DAY ONE: TUESDAY MAY 15
The first day of the intensive! I’m very excited to continue on with this independent study as the weeks continue. This morning, I headed off to Brooklynn Park West in order to watch the unfolding of a news conference announcing a lawsuit against Moline Builders, Inc., JLJ Development, Inc., Larry Fast, and James Moline. Ms. Wise alerted me to its occurrance, and I was able to be there before, during, and after the conference thanks to her.
The news conference took place at Brooklynn Park West, at the home of a resident there, Jenny Tillman. Essentially, the lawsuit was based around violations of the Fair Housing Act, specifically in relation to accessibility for disabled persons. The lawsuit itself was a joint lawsuit filed by the Fair Housing Center, Ability Center of Greater Toledo, and Jenny Tillman. Ms. Tillman referenced a few different violations and related them to different ways they affected her or members of her community; as she has had multiple sclerosis for around 25 years, she was worried about the ways in which her living condition would change if she may have to use a wheelchair, as the houses have many appliances and other features that have been placed much too high for someone in a wheelchair to be aple to reach. In addition, she referenced a step on “porch” (from the sidewalk leading up to her front door) that is difficult to get over (and impossible with a wheelchair), a bathroom with a vanity so close to the toilet that an eldery citizen of the villas has cracked her head open on it, sidewalks that are too steep for those in power chairs, and further violations. As the villa is for those who are 55+ years of age, certain disabilities are not uncommon, and the developer should have accommodated the people there. In addition, I spoke with president and CEO of the Fair Housing Center, Michael Marsh, and he told me that there has been an investigation going on for about 3 years now, and they only now turned to a lawsuit as a weapon because previously attempted negotiations and reasoning didn’t work; the builder had ignored everything that was told to him, and even made a new row of houses, complete with the same aforementioned violations.
At the conference were multiple news outlets and journalists, and I gained exposure to how law groups like the ones that were involved in the suit work with the media in their efforts. Later, I came back to school and continued going through some of the law resources that Ms. Wise had sent me, as well as some further resources I had found prior, along with compiling my experiences.
I found the experience to be very interesting, overall. I appreciated the opportunity that I had to talk one-on-one with Mr. Marsh about the issue, as well, as he gave me some personal and professional insight (being the one in charge of the group). Ms. Wise, additionally, had sent me, previous to this, the statement being sent out to the press, and I was able to read up on the case beforehand and educate myself about lawsuits/issues like these. I felt that these experiences (as in real world interactions) are helping me understand more the specific ways the law community works, as well as helping give me the opportunities to meet new people and interact with them in their setting.
The first day of the intensive! I’m very excited to continue on with this independent study as the weeks continue. This morning, I headed off to Brooklynn Park West in order to watch the unfolding of a news conference announcing a lawsuit against Moline Builders, Inc., JLJ Development, Inc., Larry Fast, and James Moline. Ms. Wise alerted me to its occurrance, and I was able to be there before, during, and after the conference thanks to her.
The news conference took place at Brooklynn Park West, at the home of a resident there, Jenny Tillman. Essentially, the lawsuit was based around violations of the Fair Housing Act, specifically in relation to accessibility for disabled persons. The lawsuit itself was a joint lawsuit filed by the Fair Housing Center, Ability Center of Greater Toledo, and Jenny Tillman. Ms. Tillman referenced a few different violations and related them to different ways they affected her or members of her community; as she has had multiple sclerosis for around 25 years, she was worried about the ways in which her living condition would change if she may have to use a wheelchair, as the houses have many appliances and other features that have been placed much too high for someone in a wheelchair to be aple to reach. In addition, she referenced a step on “porch” (from the sidewalk leading up to her front door) that is difficult to get over (and impossible with a wheelchair), a bathroom with a vanity so close to the toilet that an eldery citizen of the villas has cracked her head open on it, sidewalks that are too steep for those in power chairs, and further violations. As the villa is for those who are 55+ years of age, certain disabilities are not uncommon, and the developer should have accommodated the people there. In addition, I spoke with president and CEO of the Fair Housing Center, Michael Marsh, and he told me that there has been an investigation going on for about 3 years now, and they only now turned to a lawsuit as a weapon because previously attempted negotiations and reasoning didn’t work; the builder had ignored everything that was told to him, and even made a new row of houses, complete with the same aforementioned violations.
At the conference were multiple news outlets and journalists, and I gained exposure to how law groups like the ones that were involved in the suit work with the media in their efforts. Later, I came back to school and continued going through some of the law resources that Ms. Wise had sent me, as well as some further resources I had found prior, along with compiling my experiences.
I found the experience to be very interesting, overall. I appreciated the opportunity that I had to talk one-on-one with Mr. Marsh about the issue, as well, as he gave me some personal and professional insight (being the one in charge of the group). Ms. Wise, additionally, had sent me, previous to this, the statement being sent out to the press, and I was able to read up on the case beforehand and educate myself about lawsuits/issues like these. I felt that these experiences (as in real world interactions) are helping me understand more the specific ways the law community works, as well as helping give me the opportunities to meet new people and interact with them in their setting.
DAY TWO: WEDNESDAY MAY 16
Today was an interesting day as well; this morning, I headed down to the Sixth District Court of Appeals in order to listen to a few orations. I was there mainly to gain an understanding of how these sorts of processes unfold and what the physical experience of attending one is like.
Three different cases were heard, and they all had different circumstances around them. The first case revolved around a nurse who had been fired from the University of Toledo Medical Center (unfairly, according to her attorney). The second was about a man who had served 10 years, and was making an appeal on the basis of certain legal requirements post-release being violated. The third involved a divorce case, but more specifically the way money was split between the couple, and whether it was equitable or not. With the first case, the attorney tended to focus on certain aspects of the original situation that the judges simply weren’t very interested in—involved was a kidney, improper disposal, and her being fired after 25 years. The first attorney was a bit skittish with his arguments, and the opposing counsel seemed more put together and had a generally solid image. The second attorney began his argument by referencing a few cases that have gone through the Ohio Supreme Court, and basing his subsequent argument around the laws and clauses he discussed specifically. Him and the opposing counself heavily discussed the ruling of the State of Ohio v. Grimes,
An observation I made multiple times throughout each of the appeal cases was the stylistic differences between each attorney. They each had their own certain mechanisms they would employ in order to sound slightly more convincing, or certain body languages, or the such. Their debating styles also differed in aggression, frankness, directness, eloquence, and more. In addition, I realized how much more technicality based these kinds of cases are than what one would typically imagine.
Today was an interesting day as well; this morning, I headed down to the Sixth District Court of Appeals in order to listen to a few orations. I was there mainly to gain an understanding of how these sorts of processes unfold and what the physical experience of attending one is like.
Three different cases were heard, and they all had different circumstances around them. The first case revolved around a nurse who had been fired from the University of Toledo Medical Center (unfairly, according to her attorney). The second was about a man who had served 10 years, and was making an appeal on the basis of certain legal requirements post-release being violated. The third involved a divorce case, but more specifically the way money was split between the couple, and whether it was equitable or not. With the first case, the attorney tended to focus on certain aspects of the original situation that the judges simply weren’t very interested in—involved was a kidney, improper disposal, and her being fired after 25 years. The first attorney was a bit skittish with his arguments, and the opposing counsel seemed more put together and had a generally solid image. The second attorney began his argument by referencing a few cases that have gone through the Ohio Supreme Court, and basing his subsequent argument around the laws and clauses he discussed specifically. Him and the opposing counself heavily discussed the ruling of the State of Ohio v. Grimes,
An observation I made multiple times throughout each of the appeal cases was the stylistic differences between each attorney. They each had their own certain mechanisms they would employ in order to sound slightly more convincing, or certain body languages, or the such. Their debating styles also differed in aggression, frankness, directness, eloquence, and more. In addition, I realized how much more technicality based these kinds of cases are than what one would typically imagine.
DAY 3: THURSDAY MAY 17
Today was my first time visiting the federal court!
I met Mr. Byron Choka from Spengler at the inside of the court, and he walked with me up to Judge Helmick’s chambers. Before this, I never had known how judges’ chambers look or work, and it was an enlightening experience. I got to meet some of the people from his chambers, and see the kind of work they did.
The reason I went there was because I was to attend a case management conference with Mr. Choka mediated by Judge Helmick. The case was around this man who was going to sue the police because of certain occurances during his arrest, where he claims that they treated him with excessive force and caused him some damages.
I also met with Judge Helmick for a bit after the meeting, where he told me a lot about the certain types of cases he deals with regularly, and some recent ones. Both he and his law clerk were telling me about a terrorism case he had to go through, and discussed with me an upcoming one with a man who apparently had said that he was going to try and disrupt the trial in some way. I also got invited to come to attend that for tomorrow!
I think that today was beneficial in that I got to shadow at an actual meeting with attorneys, and I learned how certain aspects of cases work. Also, having that conversation with Judge Helmick was very insightful as to how judges get to preside over cases and the type of work they deal with.
Today was my first time visiting the federal court!
I met Mr. Byron Choka from Spengler at the inside of the court, and he walked with me up to Judge Helmick’s chambers. Before this, I never had known how judges’ chambers look or work, and it was an enlightening experience. I got to meet some of the people from his chambers, and see the kind of work they did.
The reason I went there was because I was to attend a case management conference with Mr. Choka mediated by Judge Helmick. The case was around this man who was going to sue the police because of certain occurances during his arrest, where he claims that they treated him with excessive force and caused him some damages.
I also met with Judge Helmick for a bit after the meeting, where he told me a lot about the certain types of cases he deals with regularly, and some recent ones. Both he and his law clerk were telling me about a terrorism case he had to go through, and discussed with me an upcoming one with a man who apparently had said that he was going to try and disrupt the trial in some way. I also got invited to come to attend that for tomorrow!
I think that today was beneficial in that I got to shadow at an actual meeting with attorneys, and I learned how certain aspects of cases work. Also, having that conversation with Judge Helmick was very insightful as to how judges get to preside over cases and the type of work they deal with.
DAY 4: FRIDAY MAY 18
Today was eventful. I was originally supposed to attend the jury selection for the case I mentioned yesterday, but apparently the defendant plead guilty, and so instead I came to watch the speech that Judge Carr gave to all of the potential jurors.
Apparently, as the court presides over some 22 counties, there were people that came from quite a long ways just for them to send them back home. Judge Carr talked to them about how aside from serving your country, serving as a juror is probably the most important civic duty you have, above voting, and how you shouldn’t look at it as a burden, but as you serving your country and making a change. He also remarked that jurors that do get selected always end up enjoying the process, instead of hating it like most initially think.
I was able to meet a lot of different people today, as one of Judge Helmick’s law clerks, Krys Beech, took me around to talk to people and see different things. One of the interesting conversations I had was with Judge Whipple, who is a bankruptcy judge, and was said to be a great & funny person when Ms. Beech mentioned her to anyone else. She talked with me quite a bit about what it’s like to specifically be a bankruptcy judge, and answered a lot of the questions I had with great detail. Apparently, recently, there’s been an unfortunate upward trend in bankruptcy cases, with a lot of them being low-income people who are using this as a last resort.
I also was able to attend a naturalization ceremony by Judge Whipple, which was wonderful to experience; I had been at the one at Maumee Valley because I played in the string ensemble, but I got to see this one as a spectator, and heard different styles of speeches than what I heard the first time. All the judges I’ve talked to about them have said that naturalization ceremonies are one of their favorite things to do, as nobody is upset or going to jail in them, and it’s simply a happy occasion.
I spent some time talking with and getting to know Judge Helmick’s law clerks as well, who are great people, and I enjoyed the time I spent with them. They were very insightful as to going to law school, getting a job, and gave me lots of advice for the future. I also met some externs from different chambers, and spent some time discussing local law over pie with one.
I think today was one I liked the most so far. I really got an in depth view on the field of law as a profession, and met a lot of people that were very helpful or that I enjoyed talking to.
Today was eventful. I was originally supposed to attend the jury selection for the case I mentioned yesterday, but apparently the defendant plead guilty, and so instead I came to watch the speech that Judge Carr gave to all of the potential jurors.
Apparently, as the court presides over some 22 counties, there were people that came from quite a long ways just for them to send them back home. Judge Carr talked to them about how aside from serving your country, serving as a juror is probably the most important civic duty you have, above voting, and how you shouldn’t look at it as a burden, but as you serving your country and making a change. He also remarked that jurors that do get selected always end up enjoying the process, instead of hating it like most initially think.
I was able to meet a lot of different people today, as one of Judge Helmick’s law clerks, Krys Beech, took me around to talk to people and see different things. One of the interesting conversations I had was with Judge Whipple, who is a bankruptcy judge, and was said to be a great & funny person when Ms. Beech mentioned her to anyone else. She talked with me quite a bit about what it’s like to specifically be a bankruptcy judge, and answered a lot of the questions I had with great detail. Apparently, recently, there’s been an unfortunate upward trend in bankruptcy cases, with a lot of them being low-income people who are using this as a last resort.
I also was able to attend a naturalization ceremony by Judge Whipple, which was wonderful to experience; I had been at the one at Maumee Valley because I played in the string ensemble, but I got to see this one as a spectator, and heard different styles of speeches than what I heard the first time. All the judges I’ve talked to about them have said that naturalization ceremonies are one of their favorite things to do, as nobody is upset or going to jail in them, and it’s simply a happy occasion.
I spent some time talking with and getting to know Judge Helmick’s law clerks as well, who are great people, and I enjoyed the time I spent with them. They were very insightful as to going to law school, getting a job, and gave me lots of advice for the future. I also met some externs from different chambers, and spent some time discussing local law over pie with one.
I think today was one I liked the most so far. I really got an in depth view on the field of law as a profession, and met a lot of people that were very helpful or that I enjoyed talking to.
DAY 5: MONDAY MAY 21
Today I was supposed to attend a mediation with Mr. Choka, but I couldn’t find where he was (after my mom had dropped me off slightly late), and so that ended up not being able to occur. Instead, I spent the majority of the day perusing the patent law book that one of Judge Helmick’s law clerks had lent me, and looking at some more sources for patent law (I had discussed it slightly with a few attorneys, but was not very exposed to it.
Patent lawyers generally have a background in science or math, and it is extremely technical. I was reading about some of the types of cases that patent lawyers have dealt with, and I’m not quite sure that that’s the field I’m going for, but it was nice to get some exposure to it. The clerk who lent me the book mentioned to me how she and some others thought that there should be a separate court for patent law, as much of the time the lawyers have to spend time explaining concepts of the case to the judges instead of simply going through it like they would had it been another field.
Today I was supposed to attend a mediation with Mr. Choka, but I couldn’t find where he was (after my mom had dropped me off slightly late), and so that ended up not being able to occur. Instead, I spent the majority of the day perusing the patent law book that one of Judge Helmick’s law clerks had lent me, and looking at some more sources for patent law (I had discussed it slightly with a few attorneys, but was not very exposed to it.
Patent lawyers generally have a background in science or math, and it is extremely technical. I was reading about some of the types of cases that patent lawyers have dealt with, and I’m not quite sure that that’s the field I’m going for, but it was nice to get some exposure to it. The clerk who lent me the book mentioned to me how she and some others thought that there should be a separate court for patent law, as much of the time the lawyers have to spend time explaining concepts of the case to the judges instead of simply going through it like they would had it been another field.
DAY 6: TUESDAY MAY 22
Today I went to Columbus to visit the Supreme Court!
I was meant to hear four oral arguments, which are not all that common, and we (me and my dad) ended up hearing three and a half, because one side submitted their side instead of doing it orally.
The first I didn’t understand quite as well, because it related to taxes and the such, so I had my dad explain some to me. It was a matter between a couple and a trust, and apparently that trust had breached something (according to the couple) that the trust claimed otherwise.
Today I went to Columbus to visit the Supreme Court!
I was meant to hear four oral arguments, which are not all that common, and we (me and my dad) ended up hearing three and a half, because one side submitted their side instead of doing it orally.
The first I didn’t understand quite as well, because it related to taxes and the such, so I had my dad explain some to me. It was a matter between a couple and a trust, and apparently that trust had breached something (according to the couple) that the trust claimed otherwise.
DAY 7: WEDNESDAY MAY 23
Today was more on the political side than the law side, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. I met with Tim Greenwood from Spengler today, and he took me to a PAC (political action committee) meeting at Owen’s Illinois, who he had a law based connection to.
Apparently, Mr. Greenwood was actually “retired” in that he comes and does give help around Spengler, where he was a partner and where he started at in the late 70s. He gave me some history on his work in Spengler, including the types of clients he had and certain memorable cases.
We then drove to Owens Illinois, where I got to meet a few important people within the topic we were going to discuss, and also a few lawyers, one of whom was very eager to tell me what it was like to work for OI in law and showed me around the areas he could. I enjoyed talking with him, and it was interesting being able to see the types of problems OI is facing right now (for instance, bringing popularity and modern-ness back to glass and expanding outside of alcohol is something they’re trying to work on).
At the PAC meeting, it was mainly Ohio politics discussed, and additionally how it related to Owens Illinois and the type of work they do. Apparently, one of the major issues right now (which Mr. Greenwood filled me in on before, being that he’s a member of the chamber of commerce and formerly held a position in the Ohio government) is that the current speaker of the house is under FBI watch and has resigned, the government can’t find a new one, and nothing can be voted on until they find a new one. It’s a complex issue, with two main central characters (the one who resigned and a former speaker), and they tied it into the fact that companies that OI is dependent on also have ties to different people, and running against them (as OI supports certain candidates) is a bit dangerous.
Today I was able to gain exposure to politics as it relates to companies, and also the type of law that some firms practice with. I realized the extent to which the political situation affects all fields, and was surprised at how easily politics and law in Ohio linked.
Today was more on the political side than the law side, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. I met with Tim Greenwood from Spengler today, and he took me to a PAC (political action committee) meeting at Owen’s Illinois, who he had a law based connection to.
Apparently, Mr. Greenwood was actually “retired” in that he comes and does give help around Spengler, where he was a partner and where he started at in the late 70s. He gave me some history on his work in Spengler, including the types of clients he had and certain memorable cases.
We then drove to Owens Illinois, where I got to meet a few important people within the topic we were going to discuss, and also a few lawyers, one of whom was very eager to tell me what it was like to work for OI in law and showed me around the areas he could. I enjoyed talking with him, and it was interesting being able to see the types of problems OI is facing right now (for instance, bringing popularity and modern-ness back to glass and expanding outside of alcohol is something they’re trying to work on).
At the PAC meeting, it was mainly Ohio politics discussed, and additionally how it related to Owens Illinois and the type of work they do. Apparently, one of the major issues right now (which Mr. Greenwood filled me in on before, being that he’s a member of the chamber of commerce and formerly held a position in the Ohio government) is that the current speaker of the house is under FBI watch and has resigned, the government can’t find a new one, and nothing can be voted on until they find a new one. It’s a complex issue, with two main central characters (the one who resigned and a former speaker), and they tied it into the fact that companies that OI is dependent on also have ties to different people, and running against them (as OI supports certain candidates) is a bit dangerous.
Today I was able to gain exposure to politics as it relates to companies, and also the type of law that some firms practice with. I realized the extent to which the political situation affects all fields, and was surprised at how easily politics and law in Ohio linked.
DAY 8: THURSDAY MAY 24
Today was one that I had planned for quite a while. I went to ABLE (Access to Basic Legal Equality) to meet with Mr. Eugenio Mollo, who actually was a speaker for Issue Day at our school. ABLE mainly deals with low-incone people, but has a variety of work in multiple categories (fair housing, disability, immigration, etc.) Mr. Mollo focuses within ABLE on immigration law, and I had an in-depth conversation with him about his work, among many other topics.
Apparently, his parents are immigrants from Italy, and that was one of the roots as for his want to become an immigration attorney. I discussed with him also some immigration issues with another part of my family, and he gave some commentary on that as well. One memorable tidbit he mentioned to me was a man from Africa he worked with that had a mental illness that they had put into deportation proceedings, but the country he was had an incredibly underdeveloped mental health system, and because of the climate in the country (social, not scientific) and the way his mental illness was expressed, he would likely have gotten killed had he gone. Another was one that he told me he had fought with his brother, a law enforcement official, about; a man who was trafficking heavy drugs actually had the possibility to be a U.S. citizen (as his parents apparently had him in the U.S. or one parent was a citizen), and so they fought off the deportation proceedings as well.
We also talked for quite a bit about law school; whenever I’ve talked with clerks or attorneys, they generally tend to ask me about what I want to do for undergrad and where I want to go, and today was no different. I generally say I want to major in English, which tends to get positive responses (which is good). Mr. Mollo told me that he majored in ESL, and that he actually had planned on becoming a history teacher until around his last year of college. I also learned that what you extern/intern for (as in field-wise) can be important for what you want to become; he spent his summers I believe at a migrant farm helping, and he said that was
I greatly enjoyed talking with him, as he was very insightful and easy to talk to, not to mention eager to help me. I think this opened up the field of public interest law as something I’m greatly interested in for me.
Today was one that I had planned for quite a while. I went to ABLE (Access to Basic Legal Equality) to meet with Mr. Eugenio Mollo, who actually was a speaker for Issue Day at our school. ABLE mainly deals with low-incone people, but has a variety of work in multiple categories (fair housing, disability, immigration, etc.) Mr. Mollo focuses within ABLE on immigration law, and I had an in-depth conversation with him about his work, among many other topics.
Apparently, his parents are immigrants from Italy, and that was one of the roots as for his want to become an immigration attorney. I discussed with him also some immigration issues with another part of my family, and he gave some commentary on that as well. One memorable tidbit he mentioned to me was a man from Africa he worked with that had a mental illness that they had put into deportation proceedings, but the country he was had an incredibly underdeveloped mental health system, and because of the climate in the country (social, not scientific) and the way his mental illness was expressed, he would likely have gotten killed had he gone. Another was one that he told me he had fought with his brother, a law enforcement official, about; a man who was trafficking heavy drugs actually had the possibility to be a U.S. citizen (as his parents apparently had him in the U.S. or one parent was a citizen), and so they fought off the deportation proceedings as well.
We also talked for quite a bit about law school; whenever I’ve talked with clerks or attorneys, they generally tend to ask me about what I want to do for undergrad and where I want to go, and today was no different. I generally say I want to major in English, which tends to get positive responses (which is good). Mr. Mollo told me that he majored in ESL, and that he actually had planned on becoming a history teacher until around his last year of college. I also learned that what you extern/intern for (as in field-wise) can be important for what you want to become; he spent his summers I believe at a migrant farm helping, and he said that was
I greatly enjoyed talking with him, as he was very insightful and easy to talk to, not to mention eager to help me. I think this opened up the field of public interest law as something I’m greatly interested in for me.
DAY 9: FRIDAY MAY 25
I was back at ABLE again today, but this time for a different reason. Ms. Wise put me in touch with Kara Ford, who was a previous Maumee Valley graduate.
The Toledo Design Center gave a presentation about some of their local vitalization projects, in which one of them was the Old South End project, which we had first heard about from the freshman intensive. This time, they related it to ABLE in that there were housing concerns, and lots of issues with poverty as well.
Apparently, a large issue in the area (that ABLE had dealt with as well) was that a lot of the homes that were being rented out didn’t follow procedures for housing, and asthma in kids had been getting really bad. There were some legal battles, and one of the ABLE members that had come to watch the presentation actually was the one dealing with it, and we got to see a clip about it.
Even though I had heard about the Old South End project last year, it was presented differently than how we first learned about it. I was able to see how different community projects and groups interact with each other in different capacities, and got further exposure to the different kinds of work that ABLE undertakes.
I was back at ABLE again today, but this time for a different reason. Ms. Wise put me in touch with Kara Ford, who was a previous Maumee Valley graduate.
The Toledo Design Center gave a presentation about some of their local vitalization projects, in which one of them was the Old South End project, which we had first heard about from the freshman intensive. This time, they related it to ABLE in that there were housing concerns, and lots of issues with poverty as well.
Apparently, a large issue in the area (that ABLE had dealt with as well) was that a lot of the homes that were being rented out didn’t follow procedures for housing, and asthma in kids had been getting really bad. There were some legal battles, and one of the ABLE members that had come to watch the presentation actually was the one dealing with it, and we got to see a clip about it.
Even though I had heard about the Old South End project last year, it was presented differently than how we first learned about it. I was able to see how different community projects and groups interact with each other in different capacities, and got further exposure to the different kinds of work that ABLE undertakes.
DAY 10: TUESDAY MAY 29
Today I was able to see two sentencings; the first by Judge Zouhary, and the second by Judge Helmick.
The first was the sentencing of a former mayoral candidate, James Moody, who had been part of a large scheme that took place over 11 years, where he essentially scammed the Lucas County Job and Family Services, and continuously took money from the grants that would have been given to help low-income people with work. He argued that it was simple “negligence” and “incompetency”, but Judge Zouhary did not accept that as an excuse. The two attorneys went back and forth in a series of arguments where they nitpicked each other’s claims and manipulated each situation to their advantage. Eventually, Mr. Mood got 66 months in prison, and the judge gave him quite a long speech about how he knew his actions were wrong and how he was more culpable in this than the other three involved, contrary to his attorney’s claims.
The second one was quite different from the first, in that it was much tamer than I expected. Both the defendant’s attorney and opposing counsel generally agreed, and there was no vicious back and forth like with the first sentencing. Judge Helmick was gentler with him but still firm, remanding him for ending up in a federal court but generally showing willingness to help him get on the right track (as he had been working with a Reverand in prison that attested to his improvement, and some other markers).
This highlighted to me the variety that comes from this type of job, and the fact that you never truly know what you’re going to deal with. Also, watching the judges give their remarks on the sentencing showed me further the way that judges have to follow certain rulings made by higher courts, and the emotion that’s involved in the job.
Today I was able to see two sentencings; the first by Judge Zouhary, and the second by Judge Helmick.
The first was the sentencing of a former mayoral candidate, James Moody, who had been part of a large scheme that took place over 11 years, where he essentially scammed the Lucas County Job and Family Services, and continuously took money from the grants that would have been given to help low-income people with work. He argued that it was simple “negligence” and “incompetency”, but Judge Zouhary did not accept that as an excuse. The two attorneys went back and forth in a series of arguments where they nitpicked each other’s claims and manipulated each situation to their advantage. Eventually, Mr. Mood got 66 months in prison, and the judge gave him quite a long speech about how he knew his actions were wrong and how he was more culpable in this than the other three involved, contrary to his attorney’s claims.
The second one was quite different from the first, in that it was much tamer than I expected. Both the defendant’s attorney and opposing counsel generally agreed, and there was no vicious back and forth like with the first sentencing. Judge Helmick was gentler with him but still firm, remanding him for ending up in a federal court but generally showing willingness to help him get on the right track (as he had been working with a Reverand in prison that attested to his improvement, and some other markers).
This highlighted to me the variety that comes from this type of job, and the fact that you never truly know what you’re going to deal with. Also, watching the judges give their remarks on the sentencing showed me further the way that judges have to follow certain rulings made by higher courts, and the emotion that’s involved in the job.
DAY 11: WEDNESDAY MAY 30
Today I was able to witness a change of plea in the federal court again. I quite liked the federal court, and decided to return once more, as I knew they had an event today.
Because it’s federal and not municipal court, the level of crime is much more serious; today was no different. I hadn’t gone into this knowing what it was about, only that it was a change of plea; I walked in, and later came a young man and his lawyer, who looked quite polished. Apparently, however, the case was actually based around his charge of “production” of child pornography, which surprised me quite a bit. Judge Helmick had told me that these types of cases (ones like these, drugs, human trafficking, etc.) will come up more frequently that he’d like, but I hadn’t known I would be able to witness one.
He was taking a guilty plea, and so Judge Helmick (who was the judge on the case) read to him what he would’ve gone through had he taken a trial instead. It was quite lengthy, and eventually opposing counsel (a U.S. attorney) read some details of the case pertinent to today. I won’t repeat some of the more specific details, but essentially it related to internet contact with minors, and he had the police targeting him from three different locations: Illinois, Ohio, and South Carolina. Illinois is where he is from, but the minor that they caught him having main contact with was from Lima, Ohio (which falls under this federal district, and therefore they had him under their jurisdiction. Because of certain “rewards” you get when you plead guild, he had two or three levels taken down from his level 39 crime, and certain guidelines would have put him at 15 years in prison (the minimum).
This was another instance where I got to see how judges work in action. It’s difficult to be fair and compassionate in situations like these. but Judge Helmick managed to do so quite well. Being a judge is a tougher job than it can seem, and I got to see that today.
Today I was able to witness a change of plea in the federal court again. I quite liked the federal court, and decided to return once more, as I knew they had an event today.
Because it’s federal and not municipal court, the level of crime is much more serious; today was no different. I hadn’t gone into this knowing what it was about, only that it was a change of plea; I walked in, and later came a young man and his lawyer, who looked quite polished. Apparently, however, the case was actually based around his charge of “production” of child pornography, which surprised me quite a bit. Judge Helmick had told me that these types of cases (ones like these, drugs, human trafficking, etc.) will come up more frequently that he’d like, but I hadn’t known I would be able to witness one.
He was taking a guilty plea, and so Judge Helmick (who was the judge on the case) read to him what he would’ve gone through had he taken a trial instead. It was quite lengthy, and eventually opposing counsel (a U.S. attorney) read some details of the case pertinent to today. I won’t repeat some of the more specific details, but essentially it related to internet contact with minors, and he had the police targeting him from three different locations: Illinois, Ohio, and South Carolina. Illinois is where he is from, but the minor that they caught him having main contact with was from Lima, Ohio (which falls under this federal district, and therefore they had him under their jurisdiction. Because of certain “rewards” you get when you plead guild, he had two or three levels taken down from his level 39 crime, and certain guidelines would have put him at 15 years in prison (the minimum).
This was another instance where I got to see how judges work in action. It’s difficult to be fair and compassionate in situations like these. but Judge Helmick managed to do so quite well. Being a judge is a tougher job than it can seem, and I got to see that today.
DAY 12: THURSDAY MAY 31
Today I spent the day at Dana, as I was hoping to get an insight into the world of corporate law. Dana is a company that specializes in making and selling automotive parts, and they have many different divisions within the company. My father actually works their in one of their engineering departments, so he was able to set up a meeting and some activities with the managing attorney from their department, Lisa Wurster.
Mrs. Wurster gave me a very in depth explanation as to what it’s like being a corporate lawyer; one of the points she emphasized was that corporate law brings much more stability than out-house practice, and also issues with attorney-client privilege. Mrs. Wurster told me that she got her start at Dana because after law school she worked at a company Dana frequently reached out to to work with, and after a while of continuous work together, they decided to take her on board to work with them long-term. Because in corporate law the company is your client (not necessarily members of the company), there are sometimes issues with privacy in that employees will tell her or other attorneys certain issues that they shouldn’t, thinking that attorney-client privilege will cover them. Additionally, a main portion of this type of corporate law is contract work, which she gave me many points about. Apparently there are also a lot of issues right now because of the internet privacy policy changes in Europe, as new guidelines were set.
I was able to listen in on a phone conference and an in person meeting, where different issues were discussed. Over the phone, they talked about an issue with bmugs getting onto pallets from India that somehow made it past customs; discussed was the legal procedures that they believed should be followed, if any, and who they should turn to in the future. The in-person meeting was to go over a contract with two other Dana employees; they had discussed the contract with the other company prior, and was going over the points that the other company had contentions with. A lot of it was in specific wordings and small tweaks.
I was also able to have a conversation with Gary Golden, who specialized within the department in labor law. He told me about how he has a lot of work with the union, and that they haven’t had many issues in recent years; apparently negotiations in the 80s, where unions came to power, sorted much of the issues out (and in the subsequent years) to the point where they had nothing else to ask for (and would ask for some rather ridiculous things, with an example being something related to toothbrushes). Apparently this also has him involved in politics, and we spent some time discussing the current political situation (on local, government, and state levels).
Finally, I got to meet with David Durst, who had worked with my dad prior, and who typically works with intellectual property and other similar matters. With my father he mainly had done non-disclosure agreements, which are matters of privacy between Dana and their customers (OEMs). He had a phone conference that I got to listen in on and an in-person one as well, but we talked for a bit about his job and law as well. On his phone conference, it was issues with IT and certain softwares/computer hardware that they were distributing to out-house employees/customers. The in-person conference was to go over a contract, and it was quite long; it was to go over a contract between a security company they were hiring and them. It was quite thorough, and each individual point was touched upon, with both Dana’s and the company’s input revised.
I think today gave me an accurate viewing of what it’s like to work as a corporate lawyer. I’d experienced it before a bit talking to some lawyers from Dana previously, but I had never been able to see it in this detail, and I think being able to shadow them as they did daily work was very beneficial in that process.
Today I spent the day at Dana, as I was hoping to get an insight into the world of corporate law. Dana is a company that specializes in making and selling automotive parts, and they have many different divisions within the company. My father actually works their in one of their engineering departments, so he was able to set up a meeting and some activities with the managing attorney from their department, Lisa Wurster.
Mrs. Wurster gave me a very in depth explanation as to what it’s like being a corporate lawyer; one of the points she emphasized was that corporate law brings much more stability than out-house practice, and also issues with attorney-client privilege. Mrs. Wurster told me that she got her start at Dana because after law school she worked at a company Dana frequently reached out to to work with, and after a while of continuous work together, they decided to take her on board to work with them long-term. Because in corporate law the company is your client (not necessarily members of the company), there are sometimes issues with privacy in that employees will tell her or other attorneys certain issues that they shouldn’t, thinking that attorney-client privilege will cover them. Additionally, a main portion of this type of corporate law is contract work, which she gave me many points about. Apparently there are also a lot of issues right now because of the internet privacy policy changes in Europe, as new guidelines were set.
I was able to listen in on a phone conference and an in person meeting, where different issues were discussed. Over the phone, they talked about an issue with bmugs getting onto pallets from India that somehow made it past customs; discussed was the legal procedures that they believed should be followed, if any, and who they should turn to in the future. The in-person meeting was to go over a contract with two other Dana employees; they had discussed the contract with the other company prior, and was going over the points that the other company had contentions with. A lot of it was in specific wordings and small tweaks.
I was also able to have a conversation with Gary Golden, who specialized within the department in labor law. He told me about how he has a lot of work with the union, and that they haven’t had many issues in recent years; apparently negotiations in the 80s, where unions came to power, sorted much of the issues out (and in the subsequent years) to the point where they had nothing else to ask for (and would ask for some rather ridiculous things, with an example being something related to toothbrushes). Apparently this also has him involved in politics, and we spent some time discussing the current political situation (on local, government, and state levels).
Finally, I got to meet with David Durst, who had worked with my dad prior, and who typically works with intellectual property and other similar matters. With my father he mainly had done non-disclosure agreements, which are matters of privacy between Dana and their customers (OEMs). He had a phone conference that I got to listen in on and an in-person one as well, but we talked for a bit about his job and law as well. On his phone conference, it was issues with IT and certain softwares/computer hardware that they were distributing to out-house employees/customers. The in-person conference was to go over a contract, and it was quite long; it was to go over a contract between a security company they were hiring and them. It was quite thorough, and each individual point was touched upon, with both Dana’s and the company’s input revised.
I think today gave me an accurate viewing of what it’s like to work as a corporate lawyer. I’d experienced it before a bit talking to some lawyers from Dana previously, but I had never been able to see it in this detail, and I think being able to shadow them as they did daily work was very beneficial in that process.
DAY 13: FRIDAY JUNE 1
Today might have been one of my favorite days in the independent study so far; when I talked to Mr. Mollo a few months ago, he told me that he could get me into a regional training conference on immigration law and migrant farm workers, and I was able to go today. The sessions today were “Immigration Enforcement actions: Know Your Rights” put on by members of the ACLU of Michigan, and the second was “Community Outreach and Advocacy Skills” put on by the Legal Aid Society of Metropolitan Family Services.
The first session discussed mainly groups like ICE and Border Patrol, and how to recognize and deal with them in relation to a client. Ms. Valdes (one of the speakers gave the example of a person without a fishing license being caught by the police and subsequently calling ICE because they were foreign; they cannot call immigration enforcements if they have no reason to do so. Additionally, there are things like how you generally shouldn’t open the door if you’re undocumented, because that’s a welcoming to ICE that they can enter your home, and more information on mixed status families and the such.
The second session was focused on how to do proper community outreach and why community outreach is important. This would mainly be based around going to the farms and training was given on many different scenarios around how to communicate with the workers and also your rights/what protocol should be followed if the owner threatens to kick you out or anything similar. They did a few skits to accurately demonstrate what they were looking for, including one where the workers didn’t recognize Spanish (the majority language of those who they deal with) or English, and they couldn’t figure out what language it was. Members of the audience answered correctly different methods, such as finding a translator, asking them to circle a map, and more.
The ending was incredibly emotional; Mr. Keberlein, who led the session, gave a presentation about a situation his group faced in 2011, with a man named Humberto. Humberto was farm worker from Mexico that had never intended to come to the US, but received and offer, and was told that he would make much more than what he was in his town, so he left. He had a wife and three young daughters. On the hottest day that year it was around 117 degrees, which is around 15 or so degrees hotter in the fields. Humberto had passed out multiple times, and was continuously told by the crew leaders to go back in. Eventually, the group in the fields kept being sent back and forth around the fields, and they were exhausted and a bit lost. To get to the point, they couldn’t find Humberto, and so after a few hours they called the police, who had just assumed that he had run off and was ‘somewhere laughing at them’, and stopped after a while. Eventually, they called his group and explained the situation to the (remorseful) police, and spent the following days searching for him in the fields, until the police gave up and were called away because of the deaths of two teenage girls (who ended up getting the front page of the Chicago Tribune). This was early June; they found his remains on labor day that same year, and could barely identify him. He would have been out there for much longer had the organization not dedicated their time to finding him. The speech served as a reminder that their work has impact, and that no matter what anyone would tell them, their job is important.
I think this was something that made me fully realize that public interest law is what I’m most interested in; some other days were definitely enjoyable, but this was the one that I was captivated the whole time and identified with the messages of the people who were there. Mr. Keberlein’s story at the end really made me think of reasons why I wanted to go into law in the first place. I truly appreciated being able to come and experience this entire conference.
Today might have been one of my favorite days in the independent study so far; when I talked to Mr. Mollo a few months ago, he told me that he could get me into a regional training conference on immigration law and migrant farm workers, and I was able to go today. The sessions today were “Immigration Enforcement actions: Know Your Rights” put on by members of the ACLU of Michigan, and the second was “Community Outreach and Advocacy Skills” put on by the Legal Aid Society of Metropolitan Family Services.
The first session discussed mainly groups like ICE and Border Patrol, and how to recognize and deal with them in relation to a client. Ms. Valdes (one of the speakers gave the example of a person without a fishing license being caught by the police and subsequently calling ICE because they were foreign; they cannot call immigration enforcements if they have no reason to do so. Additionally, there are things like how you generally shouldn’t open the door if you’re undocumented, because that’s a welcoming to ICE that they can enter your home, and more information on mixed status families and the such.
The second session was focused on how to do proper community outreach and why community outreach is important. This would mainly be based around going to the farms and training was given on many different scenarios around how to communicate with the workers and also your rights/what protocol should be followed if the owner threatens to kick you out or anything similar. They did a few skits to accurately demonstrate what they were looking for, including one where the workers didn’t recognize Spanish (the majority language of those who they deal with) or English, and they couldn’t figure out what language it was. Members of the audience answered correctly different methods, such as finding a translator, asking them to circle a map, and more.
The ending was incredibly emotional; Mr. Keberlein, who led the session, gave a presentation about a situation his group faced in 2011, with a man named Humberto. Humberto was farm worker from Mexico that had never intended to come to the US, but received and offer, and was told that he would make much more than what he was in his town, so he left. He had a wife and three young daughters. On the hottest day that year it was around 117 degrees, which is around 15 or so degrees hotter in the fields. Humberto had passed out multiple times, and was continuously told by the crew leaders to go back in. Eventually, the group in the fields kept being sent back and forth around the fields, and they were exhausted and a bit lost. To get to the point, they couldn’t find Humberto, and so after a few hours they called the police, who had just assumed that he had run off and was ‘somewhere laughing at them’, and stopped after a while. Eventually, they called his group and explained the situation to the (remorseful) police, and spent the following days searching for him in the fields, until the police gave up and were called away because of the deaths of two teenage girls (who ended up getting the front page of the Chicago Tribune). This was early June; they found his remains on labor day that same year, and could barely identify him. He would have been out there for much longer had the organization not dedicated their time to finding him. The speech served as a reminder that their work has impact, and that no matter what anyone would tell them, their job is important.
I think this was something that made me fully realize that public interest law is what I’m most interested in; some other days were definitely enjoyable, but this was the one that I was captivated the whole time and identified with the messages of the people who were there. Mr. Keberlein’s story at the end really made me think of reasons why I wanted to go into law in the first place. I truly appreciated being able to come and experience this entire conference.