Category: News Feeds

* Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is resting comfortably in a New York City hospital after a non-surgical procedure. Wishing RBG a speedy recovery! [CNN]

* A new lawsuit aims to break up an alleged monopoly in the cheerleading business. This would make a great sequel to Bring It On… [Atlanta Business Chronicle]

* Lisa Bloom, an attorney with links to Harvey Weinstein, is in hot water over allegations that she mishandled millions of dollars for autistic clients. [Daily Beast]

* A Kentucky attorney is accused of “monstrous” sexual misconduct in a new lawsuit filed by former employees. [Courier Journal]

* Ashley Judd has been given the green light to pursue sexual harassment claims against Harvey Weinstein. [New York Times]

* Looks like retailer J.C. Penny will be purchased as a result of its reorganization in bankruptcy. Hopefully there will be some great sales before the restructuring is through… [Washington Post]

---

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

Ed. Note: Welcome to our daily feature Trivia Question of the Day!

According to data collected by Law.com for its 2020 Am Law 100 ranking, which New York-based Am Law 100 firms saw declining revenue in 2019?

Hint: Of the NY Am Law 100 firms, five firms — all with really strong reputations — had a downtick last year.

See the answer on the next page.

I had previously assumed the Dutch were just like us, only way better at tulip horticulture. After reviewing the recent proposed surrogacy laws in the Netherlands, however, I know that we are living in entirely different universes.

In April 2020 — which, in COVID-19 time, both feels like yesterday and 20 years ago — the Dutch government published one part of a draft law on surrogacy. That part contained provisions that, while in part differ from most American norms, were largely in line with other European countries’ skepticism over surrogacy.

Part I. New Dutch Surrogacy Standards. The first part of the April 2020 proposed surrogacy legal overhaul in the Netherlands provides some pretty normal protections, at least by American standards. Those include the following requirements for surrogacy arrangements:

• Intended parent(s) and surrogate must have a written agreement. (Of course.)
• Both parties must receive psychological counseling. (Never a bad idea.)
• Both parties must have independent legal counsel. (Good, yes. Attorneys are heroes.)
• The intended parents must be recognized as the legal parents of the child upon birth and listed on the child’s birth certificate. (Great!)

But it also included some uncommon provisions, by American standards:

• The child must have access to the personal information of the donor(s). (There is a bubbling movement and debate in the United States on the rights of donor-conceived children to know their genetic history, but the movement has been slow, and the legal changes have lacked any real grip so far.)
• The court must approve the agreement before conception. (Oklahoma’s recent surrogacy law mandates this, but nowhere else in the United States does.)
• The surrogate has the right — within six weeks after the birth — to send a petition to the court because she has changed her mind and intends to keep the child. (… record scratch. Wait, what? The ability for a birth mom to change her mind is a basic requirement with adoptions, but clearly there is a wide variance in thought between our countries as to how comparable surrogacy is to adoption.)

Part II. Criminalization. OK. That last bullet point might have been alarming. But now let’s talk about the July 2020 portion of the proposed law. It is truly frightening. Paid surrogacy is essentially a criminal offense, even if done abroad in a country where it’s completely legal. The draft law states that:

• It is unlawful to persuade a woman to become a surrogate by promising her a “significant advantage.” Significant advantage is explained as anything that provides a benefit to her beyond mere reimbursement of certain surrogacy-created expenses.
• It is unlawful for a surrogate to ask for or receive a significant advantage.
• This criminal code has extraterritorial effect and will be effective whether the act is committed in the Netherlands or abroad, if a significant advantage is offered or received by a Dutch citizen or a Dutch resident permit holder, and regardless of when this crime was committed.

Commodities Or Extra Wanted? The drafters say that the provisions are necessary to protect women from exploitation and to ensure that children are not commodified. I’m on board with those two interests, of course, but is there really a connection between being a surrogate or being delivered by a surrogate, and either being exploited or commodified?

Fortunately, I was able to read (via the Google translate) a well-researched and well-reasoned response that was submitted to the Netherlands’ government by Dutch attorney Wilma Eusman. Eusman explained that there’s insufficient scientific evidence to establish a connection between being delivered by a surrogate and suffering any mental health issues or other damage associated with being “commodified.”

She suggested an alternative and more accurate theory, “growing up knowing that your parents have paid for the cost and inconvenience of the woman who was willing to help them achieve their desire to have a child can give you an extra sense of self-worth, knowing how wanted you are.” Eusman then pointed to large-scale studies following children born via surrogacy, which reflect that they did not have negative feelings about being delivered by a surrogate. (Check out this podcast interview with the brilliant young Yale-student Malina Simard-Halm, as she shares her experience as a surrogate-born person.)

Does This “Protect” Women? The draft law also insults women who have been surrogates and were also comfortable receiving compensation for the intense nine-month commitment. The Dutch drafters explain that if a woman is compensated, she may be compelled to take risks that she would not otherwise take due to financial considerations, she may withhold medically relevant information, and her participation may not be completely voluntary.

Of course, exploitation is possible. But knowing hundreds of women who have affirmatively volunteered to be a surrogate and received compensation, their impetus has been far from being powerless pawns of exploitation. Inevitably, in my experience in the United States, the surrogate is a strong and driven woman. While there can be multiple motivations, the common thread is a belief in the depth and beauty of parenthood as a human experience, and wanting to help others fulfill that dream. (Check out these podcast interviews with surrogates about their experiences — here, here, or here.) Being compensated helps the surrogates’ families, and here in the Unted States, no one is credibly accusing these women of lying about their medical background or participating involuntarily.

Eusman’s response identifies many of the flaws in such a law, where the government tells women what they can and cannot choose to do with their bodies. Eusman points out that the government is fine with everyone else in the arrangement being compensated — the attorneys, the psychologists, etc. — but not the woman who is actually carrying the child. She also points out that Dutch citizens are allowed to volunteer for experimental medical trials — and get paid. Clearly, some people are more equal than others when they decide to risk their health and be compensated for it. In fact, as Eusman pointed out, banning a surrogate from compensation results in the exact opposite of the proposed “protection” of her, putting her at a legally required disadvantage.

Encouraging Opaque, Underground Surrogacy. Eusman identified another major problem with the proposed legislation. Because criminalization is based on the ability to show and prove that the surrogate received a “significant advantage,” it punishes those who go to a country where surrogacy is transparent, well done, and safely practiced — like Canada and the United States. Instead, the law pushes hopeful parents to countries where the process is deliberately murky, and therefore not easy to prove that the surrogate received compensation. Eusman pointed out that these are the countries where there is, in fact, a higher risk of commodification and exploitation.

Eusman proposed an alternative: the law should be revised to set standards to define jurisdictions where surrogacy is safely practiced, and permit Dutch citizens to be able to complete their families in those countries, if not the Netherlands itself.

Here’s rooting for those in power in the Netherlands to recognize the truth in Eusman’s words, and to change course for everyone’s sake.

---

Ellen Trachman is the Managing Attorney of Trachman Law Center, LLC, a Denver-based law firm specializing in assisted reproductive technology law, and co-host of the podcast I Want To Put A Baby In You. You can reach her at babies@abovethelaw.com.

Most states require attorneys to be technologically competent in order to practice law. And one of the most important competencies — if not the most important — is keeping your information secure.

The most common reasons for security breaches are human error or through secret, accidental installation of viruses and malware.

There is a lot of advice on keeping your computer safe, the most frequently offered piece being: have strong passwords. Today’s column will focus on a few simple and low-cost security tips to minimize the chances of accidental breaches and giving sensitive information to the wrong people.

Make sure you have the correct email addresses. Giving a client or a third party the wrong email address can usually be embarrassing but when communicating vital information and documents, it can be disastrous.

I rarely give email addresses over the phone because people can type it incorrectly. For example, when I say my first name, people might think Steve, Steven, or Stephen. And when I say my last name, a lot of people type words like Chong, Cheung, Chuang, and Jung.

If possible, have people send the email address in writing. People usually do this through text messaging.

If you can’t get an email address in writing, there is one more thing you can do. When sending the first email, verify it by asking a security question that only the two of you know. Usually it’s the name of a common connection.

Don’t share files via email. Sending files via email is convenient and what we are used to. Some email hosts have virus detection software that detects malicious code before you open them. But sending files via email should be minimized or avoided altogether if possible.

Sharing files takes up email storage space. Particularly if you have to send the same files multiple times because the person on the other end couldn’t open it the first time. Eventually, you will get a warning that you will not get any more email because your storage space limit has been reached, and you will spend considerable time deleting everything.

Also, if your email address is hacked, the hacker can get access to your sent files and use them for whatever nefarious purpose.

If you do share files, delete them immediately to eliminate the above problems. I understand that some people prefer to keep old emails, usually to verify that they sent them in case a client or a third party claims that they didn’t receive them. If this is an issue, you may want to request that the client respond to confirm receipt.

Instead, share files via the cloud. There are cloud storage programs where two or more people can upload and share documents. Most are relatively inexpensive, and some are even free.

Ignore suspicious emails. While this is common sense, and lawyers are generally pretty good at detecting scams, sometimes even the best of us can be fooled. Usually suspicious emails come in two forms.

The first is when a potential client reaches out asking for your services. To get your attention, these people claim that the potential payout is worth six — or more — figures.

In most cases, these spammers are easy to detect. First, they usually mass mail everyone so they do not address you by your name. Instead, the email starts with “Dear Sir or Madam.” Second, the email is usually not addressed to you, but instead to “undisclosed recipients” which means that you are one of a million email address that are BCC’d in that email. Finally, most of these emails have poor grammar which suggests that the scammers are located overseas.

A second suspicious email supposedly comes from someone we know. But there isn’t much in the email except a link to an unknown website. The scammer giveaway here is that even though the sender’s name may be someone you know, the sender’s email address is totally different and usually strange.

So always be skeptical of emails from people you don’t know. If it’s too good to be true, it usually is.

Don’t share your computer with anyone. While most people are pretty good about this, there are some occasions where you may need to share your computer with someone else. In most cases, it is a child who wants to play a video game online. Or it might be a teenager whose computer broke down and needs to finish her term paper on the mating habits of the deep-sea anglerfish (look it up) in 12 hours.

Just don’t do it. When you get your computer back, does it behave differently? If it does, then chances are good that something happened. Sometimes they will tell you that they accidentally downloaded some malware. But we know what happens most of the time — they won’t tell us or they will deny they did anything wrong.

Don’t work in a public area. Back when coffee shops were open, some of us would work there, sipping an espresso while listening to the background jazz music. The big draw was the coffee shop’s public wifi so you can check email and whatnot.

Using public wifi can expose your computer to hackers. A few years ago, I attended the ABA Techshow, and one of the presentations demonstrated how someone can access a computer using public wifi.

If you are working high-profile cases, there is a chance you can be followed physically. Someone can take detailed photos from a distance. Others may try to steal your computer. I get that the chance of this is fairly low, but in our line of work we may run into people who will have a strong incentive to do whatever it takes to make our lives miserable.

One day, coffee shops will reopen, and we’ll be allowed to lounge indoors again. But the security threat is real and not worth a grande mocha. The only things coffee shops are useful for are first dates and studying for the bar exam.

Don’t go to strange websites. Unfortunately, there are some websites that are specifically designed to install malicious software into unsuspecting computers. Most web browsers know about these and stops users from accidentally accessing them. But this is not foolproof.

It’s difficult to tell which websites contain malicious code. In most cases, they are the usual suspects. Also, a lot of the sites tend to slow your computer down as soon as you access them. And they have annoying pop-up screens. Some even try to trick your computer into installing software to supposedly optimize your browsing experience.

Purchase virus protection software. Even if you follow all of the tips here and from other sources, hackers can secretly compromise your computer. To minimize this, purchase antivirus software programs. Generally, they are inexpensive and worth the cost. Some antivirus programs are free. From my experience, however, they tend to slow the computer down, and you get constant nag screens telling you to upgrade to the paid version.

You do not necessarily need expensive, high-end internet security services to protect yourself and your clients. As your notoriety increases, you might need to step up your security game, but by applying some common sense, using email wisely, and not downloading suspicious software, you can keep your computer safe from most hackers and scams.

---

Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at sachimalbe@excite.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.

Back when she was still running scores of companies (that she no longer owned) into the ground, Lynn Tilton had an ironclad rule. You might even call it Tilton’s Law: “You pay me first, payroll second, and then I don’t care who else you pay.” And Tilton’s law has a corollary: “If you pay anyone else”—for instance any creditors—“before you pay me, I will sue you, because shame has no meaning to me. And also because I, like you, am bankrupt.”

Through affiliates, Ms. Tilton has filed lawsuits in New York against metal refiner Libertas Copper LLC, employment agency Snelling Holdings LLC, shower-curtain maker Glenoit Universal Ltd., game-controller maker FSAR Holdings Inc. and 11 other companies that she had managed for years….

The Zohar funds have been trying to sell the businesses to recoup more than $1.7 billion that they say they are owed. The funds are seeking a bankruptcy-court order halting the lawsuits against the businesses, saying they are interfering with efforts to sell the companies…. “Ms. Tilton’s conduct is only getting worse by the day,” the filing said, adding that her claims to be owed millions of dollars in fees and indemnification are disputed and in some instances undocumented.

Lynn Tilton Is Suing Small Companies She Once Led for $30 Million [WSJ]

Canceling people in power is all the rage right now, but it’s been part of our culture for as long as there’s been culture. In this episode, we share the story of how Eartha Kitt was canceled by the President of the United States, and we explain why her experience was totally different from calls for Larry McDougal to step down as president of the State Bar of Texas.

Make sure you take advantage of the show’s Q&A feature. You can ask Mike questions about the latest episode and he’ll answer at the end of the next episode. Just submit your question in the form at the bottom of this post.

Episode Resources:

Lawyer Forward
Can We Still Listen to Michael Jackson?
Lawyers Call on Larry McDougal to Resign
Eartha Kitt’s Vietnam Comments Nearly Ended Her Career
Cancel Culture is Chaotic Good
Why Can’t We Stop Fighting About Cancel Culture?

Trigger warning: This article contains a general description of  a sexual assault.

I often share stories from other law students and lawyers describing the stigma they face regarding addiction and other mental health issues.  These issues often correlate with underlying trauma. I’ve known Drew for years and while his story is not one of addiction, many who have been through similar circumstances do struggle with co-occurring substance use. It’s an important story.

---

Seventeen years ago, I was sexually assaulted at a Jewish summer camp by a camp counselor, with the help of my cabinmates, who were also around my age (minors). In the world of Judaism, I had just become a man two months or so prior, as I had just completed my bar mitzvah. And in three months, it was taken away.

My name is Andrew Rossow, and I am a lawyer. This is a shortened version of my initial story I shared with readers at Thrive Global. For the full version, please click here.

Let me take you back 17 years. At 13, it was an exciting time to be alive for boys my age — with bar mitzvahs occurring what seemed like every other weekend and, of course, the elephant in the room: puberty.

Unlike most kids (and friends) at my age, I dreaded the summers, because I hated going to summer camp. Whether it was being away from my parents for three months out of state or being around kids that were bigger than me and more athletic than me, the feelings were the same.

You see, I was the little guy among my age group — by voice, height, weight, and physique. I hadn’t yet hit puberty, unlike most of the boys around me. And because of this, I had no choice but to fear myself, forced to feel inferior to the boys and girls around me with a total sense of inadequateness.

And who would blame me?

I didn’t have as deep a voice as the boys in my cabin, and by that, I mean it was so high-pitched, that it sounded too like the girls I went to camp with. To those around me, I was “too girly” to “keep up” with everyone else.

I wasn’t even close to being considered “athletically coordinated.” In fact, I sucked at sports so badly that I was often blamed in our camp newsletter for why our team lost at basketball, softball, or whatever the sport was at the time.

I didn’t have an ounce of hair on my body — you could say I was “as smooth as a baby’s ass.” I didn’t have tiny hairs coming off my face, so when it came to conversations with cabinmates about the cuts on their face from shaving, I had nothing to contribute.

“Drew Rossow, the Pubeless Wonder”

But where everything took a turn was right here. Remember the “curtaining” game?

I’m not sure it was something that only happened at our Jewish camp or something that took place everywhere, but boys at 13 were no strangers to games such as “curtaining” that were often described as a “rite of passage.” Yeah, fuck that. For me, it was no rite of passage — it was an assault.

I remember the first time I was curtained. I was in our community bathroom showering at the time, probably washing my hair, when suddenly, the curtain that shielded me from everyone else, opened faster than I could blink. And what I could tell you is that the boys responsible were so shocked as to what they saw, silence couldn’t even keep them quiet.

Laughter and screams filled the air with the two boys staring, pointing, and directing any attention in the bathroom directly to my penis. A boy whose penis at the time wasn’t developed enough, that he didn’t have the faintest sight of a pubic hair surrounding it — and it freaked them out. They didn’t understand it.

By the end of the day, when word reached the rest of my cabinmates, they, in addition to my counselor (no older than 21), already had the perfect theme song to describe “Drew Rossow” for the remainder of the summer:

“Drew Rossow, the pubeless wonder, flying high above the sea; Drew Rossow, the pubeless wonder, flying high above the sea.”

That song, which to this day, is as familiar to me as the Cha-Cha-Slide, I could never live down. It was so catchy, that it somehow survived at least 10 years later (up and until my 10-year high-school reunion).

And my counselor. The adult in the cabin who should’ve known better. The adult who should’ve immediately put an end to that humiliation and chorus, showed his true colors that evening.

Rather than stop it at the source, sparing me from years’ worth of mocking, humiliation, and self-esteem issues, chose to join in and encourage it even more.

Joining the fun from the four walls of our cabin, he simply pointed his finger at me, with that shit-eating grin and smirk, and began sucking on his pinky (imagine a newborn baby sucking on their pacifier, repeatedly), making a smacking sound with his lip — referencing how “tiny” I was down there, no different than a little baby.

What a bastard.

“Drew Rossow, the pubeless wonder, flying high above the sea; Drew Rossow, the pubeless wonder, flying high above the sea.”

Over. And over again. And to think I was worrying about which girl I would ask to the Sadie Hawkins dance later that summer. But don’t worry, that issue was resolved instantly when the song made its ways to the ears of almost every girl on that side of the campgrounds.

Now if you ask me the meaning behind it — I still have no fucking idea as to what the second half of the verse meant. But it was a tune so catchy, that boys and girls would simply sing it out loud and point at me laughing, as they walked by.

Our catchy summer camp hits that we’d sing out loud during meals in the dining hall or at bonfires, which included Joni Mitchell’s “The Circle Game,” Original Caste’s “One Tin Soldier,” and, of course, Lorre Wyatt’s “Song of Peace (The Dreamer),” expanded to include my own personal theme song, that followed me for years to come — even as I did finally hit puberty.

It was a haunting reminder of how much I hated myself and blamed myself for my body’s weird development. All for something I couldn’t control.

And the worst part was that, I had nobody to turn to. Nobody who could protect me. Nobody could put a stop to it.

My friends were no longer my friends, but pressured peers who thought it was cool to join into something they didn’t understand themselves, simply to fit in and not be made fun of themselves for attempting to defend me.

But do I blame them? Not entirely. We were 13, what did we know? Fitting in and peer pressure were at the top of our priority list.

But the bastard adult and counselor (now referred to as “The Bastard”) in the cabin who should have known better — who was paid to know better, you’re damn right I do — and I’m finally old enough and brave enough to say so. So, to you, counselor, who luckily for you, shall remain nameless, I do blame you. 100%.

It was only after that summer did I learn that I was missing some growth hormone, which had slowed down the rate at which I was supposed to hit puberty, predicating the need to take growth shots for a certain period. Eventually it exacerbated the puberty process and I did “catch-up.” Hell, look at me now — deep voice and all.

As for the humiliation and abuse, because that’s exactly what it was, well that was something I had to endure every day and night in my cabin, for three months. I cried. I begged. I screamed. I did everything I emotionally and physically knew how to do, hoping it would stop. I was the little guy in the room, so physical strength was not to my advantage. I hated myself. I hated my counselor. I hated my former friends. I hated every single Jewish boy and girl at that camp.

A Knife To The Neck

One night, something did change. I found the courage to stand-up for myself.

Late one night, I waited for my cabin to finally go silent, as each of my cabinmates laughed themselves to sleep or had their CD players to knock them out (yes, I still remember my red transparent CD player that had Santana spinning in its apparatus).

I had quietly pulled out a white plastic knife I had snagged from that day’s lunch or dinner at the dining hall. I remember waking up at some point during the middle of the night, and quietly tip-toeing over to one of the neighboring bunk-beds, where my former friend slept quietly on the lower bunk.

I quietly shook him as my flashlight’s light revealed the shock on his face as I  held that knife up to his neck — threatening him that if he didn’t stop this; if he didn’t come back to me as my friend and defend me, I would kill him the next time.

Am I proud of the way I chose to defend myself, fuck no. But at that time, scaring just one person in my cabin, who I came into camp with as a close friend, seemed to be my best (and only) option.

Now, imagine a 13-year-old holding a plastic knife up to someone, who had just been shaken awake in the middle of the night.

Is that terrifying or comical? Pointless either way. It backfired. His response was to scream as loud as he could until my cabin had woken up and the Bastard woke up or came running into the cabin (I can’t remember if he too was asleep or “on duty” at the time).

The Bastard took the knife away and immediately went for me, grabbing me and restraining me to a chair in the cabin. He was in shock that I could ever imagine doing something so “dangerous” and “stupid.”

As my anxiety and fear grew, I began kicking and screaming, trying to free myself from his restraint. But it did nothing. When I did calm down, enough for him to loosen his grip on me (but still restraining me to the chair), I demanded that he and the rest of my cabin “leave me alone” because in the morning, I would be going to the camp’s director and telling him everything that had been happening the past few days.

Big mistake.

Little did I know that my courage would keep me restrained to the chair, by rope, for the next day, so as to prevent me from reporting it to any other counselor (two in particular I was close with) and the camp’s director.

I was given an ultimatum of how “this was going to go.” Otherwise, I would be staying in that chair longer than I wanted to. I couldn’t fight it. I couldn’t fight them. I was small and weak, and one boy against 10 13-year-olds and a 21-year-old counselor was a battle that I simply could not win.

So, the ultimatum? If I didn’t want to remain tied to a chair for the days to come, I needed to speak out loud and agree that:

I was not to go to the camp’s director, counselor, or anyone at the camp to report on what was happening — because nobody would believe me as against my cabin and our counselor;

Even if I tried report my cabinmates and the Bastard, I wouldn’t be able to, because I would now have to stay in the cabin during meals in the dining hall, tied to the chair, and have food brought to me — you know, just to minimize the risk of me slipping out or finding someone to squeal to;

Even if I could be trusted, I would be escorted to and from sports activities and extracurricular events, meals in the dining hall, rest hour, the bathroom, and the shower; and;

At one point, the Bastard said the only way I’d get the attention I wanted from everyone was the day that “I would be sucking dick for crack.”

The Bastard poked me on my penis with his hand, or would slide his hand on my leg, so that I knew his power over me.

So, I played their game. I let it happen. I agreed to their terms. But they didn’t trust me. So, for the first few days, I spent my time in the cabin under supervision, missing sports activities and meals, in hopes I wouldn’t squeal. Don’t worry, I had meals brought to me, like room service.

From each day forward, for the remainder of the summer, I spent my time being escorted to and from extracurricular activities, meals, and yes, even to the bathroom to piss, shit, and shower.

My time in the shower, which included more curtaining and jams to my theme song, included my own escort service, as my counselor or one of my cabinmates would “stand guard” outside the curtain, waiting for me to finish cleaning my underdeveloped self, knowing there was no possible way I could “dart out” and risk sharing what was happening to someone else nearby.

As for my mail that I would write to my family and friends, they were carefully read and scrutinized for any mention of what was happening.

If only I knew the law at this point, right?

And yes, during this entire time, I still had to hear:

“Drew Rossow, the pubeless wonder, flying high above the sea; Drew Rossow, the pubeless wonder, flying high above the sea.”

To My Colleagues And Fellow Survivors

Now, as I said at the beginning, this confession is not an attempt to gain your sympathy or pity, but rather, my decision in allowing you to understand why I chose to enter the legal field, advocating for those who are not strong enough to help themselves, especially when it involved sexual assault, online harassment, and other forms of bullying.

Over the years, people have asked me why I am “so mushy” or “emotional,” to which I was never ready to explain — primarily because I didn’t think I had to.

But I recognize that throughout the years, my display of certain affections of trust, warmth, and love, may have warped relationships with certain individuals (often women), because I was only looking for the warmth, comfort, attention, and security that I never had those years at camp, dances, or attempts at “dating” girls my age.

I wanted to let you, reader, into the deepest hallways of my heart, hoping you understand that the person you see before you today, is built upon every decision I’ve made (knowingly or not), immediately preceding.

That summer left me an empty vessel when I returned home to my family. You would think that would’ve been the first thing I shared with my family when they picked me up from the Missouri airport — but I had been trained. I had been “reset” so as to never speak of what happened there, again.

For years to come, I couldn’t speak to girls, let alone look them in the eye. My closest relationships with girls my age were only through AIM (AOL Instant Messenger), but god forbid when I saw my crush the next day at school — I pretended that I had no idea who they were, until 4 p.m. hit, and I was back on AIM.

I was afraid to try out for any sports teams — having quit track and cross-country after six weeks and spending time on my high school’s wrestling team (lowest weight class of course) for a lengthy two weeks.

I begin to look elsewhere for the warmth and security as the years went by, through art, writing, and silly television shows and movies like Friends, Gilmore Girls, and my all-time favorite saga, Star Wars.

I didn’t date much in high school (obviously), much to the amazement and wonder of my family and the small group of friends I had. Often, people wondered if I was homosexual, considering my absolute fear of women.

But you see, I was afraid. I was afraid of myself. My body. Exposing myself to another person ever again, hoping they would never get to see the “flaw” that was my body and penis in the same way that I had been forced to believe all those years ago.

And then February 2, 2016, came, and I passed the Ohio Bar Exam and became licensed by the Ohio Supreme Court. I had become everything I ever wanted and more.

Up and until a month ago, I was still trying to figure out who I was and the type of person I wanted to be. I didn’t care much for dating anyone — I cared about my career and making a name for myself, so never again would anyone ever dare question who I was. Did I explore the dating apps like Hinge, Bumble, Tinder, OKCupid, and Plenty of Fish? Absolutely. But I always felt a void, like something (or someone) was missing.

My life felt like Joni Mitchell’s “Circle Game,” constantly searching for the missing puzzle piece.

And it wasn’t until four weeks ago, thanks to the love of my life, Cassie, did I find the strength to finally share my story with you.

I didn’t share my story for the validation or acceptance, but for me and other survivors. Unfortunately, when I chose to share my story to my community, I was removed from a media outlet to which I helped build and grow, because I refused to take down my Thrive Global article.

To my fellow survivors, you have a voice. We all have a voice. Don’t let the bastardization of today’s politics and bastardization of the legitimate #MeToo movement drive you into darkness and silence.

To my colleagues, we need to fight against the injustice our legal system has allowed and fight against those who wish to silence survivors.

Was I ready to tell my story? No. Am I glad I did? Absolutely. Because it is time the world knows the truth about #MeToo. And that truth is that this is not a game. It does happen to men. And there are people out there who will do everything in their power to make all of us, collectively, out to be the aggressors. This is an injustice that has severe consequences and only seeks to diminish the power that the #MeToo movement has.

---

Andrew Rossow is an Ohio-based millennial lawyer who focuses his practice on internet law and criminal defense. A graduate of the University of Dayton School of Law and an adjunct law professor, he has worked to minimize instances of poor digital hygiene online while addressing the gray areas the intersection law and technology bring. He has made it his mission to stand up against online harassment and bullies through his #CYBERBYTE® Movement. In addition to his law practice, he also writes for a number of outlets, including Bloomberg Law, Law360, Thrive Global, Luxe Beat Magazine, and CoinTelegraph. He is a former contributor with Forbes and HuffPost, and has been featured in Entrepreneur, Fast Company, and Forbes for his activist endeavors and journalistic integrity. You can reach him by email at andrew@rossowlaw.com and on Twitter (@RossowEsq).

Brian Cuban (@bcuban) is The Addicted Lawyer. Brian is the author of the Amazon best-selling book, The Addicted Lawyer: Tales Of The Bar, Booze, Blow & Redemption (affiliate link). A graduate of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, he somehow made it through as an alcoholic then added cocaine to his résumé as a practicing attorney. He went into recovery April 8, 2007. He left the practice of law and now writes and speaks on recovery topics, not only for the legal profession, but on recovery in general. He can be reached at brian@addictedlawyer.com.

This is your brain on Fox News.

It’s the only possible explanation for Attorney General Bill Barr’s appallingly tone deaf testimony before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday. Only someone who’s been cosseted in the safespace of rightwing media for years would go on national television and justify police violence by pointing to black-on-black crime. Even Breitbart got rid of that hashtag for being too overtly racist. And yet, our distinguished AG trotted it out yesterday in his opening statement.

The threat to black lives posed by crime on the streets is massively greater than any threat posed by police misconduct. The leading cause of death for young black males is homicide. Every year approximately 7,500 black Americans are victims of homicide, and the vast majority of them – around 90 percent – are killed by other blacks, mainly by gunfire.

Barr then “disproved” systemic racism in law enforcement by pointing out that cops kill white people, too. Check and mate!

Although the death of George Floyd – an unarmed black man – at the hands of the police was a shocking event, the fact is that such events are fortunately quite rare. According to statistics compiled by the Washington Post, the number of unarmed black men killed by police so far this year is 8. The number of unarmed white men killed by police over the same time period is 11. Some unarmed suspects, moreover, were physically attacking officers or threatening others at the time they were shot.

Never mind the fact that America’s population is 13 percent African American, but 42 percent of people killed by police are Black. Black people are three times more likely to be killed by cops than white people, but the Attorney General didn’t come here to talk about math. He came here to blame the protestors for crime in America.

Hewing closely to the Murdoch ecosphere’s carefully curated version of reality, Barr insisted that the protests in America’s streets have nothing to do with racial justice — “violent rioters and anarchists have hijacked legitimate protests to wreak senseless havoc and destruction on innocent victims” — and claimed that criticizing police actually causes a spike in crime, saying, “When a community turns on and pillories its own police, officers naturally become more risk averse and crime rates soar.”

The highest law enforcement officer in the land is explicitly excusing police officers who refuse to do their jobs in response to citizens who exercise their First Amendment right to criticize the government. And all that was just in his opening statement.

As noted by former House counsel Norm Eisen, Barr was noticeably ruder when questioned by non-white members of the Committee, particularly women.

He deliberately tried to talk over Rep. Pramila Jayapal, who pointed out that the Justice Department dispatched stormtroopers to Portland to deal with graffiti, but was apparently unbothered by armed men waving Confederate flags invading the Michigan statehouse.

Barr was incensed when Rep. Jackson Lee questioned him about the Justice Department’s refusal to initiate pattern and practice investigations of police departments who have demonstrably higher rates of violence against non-white citizens than whites.

And he became visibly hostile when Rep. Karen Bass confronted him with the real, human cost of the “zero tolerance” policies Barr endorses.

It was a shameful performance by a walking dinosaur who started the hearing by congratulating himself for coming out of retirement to “get to the bottom of the grave abuses involved in the bogus ‘Russiagate’ scandal” and went on to spout racist tropes from the 1980s about criminal gangs and “drug pushers” and defended the propriety of using teargas on non-violent protestors because sometimes the government has to “disperse an unlawful assembly, and sometimes, unfortunately, peaceful protesters are affected by that.”

Luckily, Bill Barr won’t have to hear any of the criticism, though. Back in his Fox cocoon, the reviews were great! And that’s all that matters.

Written Statement of William P. Barr Attorney General [Testimony to House Judiciary Committee, July 28, 2020]

---

Elizabeth Dye (@5DollarFeminist) lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.