Recently a trial lawyer friend asked me for ideas  about handling a case involving a client who had negligently been deprived of sight in one eye and resulting limited vision in the other eye. While one would assume that the damages are obvious, my experience in running focus studies regarding cases like this, was the surprising result that many people didn’t regard visual injury and even blindness  as a significant injury. Many people believe that with adaptive devices and other technology one  would be able to function at a somewhat normal manner. Other focus study members referred to blind and sight impaired people they knew or read about that were functioning very well. In Washington State we have an elected a blind lieutenant governor. I think we have to assume that we need to present  evidence to support the seriousness of injuries and not assume the injuries are obvious.

Factors Involved in Vision Impairment Injury

To understand the significance of this kind of injury, try to intellectually reverse roles with a client who has suffered an impairment of vision. Consider the fact that our eyes work every waking hour. That’s an average of 16 hours a day, 365 days a week. They are one of only five senses we have been given to function in life. Furthermore vision was intended to cooperate in a team like manner with the other senses. When one important sense, like vision, is impaired, it effects us as a whole human being.  It changes us from someone who has normal functioning five senses into someone who must cope with the loss of an important sense. What we take for granted is becomes an enormous loss when taken from us.

The Christian Bible explains this very clearly in 1 Corinthians 12 where Paul writes:

“Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body.  And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body.  If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be?  As it is, there are many parts, but one body.there are many parts, but one body.”

The function of eyesight gives us facts, beauty, impressions and are part of our  human function. Eyes are source of information from watching television, going to a movie,  reading newspapers and the computer and in many other ways we don’t always think about. Eyes are important to the enjoyment of daily life. Gardening, recreation and walking without impairment are all related to vision. Eyesight is an important part of our social life. That involves meeting people, enjoying family and friends. We rely upon facial expression is a substantial part of relationships with others.

Research has shown that when people can both see and hear each other, they rely upon facial expressions, body language and tone of voice for the majority of their evaluation and impression of the other person. Sight impairment deprives us of this ability. A change of expression communicates information which a visual person uses to form conclusions about what is being said and the other person. Without vision one would not be certain the other person is smiling or frowning. We communicate and send messages by our facial expressions. In fact, all social settings can be difficult  for a person without normal vision. There is the problem of recognizing other people.  Such simple things as the stress of  the social interchange physically by handshake or otherwise.

Think about the simple daily events that are impacted by visual impairment or blindness. A candle in a dark room makes the darkness tolerable. Extinguish it and you are completely in the dark. Have you ever walked into a dark room and groped for the light switch? Close your eyes and enter the world of the blind or visually impaired. Try moving around with your eyes closed or talking to another person with your eyes closed and you will have a sense of the reality involved with blindness and visual impairment. But for you it is only temporary. For the visually impaired it is a daily experience for the rest of their lives.

Obviously there are employment issues involved for people who are visually impaired. Assuming two people applied for the same job, one with normal site and one with visual impairment irrespective of the lot relating to disability discrimination, it is an important factor in obtaining employment. Review the employment and salary impact of visual impairment.

Think also about the impact on daily life. Being deprived of driving a car and the independence that gives one. Most people With sight have daily activities that include  television, movies, computer, IPads and IPhones. Most people with sight do not have environmental challenges of steps, sidewalks and other mobility issues. Navigating on city sidewalks and in office buildings is a challenge.

Yes there are adaptive devices for the visually impaired. But, research those that are available for the visually impaired.  Consider not just the cost, but the learning effort required to use them. Review the amount of effort in using them after learning how.  Consider the extra time required when employing them. Analyze the number of daily activities that are involved.

Spending quality time with your visually impaired client, listening to them and watching them is the single best way of learning the reality of visual impairment. Be an advocate for your client.

Posted in Damages | Leave a comment


While the following points are well known to almost all of us, it is important, from time to time, to review the basics involved in the trial of the case. Here are a few of the well-known and well-established ideas to keep in mind. I  appreciate these may be overly simplistic, but we often forget the basics of good trial tactics.


In 1999 Lawyers Weekly published the results of a study done through the American Trial Lawyers Association. It assigned two of the members, experienced in jury psychology, the research project of presenting cases to hundreds of focus groups around the country. Their research was then evaluated and published. It established the fact that when they begin presenting their opening statement by talking about the plaintiff, jurors would blame the plaintiff for what happened. But, if they started with the defendant’s conduct, jurors focused on what the defendant had done wrong and blamed the defendant. They clearly demonstrated we should start our trial story not with the injuries or the plaintiff, but with the defendant’s conduct. The reason was what psychology calls “availability bias.” An over simplistic explanation is our tendency to use mental short cuts to reach conclusions by putting more emphasis on memorable facts we are given than is deserved. In sort of a “hindsight” way we reach  conclusions about facts before we have reviewed all of the available information first. We tend to rush to judgment.

As a result, the jurors began to immediately fill in blanks and asking themselves questions by focusing upon the behavior first given them.  They construct an understanding of the case in the context of the defendant’s behavior before they review the full context of all the facts.

Added to that, is the psychological factor of “defensive attribution.” This refers to the fact that once we reach conclusions  we began to filter facts that are inconsistent with our own ideas and what we have concluded or about what we would expect others to do. We adopt a unrealistic “this couldn’t happen to me” or “I would never have done that” reaction. In the study jurors developed stories in their minds and then looked for evidence to support their version. As a result we should begin by attacking the defendant’s conduct and not start with a discussion of the plaintiff. In addition sympathy is a very poor motivator. Anger drives plaintiff verdicts.


Virtually every juror comes to court with existing and often unconscious bias. One of the more prevalent involves the idea that “stuff happens” or the bias that things are just going to happen as part of life and we need to deal with with them. This extends to the idea that society shouldn’t have to and can’t afford to compensate everyone for everything that happens to them because things just happen to people in life. Deal with this bias by showing that this is not a case where “stuff happened” but rather one caused by the defendant.

People believe generally in “personal responsibility” and “accountability.” When someone does something that harms another, there is a general expectation that the wrongdoer will take responsibility for their action and be held accountable for it. Apply this to the defendant’s conduct and the defendant’s failure to accept responsibility or be made accountable for the harm that they have caused.

Everyone has these and many other biases. It is our role to understand them, deal with them by the way in which we question our jurors or present our case and not ignore them.


The jurors come to court  with questions about what their role is and what the case is about. Too often in jury selection we launch into a discussion about factors in the case or issues of attitudes, but without dealing with the primary questions in the minds of jurors. Think about when you were a child and you had a new game to play. The first question you have would be: “what are the rules.” In a trial, the jurors want to know what are the rules? What is this case all about? What does the plaintiff say the defendant did and what does the plaintiff want? How about the defendant? What does the defendant say? Other questions that  apply incorporate cases involves the question of the chain of command. Who is responsible for what? Organizational charts for corporate responsibility are important in those cases. Answer the unasked questions and you will be seen as a teacher and leader.


I believe David Ball’s books on Damages are the single best summary of the basics for opening statement for plaintiff trial lawyers. Certainly, all of the recommendations and information in the books are valuable and important, but I particularly like the way he has laid out the steps for opening statement. The following is a poor adaption of much of his recommendations in that regard. If you don’t own his latest book, you should.

Start with the Rules

Start the discussion of  what actions  were wrong and why they were wrong. In other words, what are the rules and why are they important? For example: “A driver is required to watch the road and see what’s there to be seen. If the driver doesn’t, even for an instant, and as a result hurts someone, the driver is responsible for the harm. Now let me tell you the story of what happened in this case.”  The brain is more attracted to a present tense narrative than a past one.

Starting with defendant’s conduct tell the story in the presence tense

Start with the defendant’s conduct. Tell the story in the presence tense as if it were happening now. It’s a story and not a chronology. It’s supposed to keep interest as it is being told. Use an active voice: “Jim looks at the light and it is green, so he begins to drive forward.” You are a video camera reporting a documentary.

Make it interesting 

Don’t waste time and lose attention with preliminary talk other than “good morning.” Omit details and irrelevant information. Hit the major big points and leave out the rest. Don’t add anything more than is necessary.  Avoid legal language. If you quote something, use the exact language of the rule or policy instead of clarifying in simple language. Do not be an advocate about your story. Instead, be a story teller of facts. That includes your demeanor and tone of voice. You are a teacher and not a preacher.

Avoid unnecessary dates, times and details 

Don’t use a chronology approach with dates and times. Jurors won’t remember them anyway and they distract from the story.  If you do need time, insert it at the start of the sentence  as in “six days later the doctor…”

Make it short, simple and understandable

Communication is what the other person hears. Not what you think you said. Use simple, short sentences. Use the same rule as in cross examination: one fact per sentence. Remember, sensory descriptions  strengthens the story:  color, smell, sound, touch  and taste.

Next, give them explanations

After you have told them the story, tell them why you are suing. The sequence is: (1) What are the rules (2) What is the story and (3) now, why you are suing. Explain experts will explain the rules and how rules protects people. Analogy in this regard are important as is explaining how dangerous it is to violate the rule.

Explain what defendant did and what defendant should have done instead by not violating the rules. Note that the easier and simpler it was to avoid violating the rule, the stronger your case. If  jurors think they could have easily done the right thing they will feel more strongly about it.

Explain for each rule violated (1) who you are suing  (2) what rule was broken (3) how the defendant did it (4) what is dangerous about violating the rule and who says so (5) how the rule protects people (6) how the violation caused the harm (6) what defendant should have done and (7) how that would have made a difference.

Review the defenses

Undermine the defenses. Start with defense contentions. Explain how you reviewed these defenses before you decided to take the case and what you found out about how valid they were. Explain why they aren’t really defenses.

Discuss burden of proof

Review the standard of proof involved and the general evidence that more than satisfies the legal requirement.

Discuss causation & consequences of injury

Explain you will now discuss the consequences of the violation of rules and conduct of defendant. Describe the chain of  events that demonstrate the connection between the defendant’s actions and the damages resulting. Review causation. Cover the mechanism of harm. This is a clinical, simple explanation and without medical terms. It is a step by step description like domino’s falling.

Explain step by step how it changed your client’s life. Where there is a consortium claim, show how it intrudes on his wife and children. Detail the necessary fixes and helps and what cannot be helped. Use simple line drawings. Simplicity is always best here. Cover the personal consequences of each injury. Then review the before condition of your client’s situation even if in reverse chronological order because it has dramatic impact.

Review the economic loss and make  it clear the evidence will deal with two separate and different types of damages: Economic and Non-economic. Discuss generally the evidence that illustrates those differences.

Conclude with what the jury can do about this

Address the question: “what do you want? in a general way by talking about your presenting evidence regarding the damages.  Advise them you will present them with a way in which to appraise the harm and reflect a reasonable and fair verdict in dollars at the end of the case, once they have all the facts.


Posted in Trial | Leave a comment


My friend Mark D. Swendsen, Sr. and I share ideas about communication, including those dealing with politics. Mark has been a California attorney for four decades and a former hostage negotiator. He has published books and lectured on the law, including a lecture to the Inner Circle of Advocates, a national trial lawyer’s organization, His training and experience includes Neuro Linguistic Programing as well as psychological insights. His book Target the Unconscious! The Modern Psychology of Rhetoric for the Plaintiff’s Lawyer is a book I’ve recommended and written about before. I have no financial interest in  this book, but having read Mark’s previous book on NLP and persuasion, I began communicating with him on the subject.  He asked me to write the introduction to the book, which is an encyclopedia of all the important techniques of psychological persuasion.

Recently I read an article about Donald Trump’s frequent reference to “my friend Jim”  and things he claimed he had said or done. But, no one could  produce any evidence such a friend existed. I asked Mark if that didn’t seem to be Trump using what is known in NLP as the “quotes pattern.” He agreed and I asked him to write about Trump’s apparent use of these and other communication devices. He sent this to me which provides insight as to how Donald Trump, in spite of apparently violating every rule of  normal political conduct has successfully employed communication devices resulting in his election. This is what Mark has shared:


Donald Trump is generally regarded as either the savior of the American working class and the creator of a renewed nation, or a supremely evil, beastly fraud who will bring about apocalyptic disaster. For us as lawyers, his extraordinary ability to inspire and motivate huge numbers of people is something we should study. We have much to learn from Donald Trump–a very great deal to learn. Sophisticated people laugh. That is an error.

By any conventional standard, he would have been expected to lose. He insults women. He insults the disabled. He insults Latinos. He insults the poor. He insults the rich. He insults Catholics. He insults Muslims. He insults industrial donors. He insults Republicans. He insults Democrats. He insults liberals. He insults conservatives.  He insults the fat. He insults the ugly. He insults the short. He picks a fight with the Pope–this Pope. He insults the newspapers. He insults radio hosts. He insults TV hosts. He admits to multiple sexual assaults–criminal sexual assaults. He brags about the size of his schwanzstucker on national TV in the middle of a formal presidential debate. He insults a Muslim Gold Star family, repeatedly, despite clear advice from his supporters and staff that it is a consciously set trap, which, indeed, it is. He is unable to avoid stepping into that trap, again and again and again, compulsively attacking them whenever they criticize him. He cannot abide criticism. He insults military officers. He insults judges. He insults senators. He insults governors. He insults Hawaiians. He insults Mexicans. He insults Canadians.

Reading is hard for him; he relies mainly on television and personal conversations for information, as if Chance the gardener finally came to life. Born to riches, he became a billionaire, separating himself from most of the people who support him. He got rich cheating his customers. He got richer cheating his contractors. He sues everybody. He notoriously had his wife living on one floor of his tower, and his mistress on the floor below. He is on his third marriage. His current wife shows little interest in being close to him, even in public. He ran a fact-free campaign. His policy briefs could be written on the back of an envelope.  His asserted facts only occasionally comport with verifiable reality. He has no identifiable core beliefs except loyalty to himself. He shows signs of severe mental illness, of a narcissistic personality disorder and an obsessive-compulsive need to defend every slight on his name, a compulsion so strong that it becomes disabling. He craves praise and admiration with a hunger so overwhelming that he is always in danger of being manipulated by anyone, anyone at all, who says good things about him. He is best known for telling people they are fired, which surely is the worst thing most working people ever hear, but no one cares.

No one cares. The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

No one cares. News organizations abandon journalism and turn to cynical open advocacy and bald lies. It is all for our own good, of course. All for our own good.

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, the blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere  the ceremony of innocence is drowned. Evangelicals march behind the golden banner of a pagan. Out-of-work laborers shout their support for a robber baron. Unemployed coal miners, their lungs black with disease, demand the reopening of the deep hells that have ruined their lives. Republicans ignore a desperate, savage, apocalyptic philippic from their previous candidate, Mitt Romney, and heedlessly nominate a man with no principles at all.

Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold.

His supporters ignore all, forgive all, and even rejoice in all. Chaos reigns. None of it matters to them.

It was to this man that we chose to give the launch codes that can blow up the world.

It was in this man that the unwashed recognized their doppelgänger. They embraced his candidacy with a berserk ferocity that was bred by their soul-crushing hopelessness and seething anger at being sheep, always led to economic slaughter by the Armani-suited corporate executives, serpents who foreclose on their humble mortgages and ship their miserable jobs to China. At long last they realize that they no longer have a republic, but an auction, an auction at which they cannot even bid,  and their rage is indescribable. They came with torches and pitchforks after the politicians who have been bought by corporations.

The nation descends into naked savagery. Trump supporters wore the red hats and slugged it out with masked anarchists on the way out of Trump’s rallies while police under control of Democratic mayors simply watched. Elderly Trump fans wore the red badge of courage under their red caps. No one is safe. The police take three hours to enter an Orlando nightclub while 49 people are murdered inside. The message for everyone is: don’t bother calling the cops, you’re on your own, so don’t give up your guns. Gun control advocates call for more laws; the general public, unpersuaded, answers with their purchases of a record number of new guns. Bad things have happened, bad things are happening, bad things are predicted, and they want to be prepared.

Their majesties the mob dominate the political scene, on both sides, and their apologists excuse everything, even after riots turn to murder. Five Dallas cops are shot dead, but few care. One who does care is Barack Obama, who delivers a stunning, hypnotic, NLP-filled speech to the Dallas police. Forgive, understand each other, reconcile. We are all Americans. But his light is obscured in the smoke of hate and anger.

Trump claims to be ahead.  Polls be damned, he has great rallies, so the polls must be wrong.

The despair of the unlearned, aware that life will have ruinous things ahead for them, with no pension, no house, no education, no career, and no respect, drove them to scream for this man, even as he insulted them, but they didn’t hear the insults over the groans of their dying hopes.

Sophisticated people laughed.

He ran against eighteen professional politicians, most of whom had better organization, better funding, and better experience than he did, and despite insulting almost every major group in the electorate, he beat them all.

He beat them all. Think about that. He beat them all. Surely some revelation is at hand.

How did he do this? What dark miracle occurred that such a man could alienate so many voting blocs and still win?

There are always multiple reasons for any historical event. Clinton was indeed corrupt. Know it, understand it, grow up about it, own it.  The emails were awful. She had covered for her husband’s sexual assaults. She had defrauded the Haitians. She had sold her office. She was just a terrible speaker, screeching at audiences. She was a robot, making emotional connections with nobody at all except those who had previously decided it was time for a woman, any woman. Her smile was a frozen rictus, her every word memorized and focus group tested, her gestures mechanical. The Russians did something, we are assured, and whatever it was, it hurt Clinton. Democrats stayed home. But there is one factor which has been ignored, and it is an important one.

Donald Trump actually hypnotized his audiences.

In the middle of 2016, very few considered Trump to be a possible victor. The Huffington Post had been covering his campaign in the entertainment section. A Clinton presidency was assured. Surely, the professional savants said, not even the most addled of the rightist booboisie would get behind such a barbarian in sufficient numbers to constitute a threat. President Trump?

Sophisticated people laughed.

One writer who predicted Trump’s victory was Scott Adams, the Dilbert creator who writes about influence techniques, specifically a method of giving hypnotic suggestions in the course of ordinary conversation called Neurolinguistic Programming, or NLP. He recognized that Trump was using NLP, and consequently predicted a Trump victory. How could a cartoonist who studies hypnotism have an advantage over professional pollsters in predicting an election?

Sophisticated people laughed. 

In the middle of 2016, Paul Luvera contacted me and convinced me to present on NLP to the Inner Circle of Advocates. He also very kindly wrote the introduction to my new book, Target the Unconscious! The Modern Psychology of Rhetoric for the Plaintiff’s Lawyer.

We communicated back and forth on the threat that Trump represents, including his use of NLP to overcome his constant outrages, any one of which would sink almost any other candidate’s chances. Unfortunately, neither of us knew any high-ranking Democrats to whom we could sound the alarm: this man is going to get the launch codes unless you understand what he is doing to you. He is going to beat you with something you have never even heard of: NLP.

Only a very few thought he even had a chance of winning. America is our dream, and we wanted to enjoy it. But now we know that years of stony sleep were vexed to nightmare by a reality show star in a garish gilded tower.

Sophisticated people laughed.

They laughed until about nine o’clock on a Tuesday night. Then it wasn’t funny anymore, and their new hobby was trying to blame somebody, anybody else.

Clinton was doomed, and she never saw it coming. The sophisticated laughter drowned the warnings. Trump’s use of NLP doomed Clinton.

Trump has not forgotten NLP now that he is in office. Those who think his election was a unique event are likely to ignore the real lessons of his victory, and so it will be repeated. He did not defeat such a strong candidate as Hillary Clinton simply because Boris and Natasha, those piroshki-eating, vodka-swilling Russians, somehow tipped the vote. The bumpkinry are not his sole supporters; they are just the only ones not embarrassed to say so. This man is intelligent and powerful and extremely dangerous, and his use of NLP is magic.

So, how does Trump use NLP?

When you read Target the Unconscious!, and then review any of the presidential debates, you will see how he hypnotically  influenced his audience. “Let me be your voice!” implants his voice in the psyche of his listeners. By the standards of academic debate coaches, who count logic and facts, he lost the debates. By the standards of conversational hypnotists, it was all Trump. He set time bombs in his listeners’ unconscious that did not go off until much later. But go off they did.

He had no facts, no evidence, no logic, no principles, shot himself in the foot innumerable times, and still won the election. He stared  down his betters with a gaze blank and pitiless as the sun. NLP can pull your chestnuts from a very hot fire.

Lawyers may be using these same  NLP techniques against you, so be prepared.

Let us take one example: his use of the “quotes pattern.” The quotes pattern is the easiest of NLP techniques to use, and yet, extremely effective.

The quotes pattern is an NLP technique that quotes someone else saying what you want to say. We lawyers do it all the time when we cite cases. But we seldom do it with the kind of emphasis and effect that gives it its hypnotic power. Quoting someone else takes the threat out of a statement, so the listener is less likely to consciously resist what is said. “The judge will instruct you that if you find the defendant is negligent, and that he harmed Paula Plaintiff, you must award full compensation to Paula for each of her harms.” That’s not you saying it. It’s the  judge saying it. You emphasize the italicized words; that is called an embedded command. Award full compensation. That’s the judge talking. The jury need not get their hackles up at you.

Make a selfie video of yourself reading that straight, like you usually do, and then with pauses of a quarter second or less before and after the italicized parts. See how much more effective it is.

This is hypnotic because the conscious mind is lulled into inactivity by the fact that it is someone else whose words are quoted. Once the conscious mind is disempowered or distracted, the suggestion can be given directly to the unconscious. Psychiatrist Milton Erickson worked that out.

You don’t need to put somebody into a zombie trance. You just needed to disempower the conscious mind and go to work on the unconscious, which is where decisions are made.

Trump frequently tells a story, or makes a point, stops midway through the point and goes on to something else, and then something else, and comes back to the second story, and finally the first story, stories that are nested inside each other like Russian dolls. The mental effort necessary to keep track of the stories causes trance, and then you can make the suggestion. See the dog story, “What are you going to do about it?” at the end of Target the Unconscious! for an example of how this is used.

People think Trump talks this way because he is losing his mind and cannot concentrate on one thing at a time.  He talks this way because he is a master persuader. NLP is normally undetectable except by experts, and even then, not often.

Lawyers quote case law and statutes all the time, with limited effect. The key is in the emphasis. The emphasized parts are recognized by the unconscious as separate statements and are taken in without conscious resistance, because, after all, it’s the judge, not you, saying this. And it is in the unconscious that decisions are made.

Trump’s use of the quotes pattern is starting to be picked up in the foreign press.

He uses it both as a hypnotic word pattern, and as an indirect attack (preterition), an NLP technique that goes back to Demosthenes and Cicero.

His use of “my friend Jim” to say Paris is now not an attractive city because of immigration, so bad that his friend Jim no longer goes there, is typical. The press, unaware of the quotes pattern, keeps trying to identify Jim. Jim does not seem to be identifiable.

For those who have read my book, let me briefly list some other techniques he uses. People who haven’t read the book yet will have to reread this once you’ve read the book because I don’t have room for complete explanations. Then you’ll understand. He gave the world a good example of pacing and leading, another NLP technique, when he threatened to bring Gennifer Flowers to a debate with Clinton. He paced the outrage over his own admission of sexual assault, and led his audiences to outrage over Clinton. It was brilliant. People were talking about Clinton’s sex problems instead of Trump’s as the debate started. Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. We’ve already mentioned “Let me be your voice.” He uses process persuasion, not data, which gets his audience to fill in whatever they want: “Our foreign policy? We’re going to have the best foreign policy ever, and it’s going to be in your best interest.” What kind of foreign policy is that? It’s no foreign policy at all. But it sells. His gestures, especially his fists,  commonly anchor embedded commands. He gets the audience emotionally riled, then he anchors it, and goes on to something else, and fires off the anchor. He uses embedded commands to encourage violence by his mob: Don’t hurt them when you grab these hecklers. I’ll pay for your defense. I’ll post your bail. He even advanced the technology of NLP with his use of the one word gut punch: “Corrupt Hillary,” “Little Marco Rubio.” He worked with the best known NLP coach in the world, Tony Robbins. I have no doubt that he knows NLP, and that he is intentionally using it to implant hypnotic suggestions in his audiences. There’s just too much of it there to be coincidence. Trump hypnotizes his audience.  People go to his rallies curious and amused, and come out fire breathing dragons. It is not coincidence.

A vast image out of Spiritus Mundi troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert, sword dancers, those wonderful people who gave money to the hijackers just before the World Trade Center fell, surround this man with praise and admiration.

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Washington to be crowned?

Posted in Advocacy | Leave a comment