ILNews

DTCI: Playing by the rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Christopher Lee DTCIWith a role of dice, my youngest son, Matthew, age 12, counted off the spaces with a small metal object. On the last number he placed the thimble on the square marked Boardwalk. A bright smile filled his face since he already owned the other blue space, Park Place. According to the rules, Matthew could now place hotels on the spaces, which would likely lead to his victory.

Unfortunately for Matthew, Dad decided that it would be a good time for his three sons to learn a lesson in democracy and the rule of law. “From this point of the game forward, Dad makes the rules. And the first rule is Dad gets to buy Boardwalk and Park Place for $500.” “What?!?” As you can imagine, Matthew cried, “That’s not fair!” His older brothers laughed until I bought their properties too.

On Nov. 21, 2013, protestors gathered at Maidan Square in Kiev, Ukraine. Viktor Yanukovych, president of Ukraine, had abruptly suspended talks with the European Union on association, free trade and the implementation of rule-of-law principles. When the protestors formed to voice their displeasure, Yanukovych bussed in goons to chase down and pummel the protestors. But the protestors would not be deterred. They supported each other by setting up tents, sharing food and building fires to keep warm. This was no ordinary protest.

Petro Poroshenko, a billionaire known as the “Chocolate King” after his chocolate empire, stood side-by-side with students and laborers in support. Ukrainians greeted each other, “Slava Ukrayini!” “Heroyam slava!” (“Glory to Ukraine!” “Glory to the heroes!”) Thousands sang Ukrainian songs late into the night in defiance. The Ukrainian people, of all walks of life, were demanding change.

Ukraine was now the line of scrimmage between two civilizations – Yanukovych with his ties to Russia, oligarchy and corruption representing one; the opposition, demanding closer ties with Europe and rules against corruption representing the other. The competing cultures offering Ukrainians two distinct choices.

To Americans, the decision would seem quite simple. Americans often take for granted important freedoms such as freedom of speech and expression. For many Americans, it is difficult to imagine a judiciary that is not independent. There are consequences, for the most part, in the United States for not playing by the rules.

Ukraine, however, is financially broke. They are heavily dependent on Russia for trade and fuel. The Ukrainian system lacks simple checks and balances necessary for a transparent and reliable government. There are rarely consequences for failing to play by the rules. As a result, almost nobody plays by the rules. Keeping to the status quo for Ukrainians had some appeal since there was some certainty that homes would be heated and life could continue. Russian President Vladimir Putin offered lower gas prices and closer economic ties with Russia.

On Feb. 21, 2014, Yanukovych fled to Russia. The Ukrainian people chose to seek a path toward government run by institutions and not by individuals and personalities.

Ukraine’s decision has had consequences. Russia still does not recognize the Ukraine government. The Crimean Peninsula has been lost and an ongoing insurgency in the east continues. But the Ukrainian decision seems to have been a long-term play. It has become more apparent that the Ukrainian people understand that profound changes in government may not arrive as quickly as Putin’s gas.

Poroshenko was elected Ukrainian president May 25. While Poroshenko is not free from controversy, his selection in an open and free election symbolizes a clear step toward democracy. Essential to Ukraine’s survival is its adoption of the rule of law. Few countries rival Ukraine in corruption, but Yanukovych’s removal is evidence that Ukrainian people desire a transparent government with no person above the law.

Over the next several months, important rule of law decisions will be made in Ukraine. Judicial review of legislation, judicial independence, protection of individual rights, and a defined distribution of powers between government institutions must not only be adopted but respected. Constitutional and legal principles for democracy and the rule of law will either become part of Ukrainian culture or the country will remain a poor form of oligarchy.

As for the Monopoly game, Dad, much like Yanukovych, was removed from the game for making up his own rules. As explained by my wise 12-year-old, “We are better when we all play by the rules.”•

__________

Christopher Lee is a partner in the Evansville firm of Kahn Dees Donovan & Kahn and sits on the board of directors of DTCI. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT