy read. The writing is clear, focused and practical. I
highly recommend this book for anyone who is desiring to learn how to make mediation a successful process.
Marion Czaja, Ph.D., Professor, Retired Sam Houston State University

The mediation tips are helpful for any mediator, litigator or party involed in the mediation or legal process. This second book compliments the series of hopefully more books to come.

Want to mediate a situation on a professional basis? How to Mediate Like a Pro by Mary Greenwood, J.D., LL.M, provides a complete methodology that helps to create success--if one uses her 42 Rules. Each Rule is a stepping stone that builds ones' expertise. A script is given following a discussion of each rule which helps the mediator to develop his/her own story.

I have found her scripts very useful where I work as a psychiatric teacher in a NC hospital. The concepts have helped to mediate may incidents based around misperceptions that engendered strong feelings about another patient. For example, extracting a careful apology, Rule 20, helps patients accept responsibility for at least part of any incident created, which in turn develops an atmosphere of acceptance and respect between patients.

The text is enriched with many venues of usefulness: online mediation, workplace mediation, language to use, do's and don'ts of mediators, as well as international, national and state mediation resources. A useful book for those of us who want to help create a more peaceful world around us, wherever that might be!

Reviewed by Cherie Fisher for Reader Views (3/08)

Author Mary Greenwood does it again with "How to Mediate Like a Pro: 42 Rules for Mediating Disputes." This follows her book "How to Negotiate Like a Pro," which has now won six awards and this new one is just as impressive. It is a great book for anyone who works in mediation, is thinking about becoming a mediator or to use in a classroom when training mediators. The advice is simple, straight-to-the-point and effective.

There are only 55 pages in this book, but they are full of valuable information on mediation. My only experience with mediation was with my divorce and, after reading this book, I realized that the mediator was following a process. The mediator helped us make a very painful process short, effective and less expensive.

The author starts the book by defining what mediation is. Then she compares the differences between a negotiation and mediation. In chapter two she explains the role of the mediator and begins the 42 rules of mediation. The 42 rules include: setting ground rules, not showing emotion, letting the parties tell their story, being neutral and not having any bias, not letting the parties get bogged down, being the devil's advocate and follow up. There are many other rules besides what I mentioned and they cover the topic from A-Z.

Following the chapters are several appendices with mediator's opening statement, glossary terms, what makes a good mediator and resources. They are great references that are set up to be easily referred to. The resources also include what is available in every state.

I thought that this is a great book, straight-to-the-point and simple. I definitely walked away with good knowledge about what a mediator is supposed to do. I highly recommend "How to Mediate Like a Pro" for anyone who is a mediator or thinking about becoming a mediator.

I learned a lot from Greenwood's earlier book, How to Negotiate Like a Pro, which I was not surprised to learn won six book awards! The sequel, How to Mediate Like a Pro, explains how to mediate when negotiations fail. Greenwood is an experienced Mediator and she passes on her knowledge and experience in a logical and pragmatic fashion that makes learning from her book quite easy. My favorite chapter is "How to Talk Like a Mediator" which gives actual responses to typical concerns and questions the parties have. There are appendices which give a glossary of terms and resources in each state. A must have reference for anyone interested in mediation or conflict resolution.

In the Teeth of the Wind is a comprehensive look into the legal mind and principles of a practicing attorney who unwittingly fell into some monumental cases and became involved with some very unusual people. However, the book is not written for lawyers and is easy for the layman to understand. The book relates one man's quest to fight for the underdog and challenge the establishment. It provides an inspirational account of how a former Assistant U.S. Attorney fell out of favor with the Establishment and became a fighter for freedom. It provides a tour of the Court system and exposes corruption on a incredible scale. It is a natural flowing read, yet riveting. No fluff. Stops you dead in your tracks and says, 'Pay attention this is important.' Fascinating and told with wit and understanding of the human condition.

Are you one of the millions who think there is no such thing as an honest lawyer who cares more for righteousness, reason, and reality than for process, payoff, and power? You'd be wrong. Shelly Waxman was a made man, an insider who had only to protect the powerful and sacrifice the expendable to become a highly placed Federal lawyer, perhaps someday a judge. Instead he blew the whistle on prejudice, corruption, and even murder taking place behind the bar, for which act of justice he was thrown from the halls of power. Eschewing the paneled office, the Armani and the Rolex, and the favor of such luminaries as the paranoid J.Edgar Hoover, Shelly devoted himself to defending the truth. This book is not a tale of only one such courageous act, but of many such cases, some you will recognize from the front pages of the last thirty years of our history. "In The Teeth Of The Wind" reads like pulp fiction, exciting and surprising, with a cast of quirky characters, but it is all true. If you care about the degeneration of the American system of justice, and you would like to know about one man's lifelong struggle to keep it the honorable institution it was created to be, then put this book in your shopping cart now.

In a series of case-centered vignettes that range from bizarre to historic
(often both), establishment-turned-rebel lawyer Shelly Waxman intends
to expose massive and unfortunately routine corruption and unfairness
in the legal system and the threat these pose to our freedom. This he
does, in spades. However, the book is also a treasure trove of slices of
"unknown" history. Spooks, Chicago "plumbers" (in Latin America they'd
be called right-wing death squads, no?), Black Panthers, the Belanco
Religious Order, IRS hearings -- 'tis amazing what Waxman encountered
and became entangled in over the course of one career. At times I wished
Waxman had an editor. By book end, I only wanted more. Waxman's stranger
than fiction true stories and crunchy, biting, learned-the-hard-way
observations about power, corruption and freedom had me hooked.

"In the Teeth of the Wind' should be of interest to the estimated 70 million Americans who have been termed "tax protestors" at one time or another, and to the more than 110 million Americans who are disaffected, and in all other ways turned off, by the Government and its process.

Waxman's insightful, insider tales of woe reveal that "ethics in action" has become ethic's inaction, and 'due process' has become DO process, as the reader begins "to realize that the thing that most oppresses people is the law."

Ironically turning the phrase of Associate Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said that the "jury should render its verdict in the teeth of the law," Waxman attests to the devolution of the practice of law, and the descent and decay of all legal process to the putrid state it's in today. I'm glad I read this book! I hope millions of others will read it and take action to stop the degeneration of our once great nation.

For Liberty in Our Lifetime, R.J. Tavel, J.D. Founder: Liberty's Educational Advocacy Forum at Freedomlaw.com promoting 'action that raises the cost of State violence for its perpetrators . . . lay(ing) the basis for institutional change.' [Noam Chomsky]

This book is interesting, informative and easy to read.

If you've ever had contact with what we are pleased to call the 'Justice System' in this country, you were probably not pleased with the results. Well, this book shows you that it is even worse than you thought. Written in shirt sleeve english, it is a series of short stories by a former insider, exposing the failures of the government and our justice system to provide justice. In a simple and interesting style, the book gives example after example of what happens to the little guy when people with access to the levers of power want a particular result from the 'Justice System.' Contains some thoughtful insights on our personal freedom or whats left of it, reforming our laws, and how we will do business with each other in the future. I enjoyed it and I think you will too.

With the growth of interest in juries since the OJ and Kevorkian cases, it is about time that someone wrote a truly well-researched work on how juries actually work, and why. This work is long overdue. Conrad does an excellent job in developing the history of the criminal jury, and explains why criminal juries have the "prerogative" of nullifing laws that are unjust or unjustly applied.

Whether liberal, libertarian or conservative, it is hard to argue that juries have to follow the law no matter how unjust the law is. Now, there is a well-researched and well documented book explaining how and why the jury's nullification power became a part of American law. It is about time.

Just before a jury retires to deliberate in a criminal case, the judge tells the jurors that they "must follow the law--even if they do not agree with it." This book shows that such an instruction is very misleading. A ton of evidence is presented to show that juries are supposed to "check" the government by returning "not guilty" verdicts whenever they conclude that the person on trial is being treated unjustly. Our second president, John Adams, said "it is not only the juror's right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, even though in direct opposition to the direction of the judge."

These days judges influence the outcome of trials by counting on the average citizen's ignorance and by "excusing" any citizen who knows about the doctrine of jury nullification. Interestingly, a single vote can make a big difference. Because a unanimous vote is necessary for a conviction, a single juror who votes his or her conscience (and withstands the peer pressure to go along with the others) can obtain a hung jury. The person on trial may be retried again, but prosecutors will surely think twice about the matter before expending more time and money on the case.

The author explains how jury nullification got a bad wrap and convincingly answers the common objections. I was surprised to learn that defense attorneys can be punished for mentioning seemingly important pieces of information at trial. For example, if someone used marijuana to relieve nausea stemming from AIDS, the judge typically "bars" any mention of the person's illness as "irrelevent." The jury never hears about it. That does not sound like a "trial by jury" to me

Many have heard how juries bravely refused to convict people accused of assisting runaway slaves in the 19th century but few know the full history of jury nullification. Clay Conrad aims to remedy that ignorance in this excellent book from the Cato Institute. Starting with cases from hundreds of years ago, the history of jury powers is meticulously detailed with all the major episodes covered including recent events such as the Laura Kriho conviction. Jury independence is shown time and again to have been on the right side of issues such as slavery, prohibition, the labor movement and draft resistance. The modern jury power movement is also examined.

This isn't just a history book, though. The author looks at constitutional issues, studies of jury behavior, and also addresses many of the criticisms of jury power. The most widely repeated criticism is that jury nullification was largely responsible for the lack of convictions in the South of whites committing crimes against blacks. Conrad makes a strong case that it was racist judges, police and prosecutors as well as the practice of preventing blacks from serving on juries that resulted in so few convictions.

The book is rounded out with a chapter full of interesting tactics on how lawyers can introduce nullification arguments in court.

Conrad's book is superb! He examines the history of the right of "jury nullification" or "jury independence" (the right and obligation of jurors to judge the LAW, as well as the FACTS in any case). Like most people, I knew relatively little about this right, which today is usually never mentioned to actual sitting jurors. Conrad traces the history of the use of this right, which was well known and legally recognized until very recently by the courts. Part of English common law, it was used extensively from the 1200's until the 1930's. From "seditious libel against the crown", to the slavery issue, to Prohibition, Jury Nullification was used to acquit defendants whenever the jury felt that the specific law was unjust or the penalty was grossly unfair. Thus, jurors had the right and obligation to judge the LAW and the case FACTS in order to render justice - regardless of any instructions from the presiding judge and the courts. This is a remarkable book, easy to read and filled with interesting facts that every American should know. I recommend it highly.

A fascinating study of the often-ignored history of jury nullification in America. Today we mostly think of this phenomenon in the context of the O.J. Simpson trial, or the juries that refused to convict racist killers in the South during the Civil Rights era. As the author points out, that's a small part of the jury nullification picture. The Framers considered such injustices well worth it in light of the jury's ability to frustrate the actions of would-be tyrants. Such discretion on the part of juries has its downside, of course -- but so does the unbridled discretion of prosecutors, which is generally considered to be a Good Thing by many of those who fear giving the same discretion to juries. As Conrad makes clear, it's not obvious why this should be the case.

I just finished this book and was simply amazed at how much I learned from such an interesting and easy to read book. Ms. Barrett was able to take complex issues and make them actually "fun" to read by the way she brought in real life stories as examples. This is a book that men and women should read because it raises one's awareness as to steps that each of us need to take to protect ourselves. I just bought a batch of the books so that i could give my family and friends a copy as I think everyone should read it! It is a gift that you can, and should, give to those you care about.

I was concerned that this book might be outdated - it's not. This book is about women taking care of themselves and consciously, smartly dealing with legal situations (business, relationship). As long as we're involved in life - we might as well know what we're getting into up front rather than at the end...when women often discover that we have blindly trusted the wrong things... (I had that experience and really wish I'd known then what I know now...) It's not the ideal, but it's reality - and it's better to learn up front than to spend months or years cleaning up the mess of 'Just signing here'. This a great book for any woman who wants to be taken care of in her life. This will help ensure that you are. (Please, please don't sign anything without reading AND consulting an attorney AND understanding what you're reading.)

This book is a must read for any woman one who is in a relationship, married, single, owns a home, a business, or works. Marilyn Barrett explains how we can prevent making bad and often times disasterous decisions based on the glow of a relationship. This is "real world" information that can protect us from losing everything while providing tips on how to keep our financial futures secure.

As a single, twenty-something female, I have found this book very useful. Marilyn Barrett tells us the things that our parents and teachers don't, but are necessary to protect ourselves out in the "big, bad world." I've found this book particularly helpful right now because I am looking to buy my first condo and Marilyn Barrett's advice about home ownership is invaluable.

I am in the middle of a divorce and a friend recommended I read this book. I found it indispensable in helping me deal with the divorce realistically and strong. This is a "call to arms" for women to take charge of their lives and take care of themselves and their children. I am recommending it to every woman I know.

Some reviewers have commented that Robert E. Conot's book, Justice at Nuremberg, doesn't add any new knowledge or insights into the Nuremberg Trials. This may be true, but why did Conot write this book-what was his purpose? In the introduction Robert himself says why he wrote this book: "Although the record has furnished a documentary bonanza for histories of the Third Reich, there has been an absence of knowledge and comprehension of the trial itself." (Conot x) Conot was concerned that not many people knew very much about such an important historical event. He wanted to write an easy to read book that would interest people in the Nuremberg Trial-and of course, make sure that "history was written true." (Conot xiii) Many people have misconceptions about the trial; the trial is often times seen as a sham trial and Conot wanted to clear up this perception. Indeed, the very name of his book, Justice at Nuremberg, suggests his belief that the trial was in fact fair, from the outset. Conot presents his case convincingly as the lawyers did at Nuremberg, with the final verdict being Justice at Nuremberg.

Some have complained that Conot's jumping around between the trial and what he believed were contextual actions confuses the reader, making it difficult to understand his reasoning. It is true that his presentation style is hard to understand at times, but this is probably more to do with the complexities of the Nuremberg Trial and the historical and political influences that Conot believed affected the trial. The complexities, therefore, can be hard to follow and confusing. In order to understand what happened at Nuremberg one has to understand what happened in Germany when Hitler came to power; all these events are confusing but without understanding them it would be pointless to even look at the Nuremberg Trial. The reason for this is simple: the reader would see what the defense and prosecution were saying; one side saying that the defendants were innocent, the other claiming to have documents and witnesses which show the defendants culpable for many atrocities. How would the reader know who was telling the truth? The past is being studied, and because of that there should be an explanation of the events leading up to the trial.

Robert Conot did a good job putting the trial into its historical context. While readers who have studied Nazi Germany for quite some time would be annoyed at having to read about things they already knew about, this book is good for people who have not studied Nazi Germany in depth. Robert Conot gives background information on the defendants-there are many interesting tidbits that he provides. Two examples that come to mind are the defendants Goering and Hess. Conot provides some interesting information about how when Goering was little he had to write an essay about a notable German and he chose to write about Epenstein. (Conot 41) Immediately after turning in his essay he was taken in to the principal's office and asked why he wrote about a Jew instead of a notable German. He was punished by having to write "I will not write essays in praise of Jews" on the blackboard one hundred times and by having to wear a sign around his neck saying "My godfather is a Jew." (Conot 41) Hess, a very strange man, thought that the Jews were controlling people with hypnotic powers. (Conot 47) He stabbed himself with a knife one time and then claimed that the Jews used magic to place the knife in his hands in order to tempt him (Conot 47) The kind of background information that Conot provides may seem like trivial facts or gossip to some, but these things are important because the reader gains insight into the lives of the defendants; what made them tick.

The author also does a good job of describing the motivations for the trial. The Nazi party, under the leadership of Hitler started a war that killed millions of people-not only soldiers on the battlefield, but noncombatants as well; but millions of civilians murdered. These civilians died in horrible ways: they were beaten to death, gassed, starved to death, essentially boiled with quick lye, worked to death, and used in horrific experiments. What the Nazis did was so unspeakably evil that it had to be addressed. As Jackson said in his opening statement, "The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their repeating." (Conot 105) However, if after the war, all the Nazis were lined up and shot, what lessons would the world learn? As Bernays said, "Not to try these beasts would be to miss the educational and therapeutic opportunity of our generation." (Conot 11) Furthermore, what would people today think of these actions? Would they believe that we were the same as the Nazis for not giving them a trial? The trial was important; the trial would show the world not only that this was not "Victor's Justice" but how evil the Nazis were and that such actions would not be tolerated in the future.

After reading this book one gets the impression that while this trial appears not to have been completely fair, it was far from a sham trial or "victor's justice." The biggest problem had to do with the fact that a Russian judge was presiding over the trial. This is a problem because the Judge's actions were essentially dictated from Moscow. Indeed, for every defendant, the Russian Judge tried to have the death penalty enacted. Furthermore, there was a very embarrassing incident: during a party someone raised his glass and toasted to the speedy trial and execution of the defendants-a toast all judges partook of. (Conot 92). This may be the definitive proof for some that the trial was nothing more than "victor's justice." To assume this though, is to ignore the rest of the facts-this judgment of the trial is too hasty. If the trial was just a sham then why was it that some of the defendants were acquitted? The actual results of the trial do not support the perception that this trial was rigged given the defendants did not all receive the death sentence. Many were hanged, but some were given various prison sentences, and of course, some were acquitted. Schacht, Fritzsche, and Papen were acquitted. Schirach, Neurath, Speer, Raeder, Hess, Funk, and Doenitz avoided the death penalty receiving varying sentences of time in prison.

Furthermore, there is other evidence provided by Robert Conot which shows that the trial was not a sham. First of all, the very fact that the defendants could even give their version of the story is certainly more than one would expect from a sham trial. Second, the defendants actually did have a chance to best the prosecutors in the verbal battle for their lives. Goering was an intelligent man and he outwitted Jackson. "Time and again it was Goering who caught Jackson in error, rather than Jackson who trapped Goering in lies." (Conot 337) Third, the judges didn't always rule against the Nazi defense lawyers. An important development during Goering's defense was that the defense tried to get the right to submit documents into evidence, and although Jackson (prosecutor) tried to prevent this from happening, the judges ruled that the defense should have the same rights as the prosecution in submitting documents. (Conot 346) Another interesting example of the Judges siding with justice instead of the prosecution or the defense was when the defense complained that they were not getting translations of all the documents that the prosecution was introducing as evidence. (Conot 146) When the prosecution was asked why this was the case it was discovered that the prosecution was sending tons of translations to the media, but not to the defense attorneys. (Conot 147) "...the prosecution seemed more interested in trying the case in the press than in furnishing the defense with copies of its evidence." (Conot 147) The judges ruled that copies of the evidence were to be given to the defense before they were given to the press, as the defense obviously needed them more. This is certainly a ruling that one would expect in a fair trial.

Just think, what is usually the purpose of a sham trial? In this case the purpose of having a sham trial would be to punish the Germans for what happened during World War II, right? If the purpose was to punish the Germans, then why weren't all the defendants executed? It makes no sense to claim that this was "victor's justice" when the victors gave a fair trial. The Nuremburg Trial had its problems-it was by no means perfect. However, to say that this trial was "Victor's Justice" is to show an ignorance of the facts. Not only were many people involved in the trial motivated to make it fair, the very fact that not all of the defendants were hanged is proof enough that the trial was fair.

Conot successfully presented his case. He wrote a highly readable account of the Nuremberg Trial that presents the trial, characters and influences in an easily accessible format to the public. More importantly, however, was that history was written true, and proving Conot's thesis that there was Justice at Nuremberg. Robert Conot hoped to interest a large audience in the Nuremberg Trial in the hope that the history surrounding this trial would not be repeated as atrocities of the future. Justice at Nuremberg captures the horrific atrocities committed during the period leading up to and including World War II, the people behind them, the influencing factors that preceded them, and the justice meted out to the perpetrators. Justice that the victims of World War II never received. Justice that lives up to the adage, "two wrongs don't make a right." Justice that says "never again."

The book is written by a Psychologist who was involved in the Nuremberg trials including testing the main defendants. I found his insites very interesting and combined with other books about the trials was a superb addition in understanding what when on.

For anyone who wants to know about the Nuremberg Trials, you must read this book. Canot gives us a real deal of the trial. He gives us an in to the processes of how the Trial worked and how the Justices felt. He tells the History of the Tiral as if you were right there. And that is a trait that not every book has. As an active reader of the Nuremberg Trials, I whole heartedly suggest and push for the reading of this book, in orfer to fully understand the true meaning of this gret event.

For those who enjoyed TNT's Nuremburg movie and would like to develop a more complete understanding of the trial, "Justice at Nuremburg" is for you. Author Robert Conot does a lot more than just recount the trial of the leading Nazis. He gives a full portrayal of their crimes and details their actions while they were in allied custody both before and during the trial. Conot also gives the background on the leading allied prosecutors and judges as well as detailing the increasing Cold War friction that surrounded the trial. The Nuremburg trial set the standard for international war crimes tribunals as we know them today. Many precedents were established that are still with us. But it is the fascinating (and revolting) stories of the defendant's themselves that make this book so compelling.

I can recommend this book to anyone wanting a basic knowledge of the Nuremberg trial and the atrocities that it exposed. My only complaint is that the book often drifts from the subject of the trial itself to general Nazi and Holocaust history, which is fine unless you've already read a good deal about these subjects in other books. One more issue is that Conot's mini-biography of Hitler, found at the end of the book, relies too much on speculation about the cause of Hitler's madness. (Can the root of Hitler's madness really be reduced to the view that he might have had syphilis?) Still, Conot manages to find some nuggets of information that I have not seen elsewhere, and when he does stay close to the trial it makes for highly intriguing reading.