Category: News Feeds

Like most stories about embarking on a legal career, this one begins with a broken ankle and a string bikini.

Halsey, the 25-year-old chanteuse from New Jersey, took to Instagram yesterday to show off her latest injury and to regale us with a stream of consciousness caption worthy of James Joyce.

I took my brace off my ankle cause it was itchy and now I need to put it back. I made a quiche and fresh spinach butternut squash ravioli. Law is fun but hard. Beautiful sky. Can’t stop watching avatar. and judging from the baby pic I’ve been a disassociating little freak who romanticizes the 70s for my whole life. That’s all, thank you.

As it turns out, Halsey managed to break this ankle tripping over a dishwasher door, which is awful and awfully relatable at the same time. But most observers are zeroing in on the most disturbing element of this caption. Yes, someone is willingly rewatching Avatar.

But also, she informed her fans that “law is fun but hard” without any context, sending everyone into a tailspin to figure out what she meant since there is nothing about the law that is remotely fun. One follower decided to get to the bottom of it and the answer was horrifying:

When Instagram user @@nathaniel_carney asked the performer why she is studying constitutional law, Halsey explained, “I’m studying for the bar exam!”

Generally one would need a law school degree or, you know, a college degree, to take the bar exam. But with Kim Kardashian lighting the way for fellow celebrities to parachute into a legal career without taking on any of the debt, it seems Halsey may be looking into an alternative path to the ESQ.

And there’s no reason to close off these paths to people who genuinely want to help people. Kim’s pursuit of law has turned her into a successful advocate for the incarcerated so even if she never gets a license, the work she’s put in on the mere possibility of getting there has proven a tangible benefit to the public. But that’s why we have bar exams. They’re tests developed to weed out people who lack formal doctrinal learning — a holdover from an era when most lawyers didn’t go to law school. The lunacy is that we’ve allowed the bar for professional schools to get lowered far enough that we need J.D.s to take yet another test to prove they’ve achieved mastery of the material that celebrities can aspire to in their spare time.

Who knows where this will go. The lockdown is taking its toll on celebrities too and perhaps studying law is just Halsey’s version of getting way too into baking sourdough and she’ll lose interest in the subject before she reaches the Kardashian stage.

Keep watching the Instagram… if her swimsuit pics start revealing Memento tattoos spelling out the Rule Against Perpetuities, we’ll know she’s taken it up a notch.

Halsey Is Studying Law So She Can Take the Bar Exam [PopCrush]

---

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

In a world where we can accept that no one has perfect information, the best we can hope for is a little transparency. Keeping everything locked up behind closed doors offers that warm cocoon of perceived infallibility. No matter how bad, any decision can be sloughed off as a product of a process the critics “just don’t understand.” It’s a cheap copout but it’s a popular one.

So, as annoying as the message may be, New Hampshire deserves a lot of credit for laying it all out there when it comes to its Fall bar exam efforts.

New Hampshire is a relatively small jurisdiction and received 121 applications to take the upcoming September administration of the bar exam. At the moment, the powers-that-be feel as though they can safely squeeze 121 applicants into the space they’ve secured at the UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law. That’s the good news. The bad news is that given the constantly changing safety protocols out there, the general counsel of the New Hampshire Supreme Court Office of Bar Admissions is informing applicants that it’s unclear where the state will be in September and has advised everyone that seating is not guaranteed. Seats will be assigned based on the date the application was received — candidates will be informed of their number in the order, which is why it’s important to register now — and if folks miss out based on more stringent safety measures, they will be given priority seating for February.

And, worst of all, the state can’t be sure if an applicant’s seat is guaranteed until right up against exam time because the Supreme Court Office of Bar Admissions controls neither the coronavirus nor the public health reaction to it. Of course, this is no solace to applicants who are asked to pay for prep courses and cram for the bar exam in September and then asked to just hold that all in their heads until February. The state is at least allowing students, upon seeing where they stand in the “applications received” list to voluntarily opt out and get priority seating in February. If a law school graduate finds themselves at number 121, this is probably the safest bet.

It’s unpleasant, but what else are they supposed to do? Book more room? Bar examination officials aren’t sitting on the F-35 budget. Booking room outside of the state-supported law school is an expense and one that they recognize they may have to cancel at cost. They would also presumably need more proctors for such a plan. According to the email, the office in charge of all of this consists of two people trying their best under unpredictable conditions. Unfortunately, this outbreak is going to cause hardships.

It’s what’s so galling about the response from some law school deans at the prospect that their graduates might be automatically slated for the February exam in New York. The examiners in every state face unprecedented logistical challenges and, whether they’re willing to be open about it or not, recognize that there are no ideal solutions. But as people living outside of the ivory tower, bar examiners have to do what they can to get everyone through the process in an orderly manner. What no one needs are law school deans clutching their Gadsden flags and railing against the grave injustice of their graduates waiting a few months until there’s enough room to safely administer the exam. If anything, the New York plan has the advantage of letting everyone know as of May when they’ll be expected to take the test so they can book their prep courses accordingly. When the deans tried to posit a better solution than New York laid out, the fallback (in the rare instance that “pretend there’s no virus” wasn’t the proffered solution) was “do a random drawing” leaving everyone up in the air for a few more weeks while prep enrollment deadlines loom.

The correct solution in the face of all of these challenges is an online administration of the exam at minimum, guaranteeing that all applicants can take the test at the first opportunity. And if the NCBE refuses to bless these exams with its portability stamp, then states should draft limited reciprocity agreements. It seems as though Massachusetts, which is already considering an online exam that they write themselves, would be an ideal partner for New Hampshire in putting together a portable online exam for New England. Just a thought!

At maximum, states should explore a radical overhaul of licensing along the lines of a diploma privilege plus system that shifts the post-graduate requirements from a rehash of doctrinal knowledge toward practical skills and experience, but that would require more will than most states seem willing to muster. And in all events, these solutions would be above the pay grade of the officials struggling to figure out how to go forward with the traditional, in-person bar exam that they’ve been tasked with pulling off.

So until there’s some action up the chain, we’re left with imperfect solutions based on imperfect information being put together by admittedly fallible people just doing their best.

(Full email reproduced on the next page.)

---

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

We all know that a legal education can land the average law school graduate in up to six figures of debt (to be specific, on average, 2018 graduates racked up $110,137 in student debt), and we all know that egregiously high tuition costs are to blame. According to the latest data from U.S. News, the average cost of tuition and fees at private schools for the 2019-2020 academic year was about $50,000, while the average in-state and out-of-state cost of tuition and fees at public schools was $28,046 and $41,549, respectively.

But which law schools had the most costly tuition for the 2019-2020 academic year?

The Short List blog of U.S. News has compiled a ranking for that, and it’s not at all shocking that almost all 10 schools that made the list are private. At these law schools, the median tuition and fees for the 2019-2020 academic year was at least $$67,275. Only one public school made the list. Pop your collar if you can guess which one it is.

SCHOOL		TUITION AND FEES (2019-2020)		U.S. NEWS RANK
Columbia University		$72,465		4 (tie)
New York University		$68,934		6
University of Pennsylvania (Carey)		$67,998		7
Cornell University		$67,833		13
Duke University		$67,358		12
University of Southern California (Gould)		$67,191		18   (tie)
Harvard University		$67,081		3
Northwestern University (Pritzker)		$66,806		9 (tie)
University of Chicago		$66,651		4 (tie)
University of Virginia		$66,200		8

It’s certainly worth noting that the law schools that made this list are among the best in the country. At highly ranked schools like these, you get what you pay for, and in the law school world, that usually means a high-paying paid job as an attorney that will allow you to service your enormous debt obligations in a timely fashion — and to be quite frank, with up to six figures of debt to pay off, that’s priceless.

No matter where you decide to go to law school, make sure that you evaluate what your payoff will be when graduation time rolls around. Given the information that’s readily available online, will you be able to find a job? Will you be able to make ends meet while making payments on your law school loans? If you don’t think the answer to these questions are “yes,” then you may want to consider another school.

10 Most Expensive Law Schools [Short List / U.S. News]

---

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

A memorable lesson in journalism that I learned during an internship in college came from the dull task of writing out the arrest reports. My editor warned me to state that a suspect was arrested “on a charge” of a crime, not “for” it, because even so subtle a difference in wording in such a small, quotidian item would imply guilt and be grounds for a libel suit if the suspect were acquitted.

I couldn’t help thinking back to the lessons of my cub reporter days as I read about Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden –- and witnessed its mishandling by several left-wing “activist journalists.”

In their zeal to boost Reade’s accusation and lend credence to her claims, people like podcaster Katie Halper, Current Affairs editor Nathan Robinson, and many others effectively presumed Biden’s guilt. But mounting evidence has raised serious doubts about the veracity of Reade’s allegation and her own credibility — mounting evidence uncovered, I should add, by professionally trained journalists who actually knew what they were doing.

To be sure, no concrete proof –- in the form of damning or exonerating documentary or photographic evidence –- has surfaced of whether Biden is guilty or innocent, or of whether Reade’s allegation is true or false. Because of that, only a fair and impartial examination can determine whether the totality of evidence at hand favors or disfavors her allegation or remains inconclusive. But this isn’t really about Reade, Biden, or sexual assault — it’s about how activist journalism is ill-equipped to provide such an examination, and how its poor handling of the Reade story is a shining example of that.

Activist journalism is what I call a particular type of journalism that emerged in the late aughts and early 2010s, promoted by people like Julian Assange and Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald, who has also promoted Reade’s story, described it thusly in 2013: “I approach my journalism as a litigator. People say things, you assume they are lying, and dig for documents to prove it.”

To put it another way, what distinguishes activist journalism from the 19th century partisan press, opinion writing, or even the tilted coverage of Fox News is its explicit and self-conscious rejection of objectivity and impartiality, which have been mainstays of journalism since Walter Lippmann popularized them a century ago. While it still strives for accuracy, it reimagines journalists as openly partial activists rather than neutral observers. It arose in part due to understandable frustrations with some of the weaknesses of impartiality, such as the much-loathed bothsidesism, the occasional tendency to unintentionally comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted, and high-profile screw-ups like the Iraq war.

The progenitors of activist journalism — Greenwald, Assange, and others — entered the scene as populist disruptors of news: proudly untutored swashbucklers, free of mainstream media’s corrupting influence, bravely barging in to tear down a hoary old industry constrained by sclerotic elitism, and rebuild it for the 21st century. But while activist journalism has occasionally produced some fine work — notably Greenwald’s coverage of the Edward Snowden leaks — his 2013 description of it accidentally hinted at how applying such a litigator-like approach to journalism could create problems as well. If you’ve already decided on a narrative, there’s a danger of preferentially seeking information that supports it while downplaying, dismissing, or ignoring information that doesn’t, even if unconsciously.

And in the left’s coverage of the Tara Reade story, that danger was readily apparent.

While Halper and Robinson were careful to point out that Reade’s allegation was just that — an allegation — the undeniable subtext of their coverage was that Biden was guilty until proven innocent. Rather than investigating Reade’s claim, Halper granted her a sympathetic Q&A on her podcast. Robinson’s writing on the subject likewise treated Reade’s accusation as more credible than Biden and his campaign’s denial. Lyta Gold, Current Affairs’ managing editor, went further, calling the views of skeptics like former prosecutor Michael Stern and Salon writer Amanda Marcotte “unbelievable bullshit” and “rape apologist arguments,” equating genuine skepticism with ad hominem attacks against Reade.

From a journalistic standpoint, it’s problematic enough that these people would treat such a serious accusation as true despite lack of proof while denouncing people who asked legitimate questions as “rape apologists.” Some of Robinson’s behind-the-scenes conduct was even more troubling.

In his lengthy April 10 piece and subsequent tweets that have since vanished, Robinson wrote that he had spoken with Reade and her brother, Collin Moulton, as they were dealing with other media outlets. He wrote, “Back before the story came out, I actually warned Tara myself during our conversation that it didn’t sound from Marcotte’s inquiries that she was interested in being fair and recommended being cautious about her. I think that concern was vindicated. Marcotte used the fact that she couldn’t get a comment from Tara’s brother and friend as one of the ‘red flags’ that justified the media’s silence on Tara’s accusation.”

Moulton initially told The Washington Post that Reade had told him Biden had behaved inappropriately by touching her neck and shoulders and told ABC he had only heard about the sexual assault this spring. He subsequently told the Post that Biden had put his hand under her clothes and “clarified” to ABC that Reade had told him of the assault in 1993. But between his two statements to the Post, he had conferred over the phone with Robinson.

This has led to accusations that Robinson “coached” Reade and Moulton, which he has denied doing. But regardless of whether “coaching” accurately describes his interactions with them, what he did amounted to PR consulting, while operating in a journalistic capacity. This creates a significant conflict of interest — something that journalists are taught early on to avoid.

Then there was Eva Murry. At the beginning of this month, Murry — niece of Republican activist Christine O’Donnell — alleged that when she attended the Gridiron Dinner in 2008, at age 14, Biden complimented her breasts. “This is gross,” tweeted another Reade booster, The Intercept’s Ryan Grim. Robinson promoted Murry’s accusation as well.

There was just one problem: Despite corroboration from multiple people close to her, Murry’s accusation was demonstrably false, as Biden wasn’t even at the dinner that year or the year before. But neither Grim nor Robinson had even bothered to look into Murry’s claim. They just assumed it was true.

In the weeks since, Reade’s story hasn’t fared well either. Extensive reporting by Vox, Politico and PBS NewsHour has cast doubt on her allegation and overall credibility, as have reports that she may have exaggerated her academic credentials as an expert witness in Monterey County, California.

Those outlets’ reporting succeeded where the activist journalists’ reporting failed because while they took Reade’s allegation seriously, they also took seriously its inconsistencies. While they took into account the statements of people who corroborated that allegation, they also took into account those of people who didn’t. In other words, they approached the Tara Reade story not as litigators but simply as journalists.

That might have something to do with the fact that, per their LinkedIn profiles, all of the reporters behind those articles have journalism degrees and professional training in the field. Like Greenwald, Robinson, and Halper apparently don’t. Perhaps, then, these activist journalists could have benefited from J-school and waking up before 5 a.m. to do the cop shop report instead of jumping headfirst into a profession whose practices they clearly don’t fully understand.

---

Alaric DeArment is a reporter for MedCity News, a sister publication of ATL. However, the opinions herein are solely his own. Follow him on Twitter at @biotechvisigoth.

 

The coronavirus pandemic has hammered the world economy in a manner not seen since the Great Depression. And in a very short period of time due to travel restrictions, trade disruptions, and government lockdown orders effectively closing most businesses. The psychological effect has also made consumers more cautious about spending on discretionary and luxury goods. Instead, they panic bought basic necessities, disinfectants, and toilet paper. While government stimulus payments, increased unemployment benefits, and low-interest loans have softened the blow, they may only end up stopping the bleeding temporarily until the virus is controlled. But once the coronavirus is controlled, how will the economy recover? Or will it?

Last week, I looked at whether the government lockdown laws in response to the coronavirus were constitutional. For the most part, they are although some courts have held that some accommodations have to be given to people wishing to practice their religion. Also, some courts may also scrutinize laws that impose quarantine requirements for people coming from outside the state.

Despite the depressing news about new outbreaks and the number of deaths daily, most predict that eventually the coronavirus will be controlled, either through a vaccine or permanent lifestyle changes and government restrictions. Or governments and health officials may decide to place more attention to those who are most vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19, such as senior citizens and those with serious health conditions. Once that decision is made, businesses will be allowed to reopen with varying rules depending on the risk of infecting their customers. As businesses reopen, the economy will eventually recover. So today, I want to look at the most likely scenarios on how the economy recovers and how subsequent virus outbreaks can affect the recovery.

The best scenario is the “V-shaped” recovery, where the economy hits a brief low before quickly recovering to previous levels. Others see a “swoosh-shaped” or “checkmark-shaped” where the recovery gradually recovers over time. Finally, the Debbie Downers predict an “L-shaped” recession recovery where the economy has been damaged permanently or will not begin to recover for at least several years.

In my opinion, for a V-shaped recovery to happen, the coronavirus has to be controlled quickly and all business sectors must be allowed to reopen with minimal restrictions immediately afterward. Not only that, almost all businesses must be able to restore the status quo ante. This means that all businesses must have the same employment head count, ideally with the same employees. This was the main goal of the popular Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). But PPP did not completely succeed because some of the money was used for nonpayroll purposes. Also, some employees did not want to return to work because unemployment paid them more money to do nothing.

If the virus is controlled quickly, there will be no future outbreaks. Or at least new cases will be manageable and can be contained.

To incentivize businesses to restore the status quo, it may be a good idea to introduce a second — but smaller and stricter — PPP stimulus. While I won’t go into details, the basic idea is that the applicant will get additional funding, although a smaller amount than what they would qualify for under the original PPP. If the applicant business can show that they have rehired all of their original employees before the coronavirus and pay them 90% of what they were paid then and is able to do so for a set period, the new loan will be forgiven.

Unlike the original PPP, this program should be available to all businesses, including the large ones that may not need it. However, the larger businesses will be last in line in order to avoid the feeding frenzy that initially plagued the first PPP. In addition, businesses requesting more than $1 million must be required to rehire 95% or more of their previous employees at their full pay or higher and must maintain this employment level for at least one year. Also, the money must be used exclusively for paying pure employees. Not owner-employees. The money cannot be used for business operational expenses.

On the other hand, the longer it takes to control the coronavirus, the more likely the economic recovery will be swoosh-shaped. And there are likely to be bumps along the way because future outbreaks could result in new shutdown orders.

Under a swoosh-shaped recovery, the economy will return to previous levels but more slowly and differently. People will earn as much as they did before the virus but they will be working for a different firm or doing something completely different.

A swoosh-shaped recovery is the most likely scenario if the government has not yet found a way to control the virus. Or if they cannot do so because some people are unknowingly transmitting the virus while others are knowingly being selfish pricks. Or despite the government’s best efforts at trying to copy the success of Taiwan and South Korea, they did not reduce the number of new cases and fatalities. Despite this, businesses have adapted through the use of new technologies, sanitary best practices, or an innovative business model. Consumers have also slowly and cautiously adjusted to the new reality.

One possible benefit of a swoosh-shaped recovery is the introduction of more-efficient business models and technologies. However, I don’t see this happening in the legal profession as existing small-firm lawyers are likely to make a greater effort to reach out to the working class who may have been the victims of the collateral effects of the coronavirus such as landlord/tenant or insurance company disputes.

Personally, I think the best thing for the government to do is nothing to influence the economy. Let Adam Smith’s invisible hand do its magic. However, the government should flex its criminal enforcement muscles in order to deter aspiring con-artists from starting another Theranos.

During a swoosh-shaped recovery, future outbreaks are likely. To minimize the impact, governments will have to impose rules to minimize the chances of transmitting the virus.

Finally, a pessimistic L-shaped recovery is possible. Like the swoosh-shaped recovery, future outbreaks can slow the recovery or make things worse depending on its severity.

Some industries (such as restaurants) have been crippled and cannot operate at full capacity due to social distancing rules. Some major companies have filed for bankruptcy. And existing companies will take this opportunity to permanently remove unnecessary positions.

Some of the people who lost their jobs will not be able to get the same jobs they once did. Others may leave the workforce altogether. Or they may decide to go to law school –- to these people, listen to Jordan Rothman first.

An L-shaped recovery is likely if the government cannot control the virus for a prolonged period. But instead of businesses adapting, they are relying on government subsidies, and they will want a second or third round of government stimulus funding. Unemployment will remain high. The government and the public will have to find a way to live with this virus until a vaccine is found, if ever.

The government will try one or two more rounds of stimulus spending. After that, they will probably get tired of throwing good money after bad. Then, they will spend more resources on finding a vaccine. In the meantime, they may reluctantly resort to harsh enforcement measures to control the spread of the virus. Law enforcement will strictly enforce stay at home orders. For those of you who think the government is infringing your civil rights now, you haven’t seen nothing yet. The public may also take it upon themselves to enforce the rules instead of making snide comments on internet comment forums.

So there are the three likely economic recovery scenarios. There are others. It seems like the deciding factor on how the economy recovers will be how fast this country and the world can control the coronavirus and prevent a second wave. Otherwise, subsequent waves will slow the economic recovery. The U.S. should figure out its own way to control the coronavirus instead of trying to copy other countries. On the other hand, there may be some who do not want the coronavirus controlled just yet as this may be the one chance to influence the U.S. elections and the global status quo. More on that in my next column.

---

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.

On Friday 22nd May the Minister of Health and Child Care published yet another SI amending the Lock-down Order:  it is the Public Health (COVID-19 Prevention, Containment and Treatment) (National Lockdown) (Amendment) Order, 2020 (No. 9), SI 115/2020, and it can be accessed on the Veritas website [link].  So too can a consolidated version of the Lock-down Order incorporating the amendments made by this latest SI [link].

Effect of the Amendments

Outdoor exercise

The SI amends section 4 of the Lock-down Order to allow people to leave their homes for exercise, but only in pairs.  Previously, and rather oddly, people were allowed to leave for exercise in groups of up to 50.  While exercising, people will have to observe the social distancing rule ‒ i.e. keep at least one metre apart ‒ and wear face-masks.

Sport

The SI imposes new conditions and restrictions on people participating in or watching low-risk sports.  Previously people were free to engage in low-risk sports ‒ the term was defined to cover specific sports such as archery, golf, fencing, motor sports, shooting cycling, archery, swimming, athletics, tennis, chess and draughts, etc. [are these last two really sports?] ‒ so long as they observed the precautions laid down in section 11G of the Lock-down Order.

The new rules imposed by the SI are much more restrictive:

• The definition of “low-risk sport” is altered to cover non-contact sports where social distancing is possible and which are classified and specified by the Minister of Youth, Sport, Arts and Recreation.  Whenever she specifies a sports code she will have to give notice of the specification in whatever way she thinks appropriate to whoever she thinks needs to know about it.

Note that until the Minister classifies sports codes for the purposes of the definition, no one is allowed to engage in any sport whatever. 

• Anyone who wants to engage in a sport that has been specified and classified as low-risk will have to apply in writing to the Ministry of Sport for permission to do so.
• The Ministry will give permission if satisfied that:
• before engaging in the sport, participants will be temperature-checked and will sanitise their hands
• participants and spectators will observe the social distancing rule and spectators will, in addition, wear face-masks
• participants will not share personal sports equipment, water bottles, etc.
• face-masks, tissues, wipes, gloves and sanitisers will be available to participants
• if there is a risk from physical contact with equipment, gloves will be used.
• Venues where low-risk sports are played must not open before 8.30 a.m. and must be closed by 4.30 p.m., except with the permission of an enforcement officer.
• At venues where low-risk sports are played:
• no alcohol may be served
• only take-away food may be served
• not more than 50 spectators are allowed to attend, unless an enforcement officer permits a larger number.
• If an enforcement officer requires it, participants and competitors must submit to screening and testing for Covid-19.

Points to note

Some points that sportspeople should remember:

• No one can play, participate in or train for any sport, whether high, medium or low risk, until the Minister has classified and specified it.
• Before anyone plays, participates in or trains for a low-risk sport which the Minister has classified and specified, they will have to get permission from the Ministry of Sport.

How practical these restrictions are, and whether anyone will observe them, remains to be seen.

Veritas makes every effort to ensure reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied.

/2020

Post published in: Featured

Indeed, this is mighty commendable and praiseworthy work on the part of the Christian community, as such is exactly what is expected of a people who are supposed to be representing Jesus Christ, and abiding by God’s teachings and commandments on their role in this world – which is, predominantly, to stand with the afflicted, and speak out for the voiceless.

However, unfortunately, this sudden show of force by the Christian community has rather been found wanting in other respects.

As much as the COVID-19 pandemic is certainly a catastrophic occurence, which requires the loud voice of God’s children to be powerfully and unequivocally heard – Zimbabwe had, nonetheless, already been suffering under a more destructive, heinous, and malicious scourge for the past forty years – which, has iniquitously wrecked millions upon millions of innocent and defenceless Zimbabweans’ lives.

Yet, never has the same unambiguous, forceful, and unyielding outpouring of indignation – as commendably displayed during this COVID-19 period – been expressed by the Christian community.

Why is that so? As a devout Christian myself, I am left profoundly dumbfounded!

Are Christians telling Zimbabweans that God – who we know to be loving, compassionate, and a hater of sin – would only condemn a pandemic that, most assuredly, is wrecking havoc amongst us, especially here in Zimbabwe, but not say a word against a regime that has cold-heartedly butchered over 20,000 innocent men, women, and children (including, unborn babies, who were gouged out from their pregnant mothers’ wombs with bayonets), that has left over 5 million of its own citizens living on the brink of starvation (which, according to the United Nations was largely man-made, due to government incompetence), with millions more reduced to abject poverty (unable to afford even the most basic essentials for their daily sustenance)?

Are Christians saying that the God we so proudly serve is blind and uncaring to the scores more innocent and unarmed people who were mercilessly gunned down by security forces (purportedly, because they were protesting violently), or the hundreds more, who were brutally hacked to death, for supporting the opposition, or those three women (amongst many other political and labour activists) who were recently allegedly abducted, ruthlessly beaten up, atrociously sexually ravaged, and callously abandoned at some road side?

If Christians can be quiet, and pretend that nothing of this sort is happening in this country, then, what image of God are we portraying to the world?

We have already – through this COVID-19 pandemic – shown that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is there for us, loves us, cares for us, and protects us from any calamity. So, what is our silence saying when it comes to the other – arguably, more devastating and vicious – scourge tormenting the people of Zimbabwe?

Let us never forget that God Himself in Proverbs 31:8,9 –  amongst a whole host of other biblical verses – commands us to: “Open your mouth for the speechless, in the cause of all who are left desolate. Open your mouth…and plead for the cause of the poor and needy”.

God is unambiguously instructing us, as Christians, to OPEN OUR MOUTHS for those who are voiceless, who are oppressed, subjugated, and suppressed. He is commanding us to OPEN OUR MOUTHS for the poor and needy.

Yes, donating food, clothes, blankets, and other necessities to the poor and needy is a very essential part of our caring and loving mission as Christians – but, as far as God is concerned, that is clearly not enough.

We need to STAND UP, and SPEAK OUT against all forms of injustice and evil perpetrated by the powerful upon the weak and defenceless.

That is our mission. Yet, we are found nowhere in that regard.

Are we scared? Do we fear men over God? If so, then we need to seriously and honestly reevaluate our sincerity as Christians.

The Bible itself is full of stories of men and women of God who stood up against the most powerful kings and queens, in rebuking them for their wayward and sinful ways.

Have we forgotten Elisha’s condemnation of King Jehu, or Elijah’s uncompromising stance against King Ahab (and Queen Jezebel), or Isaiah’s brave rebuke of King Hezekiah, or Shemaiah’s words of disapproval against King Rehoboam, or Ahijah’s boldness against King Jeroboam, not forgetting Samuel’s unshaken castigation of King Saul, Nathan’s unflinching words against King David, and even John the Baptist’s denouncement of King Herod?

Indeed, these kings wantonly perverted nearly all of Jehovah’s commandments – including, disobedience to God’s simple instructions, worshipping false gods (idolatry), adultery, and murder.

Yet, the true men and women of God OPENED THEIR MOUTHS and SPOKE OUT against such despicable and unrighteous acts.

Were they not afraid of these kings’ potential murderous reactions? Of course, they were afraid. Very afraid.

In fact, when God sent Samuel to anoint David as the next king, he openly expressed his apprehension at King Saul’s possible anger – yet, Jehovah strengthened him, and he proceeded to bravery carry out his mandate.

John the Baptist was even imprisoned, and subsequently decapitated by King Herod for his bold retribution of his adulterous marriage to Herodius (his own brother’s wife).

Jesus Christ Himself, warned His disciples that they would be persecuted, and put to death for His name’s sake – but, that did not stop them from carrying out their mission with the utmost dedication, zeal, and faithfulness, as they were emboldened by the Holy Spirit, even to the death.

These remarkable men of God did not just limit their activities to praying for their nations, nor did they merely offer words of comfort and encouragement to their kings and people.

No. They acted on God’s commandments for us to OPEN OUR MOUTHS when the more powerful treat the weaker with disdain, oppression, and downright evil.

Yet, here in Zimbabwe – where the ruling establishment is distinctly in violation of every commandment of Jehovah God Almighty – His representatives of are known for their deafening silence.

Which commandment have those in power in Zimbabwe not maliciously violated?

From idolatry and evil worship (as even attested by the late former President Robert Gabriel Mugabe’s deathbed fear, that they would use his corpse for ritualistic purposes to enhance their powers), to killing (as witnessed by the thousands upon thousands who have savagely perished directly at this regime’s hands, or millions more through lack of nutritious meals, or medications, due to the authorities’ gross negligence), committing adultery (who does not know these officials’ promiscuous lifestyles), stealing (through unfettered corruption and looting of national resources), and even bearing false witness (as they incessantly accuse opposition activists of numerous unsubstantiated crimes).

We, as the Zimbabwean Church, are, therefore, not expected to do any less than our forefathers – in confronting, with Holy Spirit boldness and conviction, all those in authority – of course, with the respect that the Bible commands, but with the truth that God demands of us.

For far too long, the Christian Church has bore the uneviable history of being associated with colonization, slavery, and another acts of oppression and subjugation – characterized by allegations that these people came holding the Bible in one hand, whilst brandishing a gun in another – such that, most people across the world have, understandably, always perceived us of being colonial tools.

Nonetheless, this was all the work of Satan the Devil, who obviously sought to tarnish the image of Christianity, as we are supposed to be the exact opposite – mandated to be agents of freedom and emancipation, instead.

The time has now come, that we finally stood up, and spoke out firmly and unequivocally for what God truly sent us to do – for the oppressed, needy and poor, and against all forms of injustice and oppression.

As the Apostle Paul said, it is more fulfilling to die for the sake of Christ, than to die because of sin.

Thus, even all that I write and say, is of God – not of any political party. For even if I am to be killed today or tomorrow, by those I boldly speak against, no opposition political entity can ever truthfully claim that they knew me, nor was I their supporter or member – yet, Christ Jesus Himself will certainly proclaim, “Most assuredly, I knew him, and I sent him to say those things”.

For that, I am proud of.

© Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a Christian social justice activist, writer, author, and speaker. Please feel free to contact him on WhatsApp/Calls: +263733399640 / +263715667700, or Calls Only: +263782283975 / +263788897936, or email: [email protected]

Post published in: Featured

You don’t always think of Biglaw firms as “relatable,” but the coronavirus is weird like that. A Biglaw firm finds itself the defendant in a lawsuit over an issue a lot of folks feel right now — late rent.

According to the lawsuit, filed in Illinois, the Biglaw firm of Jenner & Block is behind on its rent for the firm’s Chicago office. Landlord Hart 353 North Clark LLC, affiliate of global real estate investment management firm Heitman LLC, said in a lawsuit filed May 20th in Cook County Circuit Court the firm owes $3,726,415.74, plus late fees and interest, for its 416,000+ square feet of office space.

But not so fast, the firm contends their lease provides an out. Randy Mehrberg, co-managing partner, told Law360 that the firm’s partners are availing themselves of a provision in their lease agreement that provides rent abatement if the space cannot be used as intended. And he assures everyone this rent dispute is not a harbinger of financial troubles for the firm:

“Our Chicago office lease includes a negotiated provision for rent abatement in the event of a situation, like the global pandemic, that renders the firm unable to use and occupy the space for its intended purpose. The firm has invoked that provision,” Randy Mehrberg, co-managing partner of Jenner & Block, said in a statement to Law360 on Tuesday.

“We have credited the landlord for the limited space we have been able to use for its intended purpose,” Mehrberg said. “Jenner & Block has a very strong financial position; this dispute is exclusively about the enforcement of that provision in the lease.”

In 2019, the firm made $448,005,000 in gross revenue, making it 87 on the Am Law 100 ranking.

John M. Riccione of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP represents the landlord. He said the landlord is “committed to a proactive engagement with their partners and tenants to address any challenges constructively that have arisen from this crisis.”

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Having lost control of a number of the subsidiaries of his film company, been sued by a major investor therein—the majorest investor of them all, BlackRock, to boot—gotten fired by said film company, and seen his chief patron at said investor fired in turn for, among other things, the unseemly optics of investing roughly 10% of his fund’s assets in a company that cast his daughter in one of its films, William Sadleir looked back and expressed regret at the way the whole thing had gone down. Specifically, his forging of the aforementioned fund manager’s signature on some phony agreements between them.