Canada has the right idea - by Judge Jim Gray

This past weekend I joined about 2,000 other people at a convention called Freedom Fest in Las Vegas. In many ways it was intensely discouraging. In many other even more important ways, it was encouraging and exhilarating.

The discouraging part dealt with our present economy and the forecasts for the immediate future. Many seemingly knowledgeable people stated forcibly that we cannot have a sustainable economic recovery with such large government spending and deficits and no gain in job creation. At the moment, our government spending is at the rate of about 39% of the gross national product. In addition, this year we are running a deficit of about $1.35 trillion, with estimates that next year it will be three to four times that number.

Simply stated, this government spending will put our economy and probably the world into a depression.

As a result, I came home and sold all of my mutual funds. At the moment they are not a good investment. Our own government underscores that fact, because it is making it increasingly difficult to move our assets out of the country. For decades we looked with disapproval at the governments of Third World countries that had adopted regulations punishing people for moving their assets abroad, but now our government is doing the very same thing. Most discouraging!

Furthermore, we heard that our government is trying to convert our nation's financial advisors and securities brokers into policemen. Under the so-called Patriot Act, which has been heartily embraced by the Obama administration, it is a crime for financial counselors to see something in our financial patterns that "even appears suspicious" without reporting it to the federal authorities. And, according to many of the counselors, this has little to do with terrorism or even drug money laundering, and instead it simply has to do with possible avoidance of taxes. This is the depth to which our government now has fallen.

So in the face of all of this reality, how could I emerge optimistic? Because it was reaffirmed, again and again, that freedom works! The free enterprise system, buttressed by private property rights, a fair and just judicial system for all, and a smaller, less intrusive, and less expensive government, can and will bring us out of these problems! These are what have made our country strong and great throughout our history, and they will do it again!

Canada is a magnificent example of this. Most of us think of Canada as being socialist, and it certainly still is in its health-care system. Furthermore Canada richly deserved that label in its entirety until the late 1990s. Between 1976 and 1995, the percentage of Canada's deficits went up from 35% to a full 78% of its GNP, government spending reached up to 53% of the nation's GNP, and welfare payments increased from 5% of the budget in 1980 to 10% in 1991. So all of this resulted in the Wall Street Journal running an article Jan. 12, 1995, that called Canada an honorary member of the Third World because of the weakness of (what the newspaper called) the Canadian Peso.

The article triggered enormous reforms in Canada. In view of the reality that one-third of every dollar paid in taxes was being spent simply on interest payments on the national deficit, concerned citizens and the media went over the heads of the politicians and sent their message directly to the people that the deficits must be strongly reduced. And the best way to accomplish this was to reduce government spending, and to stimulate the economy by reducing taxes. The people listened and responded.

As a result of pressure for these basic changes from the voters, within a few years all of the political parties in Canada were in favor of reducing the deficit — including the Liberal Party and the Socialist Party! The only debates were what spending and which taxes to reduce — and how much. Thus, since 1997 the federal workforce has been reduced by 14%, and all taxes have been reduced as well, including income, sales, capital gains and estate taxes. This combination of actions has reduced the spending of the Canadian government from 53% to about 39.7% in 2008. Our level is about 39%, but estimates are that by two years from now ours will be even higher, and theirs even lower.

Contrary to the warnings of the critics, even though government spending and taxes were materially reduced, government revenues remained the same. As a result, Canada now has one of the strongest economies in the world. The recession we have experienced in our country was appreciably milder and shorter in Canada, its job market has been strong, and its real estate has held its value. Canada's fiscal deficit for this year is projected to be about $33 billion, which, at less than 3% of its GDP, is considered manageable. On the other hand, our estimated federal deficit is $1.35 trillion, or about 9.2% of our GDP. But nevertheless there was much optimism at Freedom Fest because we know we can learn from our mistakes and from Canada's example, and we can turn things around by returning to our roots.

So basically we have two choices: We can either view these present circumstances with despair, or we can view them as a challenge. Most of the participants at the conference were not really worried about our future because throughout our history Americans have always risen to a challenge. In other words, all we need to do to regain our strength and our dreams is simply to repress our self-pitying and resentful sides, and return to being Americans. And I know that we will!

JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of "Wearing the Robe: the Art and Responsibility of Judging in Today's Courts" (Square One Publishers, 2010), Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, A Voter's Handbook, Effective Solutions To America's Problems and can be reached at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or http://www.judgejimgray.com. Judge Jim Gray is also currently offering his 25 years of experience on the bench to ADR Services in Orange County for Arbitration and Mediation services.

Look to Mexican example of crime prevention - by Judge Jim Gray

A crime prevention program being used in Mexico has reduced rape by 26%, family violence 34%, house burglary 22% and robbery 30%. These results are all the more impressive because the state of Sonora, just south of Arizona, is home to three violent drug cartels, and violent crime is increasing almost everywhere else around that country.

The program was founded by Santiago Roel, and when it was adopted by the state's governor they announced together that it would decrease the offenses they specified by 25%. In doing this, the program focused upon results or outcomes, which means crime statistics. But it did not measure all crimes, just the ones they specified, and it also measured the areas, days of the week, and even time of day in which those crimes were committed. So in effect they were able to produce a statistical profile of each selected crime.

Next, the program members formed a team with public officials and the police, and shared their findings, after which they implemented the doctrine of "focus, measure and decide." That means that the team members focused upon only the specified crimes so that they did not misspend their energy, measured the current statistics about just those crimes, and then decided the best approach to take for the prevention of those crimes. Once they reached that point, they only allowed themselves the option of making one of three decisions, which was to go ahead, re-think their conclusions, or ask for more information.

In most jurisdictions, police are trained only to be reactive, which means that they respond to reports of crimes, investigate them, and then locate and help to prosecute the offenders. In other words, those police are "fighting crime." But with this different approach, the police were trained to think preventively, and then to share the information they received where it would do the most good, which is with the potential victims in the most vulnerable areas.

They then added the media as members of the team, because it's the best way to share information with potential victims. And when the statistics were published widely by the media in those specific areas for all to see, the potential victims became the final members of the team.

In addition, the media became so interested in receiving so much current and accurate data, they soon started interviewing victims and seeking out their own crime prevention specialists, and publishing additional findings and recommendations.

After the media published the raw statistics for about a month, the manner of publishing was simplified to be much more readable and easily understood. The statistics were published in the form of one traffic light for each crime: red if the crime continued at the same level or greater than when the program began, green if it were reduced by the stated goal of 25% or more, and yellow if it were in between those two levels.

Family violence was the first area to result in a green light because family violence and rape can be decreased extensively with accurate information. For example, about 40% of all rapists are actually family members or "friends." Once that information was disseminated, potential victims began to see the warning signs for themselves and their family members much earlier and more clearly, and then they naturally took preventive actions.

The most valuable resource in crime prevention is information, and in most cases it has already been compiled. Thus this information is mostly available for free. One of the things the crime information showed them was that about 30% of the automobile thefts were committed in the parking lots of shopping malls. So when this information was published, both mall managers and the police increased security measures at shopping malls, and the drivers of the vehicles took additional preventive measures as well, all of which resulted in the number of automobile thefts being materially reduced.

Actually, people make decisions about crime prevention all the time, so this program simply sought to provide them with more accurate information which, in turn, helped them make more effective decisions. But unfortunately, today's world often works against providing accurate information. That is true because many public officials tend to hide information unless it contains good news.

In addition, many public officials consider the media to be their enemy when the news is not favorable, so making the media a part of their team is something they do not take to naturally. And finally, most public officials naturally shrink away from publicly setting difficult goals. So publishing a goal of a 25% reduction in specified crimes was not something they would naturally do.

But this program has demonstrably produced a material decrease in crimes, and no one can argue that this is a positive outcome. Without much difficulty, we could implement similar programs in our neighborhoods, and probably experience the same positive results.

You can learn more about Roel's "Applied Chaos Theory and Complex System Theory" by visiting http://www.prominix.com. And then perhaps you yourself can talk to your mayors, city council members and chiefs of police, because crime reduction is everybody's business.

http://www.judgejimgray.com

JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of "Wearing the Robe: the Art and Responsibility of Judging in Today's Courts" (Square One Publishers, 2010), Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, A Voter's Handbook, Effective Solutions To America's Problems and can be reached at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or http://www.judgejimgray.com. Judge Jim Gray is also currently offering his 25 years of experience on the bench to ADR Services in Orange County for Arbitration and Mediation services.

Beginning to see the light - by Judge Jim Gray

News flash! On June 22, the Chicago Sun-Times published an editorial recommending a radical change in our nation's drug policy. The editorial began by saying: "When will we accept that America's war on drugs is over – we lost – and it's time to get real about our drug laws?" Then the editorial continued: "Medical marijuana should be legalized. Pot more generally should be decriminalized. And the carnage in our streets and in Mexico begs that we rethink our nation's approach to the sale and use of more serious drugs as well."

People around the world and institutions like the Sun-Times are beginning to see the light, because the evidence of the failure of our policy of drug prohibition is all around us. Another of those institutions is the NAACP, whose president announced on this past June 29 that: "We are joining a growing number of medical professionals, labor organizations, law enforcement authorities, local municipalities, and approximately 56% of the public in saying that it is time to decriminalize the use of marijuana."

Why is all of this happening? Well, among other things more people are beginning to understand that many of the problems with youth gangs, such as shootings, drug sales, and even the recruitment of young people to that dead-end lifestyle, are directly traced to drug prohibition. Police can disrupt the drug trafficking of gangs only to a limited degree, but, they like Al Capone and other such thugs in the alcohol distribution business before them, can only really be put out of that lucrative business by a pronounced change in policy.

Prison overcrowding? We have filled our prisons with young men and women who have committed drug-related crimes – which the Sun-Times rightfully calls "a shameful waste of human potential and the taxpayers' money" – but, just like holding a bucket under a waterfall fills up lots of buckets with water, that act can do nothing to shut off the flow.

Foreign policy? In Mexico, where President Calderon has been waging his own war on drugs, the killing and corruption still continue to increase. The Sun-Times addresses those realities and cites the concern of many that Mexico is in danger of becoming a failed state because of them. Only the repeal of drug prohibition has the chance of saving our neighbor to the south from that fate.

So if all of these facts are becoming clear, why has this failed policy been allowed to continue? Because traditionally many people have harbored the idea that this policy, "for all of its defects," will keep drugs away from our children. But the bitter truth is that drug prohibition has made drugs stronger, cheaper and more available to our kids than any other system ever would have.

In addition to these other self-inflicted wounds, prohibition has materially increased cases of accidental drug overdose, unregulated drug poisoning, gang shootings, the killing of police and innocent victims caught in the crossfire, and AIDS infections and hepatitis contracted from dirty needles. And since we will never run out of people who are willing to take risks for selling small quantities of drugs for large amounts of money, the most effective way we can bring peace back to our streets, neighborhoods, and schools is to repeal the fundamental cause of the disruption, which is drug prohibition.

Furthermore, there are only so many resources allocated to the criminal justice system, so the "tougher" we get on drug crimes, literally the "softer" we get on the prosecution of everything else. Thus with a change away from drug prohibition, our law enforcement agencies will be able to divert scarce resources back to the underfunded investigation and prosecution of other crimes like robbery, rape, murder and fraud.

But there is even more! Today our country exports more cash to other countries because of the sales of illicit drugs than anything else, except oil. Forget all of our purchases of Toyota automobiles and Sony television sets, the bigger cash outflow is brought about by illegal drugs. And by the way, think of the reduced violence the repeal of drug prohibition will bring to countries like Colombia, Afghanistan, Thailand, Bolivia, Mexico and Nigeria, as well as the accompanying loss of profits and power to the drug lords and cartels there that today are thriving under our present policy!

Finally, the laws of drug prohibition have also resulted in a virtual prohibition of medical research on addiction and related problems. But with the recent liberalization of attitudes, medical science has begun to learn more about the properties of many of these presently illicit drugs. For example, in addition to its other perceived benefits, there is some indication that medical marijuana can also be helpful for autistic children. (For more information, please visit http://www.UF4A.org.)

You can help in this inevitable movement by supporting the "Tax and Regulate Cannabis Act of 2010," which will be on the November ballot and which would treat marijuana like alcohol for adults. Its most effective result will be to make marijuana less available for children than it is today by tightening the laws against selling or furnishing marijuana to people under the age of 21. (Of course today the illegal marijuana dealers don't ask for I.D.) And this measure expressly will not affect existing laws about driving under the influence or behavior in the workplace. Of course, it will also have the side benefit of taxing our state's largest cash crop, which will help our state's balance of payments problems.

Ironically, my generation of the 1960s has supported the punishment of our children's youthful drug indiscretions that takes away their freedoms, dignity, reputations, hope, Pell grants and otherwise bright futures for doing the very same thing that many of them did at the same age! Ask yourselves, do you think that incarceration would have helped the lives and careers of Presidents Bill Clinton or Barack Obama – or the Olympic career of swimmer Michael Phelps? No, although marijuana certainly has its harms, the most harmful thing connected to marijuana today is jail. You can help us in November to reduce many of those harms.

JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of "A Voter's Handbook: Effective Solutions to America's Problems" (The Forum Press, 2010). He can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net, or through his website at http://www.JudgeJimGray.com.

Living his masterpiece daily - by Judge Jim Gray

I want to add my voice and discuss the life and enduring legacy of Johnny Wooden. This great UCLA basketball coach, teacher and family man left us on June 4 at the age of 99, and I cannot think of anyone who better exemplified the way a life should be lived. One of his mottos was to "Make each day your masterpiece," and that is what he did.

When I was a freshman at UCLA in 1963, I happened to have a basketball class at the men's gym that ended at 3 p.m., which was the time the men's varsity team began its practices. I stayed so frequently to watch that later, when they closed the practices to the public, they still allowed me to remain.

The 1963-64 academic year was when UCLA won its first national basketball championship, with 30 wins and no losses, and if you think Walt Hazzard made some great plays during the games, you should have seen what he did during the practices. But the thing that really got my attention was the meticulous planning that obviously went into each practice session.

At the practices, Coach Wooden carried with him a small piece of paper that seemed to have everything organized down to the minute. In fact, he put into operation his motto that "Practice doesn't make perfect – only perfect practice makes perfect."

Coach Wooden would always be teaching during the practices, with such comments as "Be quick, but don't hurry." There was also a time in which one player made a good pass to a teammate for a layup, and Coach stopped the practice and observed that the player who received the pass had not acknowledged or thanked the one who had fed him the ball.

Then he said: "You cannot win a basketball game without cooperation. So thank your teammate when you receive it."

Coach Wooden did not particularly prepare his team to play against any specific opponent. Instead he prepared his players to play their own game as best they could, and let their opponents prepare for them. And never once did I hear Coach mention winning. Instead, he spoke about doing the best they could, and that would be good enough. Those were some of the great lessons in life that I learned from Coach Wooden.

His personal lifestyle reflected his teachings. John Wooden was one of the most celebrated coaches of all time, but he lived in a modest condominium in Encino. He won 10 national basketball championships, but before he kept any championship ring for himself, he made sure that each of his children and grandchildren had one. Throughout his career, which obviously included many pressure-filled moments, he was never heard to utter language stronger than "goodness gracious sakes alive!" (But that happened frequently, and his players knew they were in trouble when they heard it.)

About 10 years ago I sent a letter to Coach Wooden that explained my truly modest connection to the 1963-64 championship team, and asked him to diagram his famous and successful full court press and send it back to me so that I could put it on the wall in my chambers. Almost by return mail he did as I requested, and also sent along a signed picture, as well as a copy of his pivotally instructive "Pyramid of Success," which was his teaching system based upon such things as cooperation and personal responsibility. I framed those three mementos, and they will always have a position of prominence in my life.

Coach Wooden's devotion to his wife Nell, who was his high school sweetheart, was legendary, it has been reported. She died in 1985 after being married to the coach for 52 years, and Coach Wooden made no secret of his desire to rejoin her after his own death. Before each game he would look up to her in the stands and blow her a kiss. Many years later when he was asked if he would allow the UCLA basketball floor at Pauley Pavilion to be dedicated to him, he said yes, but only if it would be dedicated jointly to him and to Nell, and that her name should come first. That is the way it is to this day.

John Wooden was a competitor and is only one of three people to be selected to the Basketball Hall of Fame as both a player and as a coach. (The other two are Lenny Wilkens and Bill Sharman.) In addition, Wooden made 134 consecutive free throws over a 45-game stretch while playing for Purdue, which shows his own individual attention to perfection.

But none of those achievements are as strong as his legacy of being a great teacher.

As he said: "There is nothing more satisfying for a teacher than watching his students make his lessons their own." In his teachings, Coach Wooden had many mottos that set forth his direction, such as "Learn as if you were to live forever, live as if you were to die tomorrow;" "Make friendship a fine art;" "Drink deeply from good books;" and "Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are." His life set forth the results of putting those mottos into practice.

Honestly, with the passing of Coach John Wooden, my life will never be quite the same.

As he once said, "A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment."

In various ways, he has taught and given correction to hundreds of thousands of people, including myself, and I don't think there is a resentment anywhere to be found. Just like when I lost my wonderful parents, my father just short of his 80th birthday, and my mother at age 84, I have no complaints.

My parents lived good, useful and full lives, but I simply miss them. And I feel the same way about Johnny Wooden. Thank you coach. Your life was truly a masterpiece, and I will miss you.

http://www.judgejimgray.com

Proactive approach to gangs needed - by Judge Jim Gray

Do you want to have a disturbing experience? Then read the book "This Is for the Mara Salvatrucha: Inside the MS-13, America's Most Violent Gang" by Samuel Logan (Hyperion, 2009). The word "mara" is Spanish for "gang," and the word Salvatrucha in El Salvador is slang for "street smart."

This juvenile gang was formed in 1980s Los Angeles by immigrants who were fleeing the civil war in El Salvador. But since many of the founders were former guerrilla fighters, they brought with them a cavalier attitude toward life and death. This in turn facilitated their use of extreme violence that even shocked other gangs in the area. But it also enabled MS-13 eventually to take control of large amounts of gang territory.

By 1996, the U.S. government adopted a policy of deporting MS-13 members back to their countries of origin, in many cases after serving jail or prison sentences here. Unfortunately in many ways that strategy backfired, because it resulted in the deportees using their knowledge, experiences and prison connections to form similar MS-13 gangs around the world.

Today there are estimated to be somewhere between 60,000 and 80,000 members of MS-13. They range all over our country from Alaska to New York, with strongholds in the D.C. area, Nashville, Dallas, Houston, Denver, Charlotte, New Orleans and Knoxville, in addition to Los Angeles. They are also found in Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Spain. All of this makes MS-13 almost as organized and all-pervasive as the Mafia.

The initiation process conveys the depths to which this gang has descended. Males mostly go through the initiation process of receiving the brutality of a full-on assault with unrestrained punches and kicks from the gang members for 13 seconds. The females, who make up about 1% of the membership, can either be initiated in the same way as the males, or they can be "sexed-in," which means that the girl is repeatedly raped by all of the males present until the males are satisfied. But this process also gives those young women almost sub-human status in the eyes of the other members.

The MS-13 makes its money the same way most other criminal gangs do, which is by being involved in extortion and dealing in human, arms and drug trafficking. But due to their reputation for gruesome violence, MS-13 members are also often hired by other gangs as contract killers.

The story of the book centers on a personable and bright young lady named Brenda Paz, who was sent by her parents from Honduras to live with her uncle in Texas. But since this uncle had little time or inclination to treat this "additional mouth to feed" with any affection or caring, she soon sought her "family support" elsewhere, which happened to be with the MS-13 gang.

The book told us that Paz was present when numbers of other crimes were committed, including a time when her boyfriend first beat severely and then killed a casual friend of hers. Eventually Paz was arrested by the FBI and questioned about the murder, and after a while she decided to become a government informant against the gang.

Unfortunately, it was obvious to everyone but Paz that being an informant was an ultra hazardous thing to do. So even though she was thoroughly warned, given a new identity and placed in safe quarters in a different state, she went back to her "friends" in the gang because of boredom and loneliness. But once the gang learned of her cooperation with the government, they lured her out to a lonely place, and brutally knifed her to death, notwithstanding the fact that she was pregnant.

Why am I using this column to discuss things like this with you? Because gangs like this can only thrive, or even exist, by default, which is to say that they fill the void when we don't show enough caring to provide positive role models for all of our children. The truth is that someone will always mentor our children, and if it is not people like parents, basketball coaches, boys and girls club leaders, or school teachers, children will be mentored by people like Charles Manson or gangs like MS-13. These malignant people are always out there recruiting, and when they get hold of children it doesn't take long to get them into a "Lord of the Flies" mentality, which can quickly result in the brutalities and initiation rites used by MS-13.

With this understanding, when I see in the news that people have rallied to raise enough money to preserve the "Hollywood" sign, but positive programs for youth mentoring and employment like Homeboy Industries instituted in gang territories in Los Angeles by Father Gregory Boyle die for lack of funding, I really get frustrated.

So we should address and be pro-active with these problems right now, because ignoring them will result in them becoming more severe. Thus if you want seriously to reduce human tragedies in our communities, as well as crimes and the costs of putting so many people in prison, help to support programs that provide positive mentoring to all of our children. You know where they are, and most of them desperately need our help.

Do you remember the comments printed a few weeks ago in this column from my friend Dr. Earl Fuller about the young men in Pelican Bay State Prison? They told him that they expected to be dead by the age of 25, so under those circumstances it really didn't matter what violence they inflicted upon others, or what violence was inflicted upon them. Why? Because they would be dead soon anyway. Is this the way we want our communities to be? I know that we can do better than that!

JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of "Wearing the Robe: the Art and Responsibility of Judging in Today's Courts" (Square One Publishers, 2010), Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, A Voter's Handbook, Effective Solutions To America's Problems and can be reached at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or http://www.judgejimgray.com. Judge Jim Gray is also currently offering his 25 years of experience on the bench to ADR Services in Orange County for Arbitration and Mediation services.

The corrupting of traffic citations - by Judge Jim Gray

In many parts of the country, police have expressly been instructed to issue more traffic citations in order to generate revenue to counteract governmental budget deficits. For example, this has happened in the metropolitan Detroit area, where the state of Michigan reduced its revenue sharing with communities by $3 billion. More tickets have been issued there for driving as little as 5 mph above the speed limit, and traffic warnings have virtually become a thing of the past.

The reason for this action was stated succinctly by the president of the Police Officers Assn. of Michigan, who said: "When elected officials say 'We need more money,' they can't look to the department of public works to raise revenues, so where do they find it? Police departments."

Michael Reaves, the chief of police in Utica, Mich., explained the situation this way: "When I first started in this job 30 years ago, police work was never about revenue enhancement, but if you're a chief now, you have to look at whether your department produces revenues."

An even more direct comment came from Sgt. Richard Lyons of Trenton, Mich., went like this: "They're trying to use police officers to balance the budget on the backs of drivers, and it's too bad. . . . We might as well just go door to door and tell people: 'Slide us $100 now since your 16-year-old is going to end up paying us anyway when he starts driving.' You can't blame people for getting upset."

In Virginia, where a campaign was launched under the title of "Operation Air, Land & Speed," state troopers were ordered to issue as many citations as humanly possible during one particular weekend along Interstates 95 and 81. That effort resulted in the issuance of 6,996 traffic citations. The published reason for the program was that the state had a big deficit, and it needed to find some quick sources of money.

According to California Watch and the Investigative Reporting Program at UC Berkeley, our state has also undertaken similar fundraising programs. For example, these two groups reported that during 2009 alone, sobriety checkpoints in California yielded approximately $40 million in state fines and towing fees.

Similarly, the revenue in Los Angeles from red-light cameras doubled from $200,000 per month in 2007 to $400,000 per month by the end of 2009. And this occurred even though several studies had found that those cameras increase traffic collisions and injuries. How so? Because the presence of red-light cameras often results in people unexpectedly slamming on their brakes to avoid a citation, and this directly leads to more rear-end collisions. Nevertheless studies like that did not deter officials in the Washington state from choosing in 2005 to expand the red-light camera programs, because they produced revenues of $32 million.

The best way to reduce traffic collisions at crash-prone intersections is the lengthening of the yellow lights. But, of course, since that action does not put money into the bank accounts of local governments, those adjustments are seldom chosen. To the contrary, some of our state officials are now encouraging the addition of speed sensors to the existing red-light cameras. Why? Because state officials have estimated that those sensors could raise another $300 million for the state by the end of 2011.

Unfortunately, in some jurisdictions the institutional corruption brought about by these approaches has actually been compounded. For example, for a while the private companies that were involved in the enforcement of the traffic fines in Washington, D.C., actually got to pocket a portion of the proceeds, until citizen complaints resulted in that practice being terminated as a transparent conflict of interest.

This is not the purpose of traffic laws. In fact, the use of the Criminal Justice System in this manner constitutes an intolerable institutional corruption. Yes, it is appropriate to assess traffic fines, and it is also appropriate for the revenues received to be used to pay for public expenses. But the purpose of traffic laws is to keep us safe on our streets and highways, and no good purpose can be achieved by changing that focus.

Why is this so? I can think of four reasons. First, if traffic police are used as a revenue source, there will be a tendency to divert them onto traffic duties and away from other duties that would keep us safe.

Second, our way of government requires the good will of the people being "served" by that government. So if people start to see police officers as predators, that good will could be seriously and maybe even irretrievably compromised.

An 80-year-old woman from Bloomfield Hills, Mich., put that thought this way after she received a citation for running a red light that she insists she did not commit: "I told one officer that I used to tell my children that police officers are their friends — but with the (traffic citation) quotas, they are not any more."

Third, the more that police have a vested interest in securing convictions for traffic offenses, the more likely they would be to stretch the truth in their testimony in court. Not a good situation. And fourth, this approach further expands the role and intrusion of government, which will breed more cynicism and cause us to get even closer to the time that governments will tax us on every breath we take.

There certainly are more reasons as well. Do we want law enforcement officers, and even justice itself, to be seen as a means of simply gathering revenues? Please contemplate where a system like that could take us. Yes, most governments now have budgetary problems, but the costs of bringing in the criminal justice system to help alleviate them are simply too great a price to pay.

www.judgejimgray.com

Right to be 'Rule of Law' city - by Judge Jim Gray

OK, let's calm down and see these recent developments in Arizona and even the city of Costa Mesa for what they really are. They have little or nothing to do with racism and everything to do with legitimate frustration, and even desperation, about the entire situation with illegal immigrants (or undocumented workers, if you prefer). So from the standpoint of all good people, it is simply time for something affirmative to be done!

The first substantive column I wrote for this series was published on July 22, 2007, and dealt with this very subject ("Immigration system is ineffective"). What I said then is what I say now, and that is that I seldom get angry at illegal immigrants, and you shouldn't either. They are simply doing what our system so strongly encourages them to do, and they almost all come to our country for the same reasons our ancestors did: to seek better lives for themselves and their families.

The problem is that the federal government has all of the power in this area, makes all of the rules and does whatever enforcement that takes place, which is not very much. But the federal government mostly does not have to pay for the costs of illegal immigrants. Instead, most of the costs are paid by the state and local governments, and the school districts.

The irony is that it would not be hard at all to install a workable system, but neither the Republicans nor the Democrats actually want this to happen. Why not? Money and power.

Many powerful Republicans are anxious to retain the source of cheap labor that is furnished to them by illegal immigrants, and many powerful Democrats are anxious to have all of these people come into the country on the hope that they eventually will vote for Democrats. In the meantime, many good people on both sides of the issue are being severely punished under the status quo.

What is the resolution? Actually, it is relatively straightforward, and just a three-step process.

First, we must understand that this failed system will never be changed until the federal government has the incentive to change it. So the federal government must be required to pay for all of the governmental costs of illegal immigrants, including health care, education and incarceration.

Second, we, and no one else, should decide how many people can enter our country to work, and for what period of time they can stay. Then we should create a program that allows foreign workers to have something like an "orange" card that will allow them to work here legally during that specified period of time.

This would be much like our former Bracero Program, and would be in addition to our present resident alien and naturalization programs. The workers probably could not bring other members of their families with them, would pay reduced taxes on their income and would receive reduced services for things like health care while they are here. But, since they would be here legally, the workers would be able to obtain driver's licenses.

The third important component of this suggested program would be to use strict sanctions for all employers who in any way hire workers who do not have the proper identification. In effect, everyone in the country would either need a passport, birth certificate, green card or orange card to be able to be hired for a job, so the laws would be applied equally to everyone. Workers who have valid proof of eligibility would be able to work, live normal lives, and travel legally across our borders within the specified times. Those who do not have proper proof would increasingly have trouble finding work, so soon they would probably go elsewhere.

Holding people who hire undocumented workers responsible for their illegal acts would be the key, but it can be done without much difficulty. With today's computer chip technology, we should easily be able to create identification cards based upon people's fingerprints or even the irises of their eyes such that the cards could not be falsified. So there would be no excuse for hiring people who do not have proper identification. And once we have that workable system in place, we could also exclude permanently from admission to the country those non-citizens who persist in violating our laws.

It is time to recognize the legitimate frustration of our state and local governments that are hemorrhaging money to pay for the status quo, but without having any controls whatsoever over those costs. Of course, there will still be problems, but these changes will allow us in large measure to regain control of our borders, reduce dangers and injustices for non-citizens, seriously reduce the burden upon our taxpayers to support such large numbers of people who are here illegally, reinstitute and reinforce the rule of law, bring more employment income back "above the table," and begin to return everybody's lives to normal.

And then — and only after we have a system in place to control our borders — should we address the difficult and truly emotional and sometimes even wrenching issues of who receives "amnesty" and who does not. And in doing this we will have to take into account the large numbers of people all around the world who have applied to enter our great country through proper channels.

States like Arizona and cities like Costa Mesa should not be criticized for wanting our laws to be enforced. In fact, they should be criticized if they do not — and so should we all. So as the June and November elections approach, I suggest you support those candidates for federal elective office who will work to implement a law to require the federal government to pay for the governmental costs of its own failure to put into place a workable immigration system. It would not be hard to fix this terrible situation, so let's push them to do just that!



JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of "Wearing the Robe: the Art and Responsibility of Judging in Today's Courts" (Square One Publishers, 2010), Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, A Voter's Handbook, Effective Solutions To America's Problems and can be reached at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or http://www.judgejimgray.com. Judge Jim Gray is also currently offering his 25 years of experience on the bench to ADR Services in Orange County for Arbitration and Mediation services.

Reality in Pelican Bay Prison - by Judge Jim Gray

A few weeks ago I devoted this column to the comments and observations of my friend Dr. Earl Fuller about his experiences while volunteering at the women’s prison at Chowchilla. The interest in the column was high, and I wanted to share two responses with you were posted on the Daily Pilot’s website.

The first one was: “Finally, some of the horror stories that those of us who have loved ones in prison will be told. I have been sending my son’s story to newspapers for over 2 years, but not one of them has printed it. Maybe now someone will listen to the truth and the people will understand that things are still not right in California.” The second was “What would I feel if a dear one were in prison? I am worried daily because I know someone in prison and he is sick and not being given adequate medical treatment.”

Because Fuller also volunteered to provide medical care at Pelican Bay Prison in Northern California, which houses the most dangerous male inmates, I asked him to give us his observations about the medical care these men received, and to compare it with that received at Chowchilla by the women. The following is a summary of what he told me.

The medical needs and wants of the male prisoners are really quite different than for the women, and I believe the difference is explained on a psychological basis. Women see medical care as a desirable and important adjunct to their life. Having regular visits and care by a physician confers both status and medicine, and both are considered to be a valuable commodity. The male prisoners have a different mindset because the need to see a doctor and take medicine is seen as a sign of weakness. Thus the male inmates try to limit or ignore illness until it can be ignored no longer.

The psychology also differs in another significant way. The male inmates all seemed to be convinced that they would be killed on the outside by the time they were 25 years old. So it didn’t really matter what you did or to whom you did it because you were soon going to be dead anyway. But when they were caught before they could be killed and they were sent away for 50 or 60 years to prison because of one or a series of horrible acts, they were stuck continuing to exist without really ever having learned how to live.

This resulted in most of the inmates existing almost in a vacuum. Their entire day involved being in their special violent offenders housing unit, with breakfast being brought in early, and then watching television until lunch. In the afternoon they were often handcuffed between two guards and taken down to the yard, and then put into a cage of 10-by-25 feet to run around outside for 90 minutes before they were returned to their cells. But this almost always means that when they are eventually paroled at age 45 or 50, they have no skills, no ambition and no abilities. As a result, they are poorly prepared to lead an independent existence, and often almost intentionally return to prison because that is the only place where they feel comfortable.

The prisoners whom I saw medically fell into several categories, which were those with battle injuries mostly from fighting that could not be ignored any longer, those with infections that were getting worse, and those who had contracted diseases. Mostly their sores, cuts and bruises healed quickly, as you would expect in these young people, and the infections were equally responsive, once the inmates allowed us to use medications.

The regularly established clinics ran reasonably well for those afflicted with chronic diseases like diabetes, lung diseases, hypertension and AIDS. But like with the women’s prisons, the need to keep everything fast and cheap was always present. The prisons medically could do a lot more for their inmates, but it takes money that does not seem to be available.

The process used to get them to us to be seen was interesting. First the inmate would back up to his cell door, whereupon a small barred window in his cell was opened and he would be handcuffed. Then he was walked between two guards in flak jackets to my clinic. If he had to wait, he was placed in a waiting box made out of metal and a metal screen, which was about 6 feet tall and 4 feet wide, and also had a small built-in seat inside.

The inmate would be locked into the box until I could see him. He would then be re-handcuffed and brought to me, but I would have about four to six guards around me at all times. When I would ask to have the handcuffs removed so I could examine the patient, the guards wondered about my sanity. Generally, these inmates were not nice people, and some were overtly psychotic. Yet they still got sick and they still needed to be treated humanly, if only for our sake — if not for theirs.

Those are some of Fuller’s comments. What he did not address was the organized sexual abuse and violence that is often rampant in these facilities. But from my standpoint, all of his observations again strongly reinforce the need for us to provide positive mentors to all of our children — early and often — so that they do not get caught up in the hopeless “well, I’ll be dead anyway” lifestyle Fuller described.

So continue to make special efforts to support things like the YM and YWCAs, Boys & Girls Clubs, Scouting organizations, and after-school sports and academic activities. As was stated a few years ago in this column, a “stitch in time” truly does help to keep our children from this fate.



JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .

Reject cynicism - vote - by Judge Jim Gray

One of the most gratifying things about writing this column is that people often respond, either on the Daily Pilot’s website or to me personally by e-mail.

I always respond privately to the e-mails, but after my column about my having attended the April 15 Tea Party rally in Santa Ana (“We have to rally for beliefs”), I received an e-mail from David Pearse of Costa Mesa that I wanted to share with you, because the beliefs he expressed are not limited to him.

Mr. Pearse’s message focused on my frequent reminders that “if our government isn’t working, we have no one to blame but ourselves.” His point was that what I say isn’t true.

“Our government is basically a mobocracy now,” he wrote. “The poor steal from the rich, and the politicians facilitate the process. The Constitutional Republic we started out with, with its checks and balances and its protections of life and property, no longer apply, as the government has, for the past 200 years, whittled away at these protections until they are now largely nonexistent. I mean, the government can now confiscate private homes in order to build shopping malls.”

Mr. Pearse finishes by saying “Jim, I’m proud to say I’ve never voted in my life. I have not bought into the system, as I know my vote is meaningless, just as your vote has always been meaningless. I am powerless to change the downward spiral in this country, as are you. It amazes me that you still seem to think we can turn things around in this country, when in fact we are doomed to become just another stagnant European type country with perennially high unemployment and perennially low growth.”

With regret, to some degree I believe he is right. But only to some degree. Even though I do not often vote for winning candidates or issues, I am deeply proud to say that I have voted in every election since I became eligible. I often brag about that fact when I speak to young people, and tell them that I hope they can make the same claim when they are my age.

But is all of this naïve — or simply an exercise to make myself feel better? I acknowledge that my pessimism on this subject has been growing over time, particularly with the thorough gerrymandering that both the Republicans and Democrats do jointly to keep elections from being competitive. Nevertheless, I persist.

It is worse for me because I resigned from the Republican party in 2003. I could no longer be a part of any organization that condoned, much less actively supported, the so-called Patriot Act, which I see as a direct attack on our civil liberties — and one that is not necessary to keep us safe.

I am now a Libertarian, and am trying to grow that party’s strength and influence in an effort to promote more liberty and responsibility in our country. But that means that, as a third-party voter, my vote often is diluted below the many votes of those who are still members of the majority parties. (And by the way, if Proposition 14 passes it will destroy third parties in California, so please vote “No.”) Nevertheless, even considering all of these circumstances, I am not where Mr. Pearse is, and hope I never will be.

And then there is the fact that every vote has mattered. What about the votes in Florida in the Bush vs. Gore presidential election of 2000? And what about large numbers of more local elections for political offices and issues, which are sometimes really close? How can anyone justify cynicism in those elections, even if that cynicism may apply elsewhere?

We must also discuss the alternatives. Speaking for myself, I simply will not abandon what is great in our country so that we can become socialistic like France and Greece, or capitalistic police states like Singapore and Saudi Arabia.

Simply stated, we can either do our literal best and continue to affect what we can, or we can withdraw from the process and “go to the beach.” Our great country is still the beacon of hope to most of the world. Its soul is our freedoms, and its strength is derived from free markets and free choice. How can we so easily abandon what has made our country great?

Mr. Pearse raises many valid points, but so what? His withdrawal will never be the correct thing to do as long as I and millions of other Americans continue to be an active part of the political system. What is your opinion about this? If you still hold onto these hopes for our country and posterity, what are you doing to move us back toward liberty and responsibility? As Frank Sinatra sang, are you a ram that keeps butting that dam? In the song, the ram was eventually successful — and sometimes we are too.

Yes, sometimes our heads hurt from continually butting the dam, but in several places we are making progress. As just one example, we Californians can vote this November on the critically important initiative to repeal marijuana prohibition by treating cannabis like alcohol for adults: taxing it, and holding people accountable for their actions instead of what they put into their bodies. Will your vote make any difference? Yes, it will! That vote will probably be close.

So I publicly ask Mr. Pearse to reassess his position, and I ask the same of anyone else who has similar thoughts. Register to vote, educate yourself about the candidates and the issues, support those who are important to you, and join us sometimes idealistic and maybe even naïve people and do what lots of veterans have given their lives to give us the sacred opportunity to do: vote. Sometimes your vote will matter a great deal, and, besides, at least you will know that you tried.



JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe — the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts.” He can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or www.judgejimgray.com .

Prisons lacking proper care - by Judge Jim Gray

During my time as a trial court judge, I heard many disturbing stories about substandard medical treatment being given to the inmates in our prison system, and recently the federal courts have begun threatening to take action about the situation.

So in an effort to educate myself, I asked Earl Fuller, a good friend of mine and a retired medical doctor who had volunteered to provide medical services in the women’s prison at Chowchilla, if he would share with me some observations about his experiences while he was there.

He agreed to do so, and I am passing his comments along to you as indications about some of the conditions that existed in 1996 that the federal courts would probably have been hearing about.

Why do they care, or why do we? Because one of the responsibilities of a just and moral society is to protect and take care of everyone who is in our custody, whether they be Charles Manson or Jack the Ripper.

The following is a paraphrasing of Fuller’s comments.

You asked me to write about some of my experiences as a prison physician. I retired as a practicing obstetrician and gynecologist after 32 years in Fullerton.

My first position was at the California Women’s Prison in Chowchilla, Calif., and I was there in the spring or early summer of 1996 as a relief physician who took over for regular doctors on leave.

My first assignment was to a “yard” that housed several barracks of inmates. The women were not allowed to have prescription drugs in their possession, so they were dispensed by guards in the morning, noon and evening. Nevertheless, a certain amount of illegal drugs was always available. The inmates also made a horrible home brew called “prunella,” which caused some drunkenness after fermentation.

I was faced with a medical potpourri that was fascinating and would have supplied any medical school with more pathology than the students ever could have handled.

For example, I would see at least four patients a day with hepatitis A, B and C. Generally when a person has all three viruses it is as a result of unclean needles from injecting drugs.

There would also usually be at least four women with syphilis, two women with treated tuberculosis, and large numbers with diabetes, hypertension and arthritis.

Throughout my time there, it was my experience that the prison system’s main financial goal was to house these women as inexpensively as possible. Of course, medicine could be an irritating demand on the budget, so almost any request that could be safely denied was.

I also remember an inmate who requested long socks. She was a rather large woman and was fitted with leather high-top shoes because they were the only ones that fit her.

Unfortunately, the supply room only had short socks that would not come to the tops of her shoes, so her ankles had been rubbed raw and were bleeding from contact with the leather.

She cut the short socks to cover her ankles, but then her uncovered instep rubbed so much that it also became raw. I made four requests for appropriate socks, but they were never granted by the time I left.

Another deeply disturbing expense-saving idea I encountered was not to treat hepatitis until the liver enzymes began to rise, suggesting that the entire liver was beginning to fail.

The liver is a wonderful organ that keeps on functioning until it is almost destroyed.

So when the enzymes are rising because of hepatitis, there is probably less than 10% of the liver remaining.

When faced with the first signs of liver failure, I began treatment immediately. Unfortunately treatment is expensive, as uncomfortable as chemotherapy, and time consuming for the nursing staff.

This made me unpopular with the staff, but medically it was necessary to save as much of the liver as possible or a liver transplant would be the only option.

During my second month, I was moved to do admitting histories and physicals on new inmates. I couldn’t do much but diagnose in this position, because treatment was left to the other physicians. But I do remember talking with a woman who was sent back to prison for violating parole. She said she was riding in a car with her boyfriend when the police stopped them and found a half-smoked marijuana cigarette on the floor in the back seat.

That resulted in her parole being revoked and her being placed back in prison.

Maybe she lied to me, but if not we are paying $35,000 a year to keep her there.

Finally, I can tell you that significant numbers of inmates are in custody for drug problems. But during my entire time working in the prisons, I do not remember seeing any drug treatment, counseling or classes to help the addicts.

We seem only to be punishing them to nobody’s advantage, which is terribly expensive for the taxpayers, and everybody else.

Those are some of Fuller’s comments. So let me ask you. If you or people you hold dear were in prison with untreated failing livers, or feet being rubbed raw for lack of higher socks, how would you feel? What would you do?

Next week we will talk about this issue some more.



JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts” (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .

We have to rally for beliefs - by Judge Jim Gray

On April 15, my friends Sid and Carole Spinak invited me to join them at the Tea Party rally at the Plaza of the Flags in Santa Ana, just behind the courthouse. Never having attended such a gathering and wanting to see what it was all about, I agreed to go.

After all, it was Tax Day.

And it was quite an assemblage of people. From what I saw it was a grassroots movement that had almost no formal organization or individual candidate behind it. Nor could I perceive any racism of any kind. Instead it appeared to be a gathering of people joined by common views and frustrations at the direction that our great country has been taking over the last decade.

The most common themes discussed by the speakers, and represented by the handmade signs carried by those present, were getting back to limited government and away from socialism, reducing government spending and lowering taxes, and getting back to individual responsibility and away from the concept that government can do everything for us.

For many reasons, it was uplifting to see so many people willing to take the time to exercise their rights of free speech, and to show a tangible concern over our country’s present situation. Many of them carried American flags, and others carried “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, or their own handmade signs.

Some of the signs defined “TEA” as “Taxed Enough Already,” which also explained why some of the sign carriers were “TEAd off.” Other signs made their economic views quite clear by saying things like “The American Dream Is Not a Handout,” “Free Market, Not Freeloaders,” “Stop Spending,” and “You are not Entitled to What I Earn.”

My friend Sid’s sign actually won my personal contest for being the most creative and artistic. It said: “Uncontrolled Spending; Massive Debt; Unlimited Government; We do not Consent!”

Much of the attention and wrath were aimed at the new health-care legislation (I am unable to call it “reform”), such as “Obamacare: the Efficiency of the DMV, and the Compassion of the IRS.” Of course the members of Congress were also the objects of a large amount of scorn.

For example, “Want a Job? Replace Congress,” “The Servant is not the Master,” “Cadillac Care for Congress — Clunker Care for Us,” and “Next Time Read the Bill Before You Sign!”

In addition, and from what I can tell, the Tea Party movement is not just a gathering of so-called right-wing Christians, even though that is what the media tries to imply. To the contrary, there was a wide diversity of people present, and even a few signs saying things like “Dems Against Obama Policy.” I even met August Lightfoot, who has commented both favorably and unfavorably in print about my weekly columns. In fact, it was a pleasure to shake the hand of someone who cares enough to be so active.

The old patriot Patrick Henry also made an appearance, and gave a reprise of his historic: “I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death” speech. Something like this is always good for all of us to hear.

But many of the speakers were current political officeholders and candidates for political office. That really surprised me, because it is my sense that the movement tends to mock and spurn politicians. In fact I wondered how many people in attendance actually appreciated the irony of Scott Baugh, chairman of the Orange County Republican Party, being at the microphone and saying things like, “Throw the bums out!”

One of the big criticisms of the Tea Party movement was that there were similar events staged on Tax Day last year, but that nothing much had happened since. In fact, it could be that many of the signs used this year were simply left over from last year.

Well, it takes more than that because the answer is not to let your passions and beliefs be dormant. I twice ran for federal political office, once as a Republican and once as a Libertarian, and those experiences left me with the demoralizing conviction that money is much too important in our elections.

To counteract that problem, each of us must be much more active in pursuing and upholding our beliefs — whatever they may be.

So when someone knocks on your door or asks you at a supermarket to sign a petition or give your support to a candidate, thank them, regardless of whether you support that particular position or not. We need everyone’s participation in this process.

And that includes your participation as well. Educate yourself as to the issues. And no matter what your position is, find others who share it, and then hunt for and support a good candidate to promote it in public office. Our politics and economy have become a mess because We, the People, have been lazy. Shame on us!

Finally, regardless of what your political affiliation is or the issues you hold dear, I hope you agree with the person who held up the Tea Party sign “Our Kids Will Inherit this Mess.” And I also hope you agree with the person whose sign read “It Is Time to Water the Tree of Liberty.” This is an important period in our country’s history, and it is our children and grandchildren’s liberty and economic futures that are at stake!

Thus, each one of us should be doing more than carrying a sign once a year at a rally. Why? Because, once again, if our government isn’t working, we have no one to blame but ourselves!



JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts” (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .

Follow the law, not hearts - by Judge Jim Gray

News flash! The Obama administration will not be nominating me, or any other Libertarian, to fill the seat of retiring Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court of the United States. Among other things, the reason is that our judicial philosophy is to follow the law, and one of the stated important qualifications for the Obama administration is to employ the concept of “empathy.” Unfortunately, this is yet another example of the movement to “politicize” the judiciary, and this movement is leading us astray.

It is clear that empathy is a fine character trait for any human, and that certainly includes judges. But for judges to employ empathy in their decision-making implies that they would tend to find in favor of the “poor,” the “little guy,” the “minority person” or whatever group or cause that happens to be the object of public sympathy at the moment, regardless of the merits of the case. And, of course, that would come at the expense of the “greedy rich,” “nasty employers,” “big corporations,” or, well, you fill in the blank.

Also under this approach it would not be a big step for judges to start supporting one favored ethnic group, religion, gender or even political party at the expense of the less-favored. And I hope everyone will see that this is not where we want our justice system, or our country, to go.

Now that does not mean that judges are not frequently in a position to reasonably determine the equities or be affected by concepts of “fairness” in some cases. Far from it. In fact, if there were no interpretations or judgment calls to be made, we could simply hand our judicial robes to computers.

But, candidly, during my judicial career there were quite a few times in which I would hear small claims or other civil cases without a jury and inwardly root for the more sympathetic party. But once the evidence was submitted, as much as humanly possible, I tried to carry out my constitutional responsibilities and issue my rulings controlled by the evidence and the law. Naturally that also meant that I was required to follow the laws and judicial precedents as best I could, even when I disagreed. And I instructed my jurors that they were under the same obligations.

From what I observed, former Chief Justice Rose Bird of the California Supreme Court would have passed the Obama administration’s empathy test. She certainly cared about people, which was fine, but she often was influenced by that caring to rule in favor of some parties, even when the facts, law and established legal precedent did not support it.

The problem with that approach is that it makes “forseeability” in the law almost impossible. Why is that such a problem? Because all disputes in society simply cannot be litigated. And fortunately they will not have to be, as long as attorneys and everyone else can, with some reasonable degree of certainty, anticipate in advance how the laws would be applied by the courts if the case actually did go to trial. This allows everyone to adjust their actions accordingly, which in turn allows society to function much more smoothly and efficiently.

Unfortunately we recently saw legal precedent virtually being ignored in the recent Citizens United case by the so-called conservative Supreme Court of Chief Justice Roberts. In that case, the Supreme Court held that corporations could spend without limits in elections for candidates or causes, as long as they spent the money separately from the political campaigns themselves.

The stated rationale was that the majority on the court felt, contrary to many prior Supreme Court decisions, that corporations should have the same constitutional rights as people. (And corporations just happen to have a tendency to finance more conservative causes.) So if I am right in my assessment, this is a political result, and thus a truly harmful way to conduct judicial business — if you believe in a neutral court system and the Rule of Law.

Of course, there are some rare occasions in which prior precedent should be rejected and new precedent established. For example, the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kan. broke away from the precedent established in 1896 by the case of Plessey v. Ferguson regarding the constitutionality of allowing “separate but equal” facilities for African Americans. But in that case the High Court had the benefit of the intervening 58 years of experience, which showed that the facilities were by no means equal, and also the benefit of changing times during which many people had come to realize that segregation was simply wrong under any reasonable sense of morality. But, once again, this should happen only rarely.

Having said all of this, I am proud to report that, based upon my 25 years as a trial court judge here in Orange County, I believe that most judges do their absolute best to follow the law. In fact, I am proud of our judges here and believe that you should be as well.

But at the same time I am deeply concerned to see the increasing politicization of our federal appellate courts. So I recommend that as we approach the upcoming elections, you consider only supporting candidates for Congress who convince you that they will only vote to confirm judges who, in turn, convince them that they will maintain the independence of the judiciary and follow the Rule of Law. Our country is based upon justice being independent from politics or favoritism of any kind, and each of us must do our part to keep it that way.



JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .

Our brains are our strength - by Judge Jim Gray

During my recent trip to Hong Kong, Vietnam and Cambodia, I noticed that American goods and services were prominently available in each of those countries. This started me thinking that, with all of the poor economic news about our deficits, joblessness and trade imbalances, maybe we should focus more on those commercial areas where we still dominate the world and are at least fully competitive.

So, further being reminded of FDR’s comment that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” we should remember that we still have lasting economic strength in much of the world’s markets. Our outlook should reflect that reality. In other words, we still have cause for optimism.

Today, among other things, American companies are dominant in the overnight package delivery business with UPS and FedEx Corp.; the credit card business with VISA, MasterCard and American Express; the fast food industry with McDonald’s Corp., KFC and Burger King; the soft drink industry with Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc.; consumer electronics and software with Microsoft Corp., Oracle Systems Corp., Apple Computer Inc., and Google; and the entertainment industry with movies, television, news, sports coverage and popular music.

We are also highly competitive in the stock brokerage business, the hotel industry, world engineering and construction, the oil industry, the airplane industry, farm tractors and bulldozers, aircraft engines, the dental and eye care industry, and, sadly, the cigarette industry.

Furthermore, United States companies are among the leaders in the world in pharmaceuticals; heart valves, pacemakers, and hip and knee replacements; breakfast cereals and other packaged foods; aerospace, rocket control systems and business jets with companies; elevators; and venture capital.

And Nike Inc. is simply a world leader in sports shoes and wearing apparel. We also mostly lead the world with technology and inventory control with large retailers like Costco Wholesale Corp., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Best Buy Co.

And don’t be misled: today General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. are producing some of the world’s best automobiles, vans, SUVs and small trucks. For example, the new Cadillac recently beat the BMW 5 Series in many important performance tests. And these are just some samples that I know of where American companies are highly competitive — surely there are many more.

So let’s not get carried away about how bad things look for us economically, even in these hard times. Yes, Japan, Korea and China are much more competitive now. But Japan’s economy is still struggling, and the quality of many of China’s products is increasingly seen as questionable.

Furthermore, although India has benefited from much outsourcing business, we are beginning to see some companies like United Healthcare bringing their work back here because India’s quality control is often not seen as high as we can consistently provide here in America.

We must also, of course, realize that we will probably never again compete with countries like Vietnam, Malaysia, India and China in low-cost labor. We can compete with our brains, but not our brawn. This means that those people in our country without an education who used to be able to have a reasonably good lifestyle, by working in factories and in other unskilled jobs, now run the risk of being left behind. Thus we all must help everyone to focus upon the importance of getting an education so that they can be marketable.

And then there are our universities. Although there are many good universities today in China, India and much of Europe, the United States still dominates the world in this critical area. Of course, we are not supporting our public universities nearly as much as we once were, and their quality cannot help but suffer eventually as a result. For example, California only provides about 15% of the funding for UCLA. But so far our universities are mostly holding their own.

So where does all of this leave us? We must once again focus upon the reality that businesses, whether they be small, medium or large, create the jobs that make and keep our economy strong. Thus the more we can do, within reason, to make our environment business friendly, the better off everyone will be.

For example, Intel Corp. recently left California and opened up a new plant in Oregon, and other companies are doing the same in Arizona and Nevada. Why? Because those states are seen as much more business friendly. That does not mean that we must abandon our environmental or anti-trust laws, or regulations promoting things like safety in the workplace. But it does mean that our governments and our laws must become more friendly for businesses, or they will either fold or move.

All of us can help. Elections are fast approaching for federal, state and local officeholders. So we should educate ourselves about the backgrounds and positions of the candidates. Read their materials, listen to their presentations, and ask questions — and follow-up questions — about where they stand.

If candidates favor more government regulations and controls, consider supporting and voting for someone else. California is one of the least business-friendly venues in the western United States, and we have the loss of jobs to prove it. Turning this around will largely determine whether we can continue to be optimistic about our financial future.



JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .

Cambodia shows progress - by Judge Jim Gray

My recent trip to Vietnam and Cambodia with my wife, Grace, consisted mostly of a visit to Ho Chi Minh City, formerly Saigon, and a five-day boat trip up the Mekong River to the Cambodian cities of Phnom Penhand Siem Reap, near Angkor Wat. Our visit to Ho Chi Minh City was the topic of last week’s column. Today, I will discuss our trip to Cambodia.

The highlight was our visit to Angkor Wat, and they truly lived up to our high expectations. This huge complex began in the 9th century and prospered until the 13th century. Many of the statues and stone carvings that have been protected from the elements look like artistic masterpieces that could have been created last week. It is well worth a trip to Cambodia just to see Angkor Wat alone: a truly amazing, inspiring and wondrous creation!

We also visited the holocaust museum in the capital of Phnom Penh. Tuol Sleng was a high school used to imprison and torture thousands of Cambodians for — as they frequently told us — three years, eight months and 20 days between 1975 and 1979. Most of the prisoners were subsequently taken out to the “killing fields” and executed with a club to the back of the head. The victims were the so-called traitors to the revolution, as well as the nation’s educated class or “intellectuals.” They included anyone considered to have had a relationship with the West or anyone who wore eyeglasses — as well as the children of any of the above. As a result, children were callously executed by having their heads beaten in with sticks and clubs.

What I had not focused upon previously was that this genocide was influenced by Mao Tse Tung from Communist China. It happened not long after China’s so-called Cultural Revolution, and was carried out by the Khmer Rouge, which are the French words for the “Red Khmers.” And, just like in China, many from the communist guard were young teenage boys who were given AK-47s and let loose on the population.

By the time it ended, 1.7 million Cambodians, or 21% of the population, perished under Pol Pot’s regime, according to Yale University’s Cambodia Genocide Project. Thus from what I could tell, “The Killing Fields” was unfortunately quite accurate with regard to the bloodbath, although many of the Cambodians perished from starvation and disease that resulted from the KR’s radical policies.

For this reason, half the population is younger than 20. It has also made Cambodia one of the poorest Asian countries. Cambodia is also one of the worst offenders when it comes to human trafficking. This appears to be the mind set because a recent poll showed that 75% of the women in Cambodia feel that it is all right to be beaten by their husbands.

Furthermore, few of the side streets are paved, and education is not compulsory, although it is free through the elementary grades. But for many, higher education is simply not available, either because of the cost or because the children are needed to work to help to support their family. In fact, none of the nation’s three top rulers has a high school degree.

In addition, 29% of its population has access to toilets, which means dysentery is a major killer. Nevertheless, the Cambodian people, whose ethnicity is different from the Vietnamese, were almost uniformly pleasant and cheerful. It was as much of a pleasure to be with them as with the people of Vietnam.

Cambodia uses American dollars as a currency, and, as you can imagine, the cost of living there is quite low. For example, where an hourlong massage costs $12 in Vietnam, a Khmer massage (which is different from anything I have had before and is outstanding) costs $5 for an hour in Cambodia.

But one thing that really stayed with me was the times that I looked at some of the teenage girls who were living on houseboats on the river as they were watching our tourist boat go by. They would look at us in a way that expressed a deep resignation that they knew that their lives would never be any better. They would eventually get married and have children, but still live as fishermen in these same houseboats on the river.

I wish I could take some of our children here in the U.S. and impress upon them the importance of their staying in school and getting an education. So many of these young Cambodians are absolutely desperate to have the education that many of our children are simply throwing away!

But slowly things are getting better in Cambodia. There seems to be a fair amount of freedom of the press, because several of the newspapers I read included articles that were actually critical of the government. Clean drinking water also now seems to be much more readily available, and prison reform is increasing, as is access to their justice system. Religious freedom in the country also does not seem to be a problem, and at least the girls seem to have a veto power over whom they will marry. In addition, tourism dollars are increasingly flowing into the country, at least in Siem Reap, although tourists still must procure a cumbersome and expensive visa to enter the country.

It was a great trip and one that I would recommend to any semi-adventurous travelers. But, as my father used to say, the best part of any trip is coming home. Our visits to Vietnam and Cambodia further helped me to appreciate what we have in our wonderful country, even to the extent that it makes my paying our income taxes in a few weeks quite a bit more palatable.



JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .

It’s certainly not yesterday’s Vietnam - by Judge Jim Gray

My wife Grace and I just returned from a two-week trip to Vietnam and Cambodia. This column will discuss today’s Vietnam — which has certainly changed since I was there briefly during the war — and next week’s column will talk about Cambodia.

The first thing we noticed about Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon) is the chaotic traffic: mostly motorbikes and motor scooters, but also lots of cars, trucks and bicycles mixed in, and precious few traffic signals. So with these pesky two-wheelers darting all over the place, it’s kind of like driving in spaghetti. But, amazingly enough, although we saw and experienced many near misses, we didn’t see even one collision while we were there. And we didn’t even see many scratches on the cars. So, one way or the other, the system is working.

We also saw that most of the Vietnamese women driving motor scooters wore a mask over their faces, long sleeves and gloves. The reason we were given was that having the fairest skin possible is considered to be much better looking in Vietnam.

We also were told about an example of the true new Vietnamese (and American) entrepreneurial spirit. A few years ago during the bird flu epidemic, the people in Vietnam simply stopped eating chicken. Many Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets compensated by importing chickens from France, and publicizing that fact to encourage sales. But it didn’t help. So until the epidemic waned, KFC became KFF, which stands for Kentucky Fried Fish. And they got along nicely.

The most sobering experience on our trip to Vietnam was a visit to the Cu Chi Tunnels, which were dug by the Viet Cong during the French occupation, and continued during the fighting with our troops. The Viet Cong were South Vietnamese guerrillas who fought as against the U.S.-backed Saigon regime. Cu Chi was a cobweb of about 120 miles of tunnels about 40 miles from the center of Saigon. The tunnels were often three stories deep, and contained quarters for storage, sleeping and eating, as well as kitchens and rooms for medical operations. The entrances and breathing holes were highly camouflaged, and the system allowed the Viet Cong fighters to appear in and disappear from most areas above ground virtually at will.

The Viet Cong also built booby traps in the same area, examples of which were demonstrated to us. These would be holes dug in the ground and camouflaged. When our soldiers stepped on the traps they would fall upon metal spikes laced with feces that would pierce their feet, or long sharpened poles that would pierce their armpits. There were others that, when triggered, would release metal balls covered with spikes that would swing down upon our soldiers on a vine from a tree. And, of course there were homemade land mines. These traps reflected the realization that the Viet Cong could obtain greater and more lasting psychological advantages by severely injuring our soldiers.

Imagine being a U.S. soldier on the ground in this area. In the first place, you couldn’t distinguish the friendly Vietnamese from the enemy. And secondly, imagine being with your best buddy when he had his foot punctured by a metal spike or lost his legs from a land mine. It is not an accident that about one-quarter of all of the disabled homeless people in Orange County are military veterans.

Of course, hundreds of thousands of Viet Cong were killed or injured during this “police action.” The conditions in the tunnels alone were terribly unhealthy, with the dampness and the poor air quality caused by oil-burning lamps. And many of the wounded died from infections contracted simply from being in the dampness under ground. We also noted that the Viet Cong remolded the metal from the bombs that our forces dropped on them into the spikes for their booby traps, and also that some of the VC would cut some unexploded bombs open so they could reuse the metal and the explosives inside. One spark and you were history.

But all of this vividly brought home to me the commitment of the Viet Cong to kick out what they saw as foreign occupiers.

While I was stationed with the Navy in Guam from April 1972 until October 1974, I routinely saw large military trucks on our roads carrying 500-pound bombs from the Naval Magazine over to Anderson Air Force Base, where they were loaded onto B-52s. Their motto at Anderson was “Bombs on Target,” which is certainly understandable, because that was their job. But I had never before really appreciated the significance of being on the receiving end of a B-52 raid. As we could see at the tunnels area, each bomb left a crater about 30 feet in diameter and about 15 feet deep. Imagine being on the ground or in the tunnels during such a raid!

When we departed Vietnam, I was left with the thought that North Vietnam would have been far better off had it lost the war because then we probably would have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into their country to spur their economy and well-being. They would also have more freedom, and we would probably be driving Vietnamese cars. Or, on the other hand, we should have had the courage of our philosophy from the outset and not put in troops in the first place. How so? Because communism simply doesn’t work. Our guides in Vietnam routinely said that their country had moved away from communism and over to capitalism exactly for that reason, because once the subsidies from the Soviet Union stopped after its demise, they had no choice. The same thing happened to a major degree in Cambodia and Cuba — and also in China. So today the Vietnamese government only really runs its oil industry, and, of course, the newspapers and the radio and television stations.

Of course, the communist government in Vietnam committed many human rights atrocities before and after it won the war, and, although the situation is somewhat better, it continues to do so. Furthermore, although our guides often said there is freedom of speech in Vietnam, reality shows otherwise. And even though the government appears to have the money, it is not spending much of it to address the problems of creating or maintaining the country’s infrastructure with regard to paving roads, cleaning water, disposing of trash, and making toilets available. Nevertheless, one way or the other, both sides are worse off because we pursued a military solution.

On the positive side, Vietnam has radically changed for the better in almost every regard. Its government has shifted from taking a highly dogmatic and doctrinaire approach to a more practical one. Vietnam is actively trading goods and services with other countries, and is successfully soliciting investments of foreign capital. With all of that progress, it surprises me that the visa process was so cumbersome and expensive. But these are good signs because only rarely do people shoot their customers, and most investors do not place their money in countries that are not stable.

As a result of this progress, the average wage per person has increased from about $1,000 per year in 1975 to about $2,700 today. Prices are still low there, as, for example, an hour’s massage costs about $12. But who could have imagined seeing a Mercedes or a Cadillac being driven down the streets of Ho Chi Minh City by a non-government official? That is a revolution all in itself.

In summary, we had a great trip, meeting good people, seeing interesting sights, and eating good food (try some Pho noodle soup at one of our local Vietnamese restaurants). And on no occasion while in Vietnam did I perceive any rancor or ill will toward me as an American as a result of the war. Nevertheless, and after due consideration, both Grace and I have decided that we would still prefer to live in Newport Beach instead of on a self-constructed 30-foot houseboat with no toilets on the Mekong River that is floating on bamboo poles.



JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.judgejimgray.com .