Legal Research Best Practices TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0

TheLaw.net Equalizer User Manual

2009-03-01T22:52:00.001-08:00

1. Download and Install

2. Overview & Coverage

3. Build Your Search

4. Analyze Your Results

5. Review The Opinion

6. Search Methods and Syntax
---Advanced Search By Statute
---A Murder In North Dakota
---Advanced Search Techniques
---No Word Guessing!

7. Find Unknown Opinions

8. Citation Lookup

9. Introducing Citetrak

10. Validate Your Research

11. Dual Column Printing

12. Citation Guide

13. Linkbar Menu System

14. Miscellaneous Tips & Tricks

15. TheLaw.net Virtual Assistant

16. Troubleshooting

17. Subscription Management

18. Contact Information

03. BUILD YOUR SEARCH

2009-03-01T19:52:00.001-08:00

TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0 provides a clean interface and we don't try to sell you things along the way. Keyword Search (Boolean), Natural Language Search and Citation Lookup functions are all performed from the same search box. You can mix and match any combination of Federal and state jurisdictions.

Click here for a full screen image with all menus fully expanded.

FEDERAL APPELLATE (1 U.S. 1 To Date; 1 F.2d 1 To Date, and More) By default TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0 is configured to search all Federal and state jurisdictions. To search all Federal appellate jurisdictions, deselect "Select All" by clicking the "Select All Checkbox." Then, click the checkbox captioned "All Federal Appellate." To isolate one or more Federal appellate jurisdictions click the plus symbol just to left of the "All Federal Appellate Checkbox." This expands the menu as pictured in the graphic below. Click the checkbox(es) that corrspond with the jurisdictions you want to search.

FEDERAL DISTRICTS (1 F.Supp. 1 To Date) To search all United States District Courts, deselect "Select All" by clicking the "Select All Checkbox." Then, click the checkbox captioned "All District Courts." To isolate one or more Federal districts click the plus symbol just to left of the "All District Courts." This expands the menu as pictured in the graphic below. Click the checkbox(es) that corrspond with the jurisdictions you want to search.

BANKRUPTCY (1 B.R. 1 To Date) To search all United States Bankruptcy Courts, deselect "Select All" by clicking the "Select All Checkbox." Then, click the checkbox captioned "All Bankruptcy Courts." To isolate one or more bankruptcy jurisdictions, click the plus symbol just to left of the "All Bankruptcy Courts." This expands the menu as pictured in the graphic below. Click the checkbox(es) that corrspond with the jurisdictions you want to search.

STATE COURTS & D.C. (1950 To Date) To search all state courts, deselect "Select All" by clicking the "Select All Checkbox." Then, click the checkbox captioned "All State." To isolate one or more states click the plus symbol just to left of the "All State Checkbox." This expands the menu as pictured in the graphic below. Click the checkbox(es) that corrspond with the jurisdictions you want to search.

You can also cherry pick any combination of jurisdictions from each category. If you're in New York and you want to perform a comprehensive, true primary jurisdiction search you can click New York State, then add the Eastern, Western, Southern and Northern Bankruptcy and District Courts, then add the Second Circuit and United States Supreme Court. One mouseclick searches all of the selected jurisdictions simultaneously. Click here, for even more useful information on searching for known opinions from this original search screen.

Adjust Text Size

2009-02-08T15:30:00.000-08:00

Look in the upper left hand corner of your screen.

It says:

File Edit View Favorites Preferences

From the VIEW MENU select TEXT SIZE

No Word Guessing!

2009-02-08T12:06:00.000-08:00

The gatekeepers of legal research are fond of marginalizing advanced Boolean searchers as "word guessers."

To an extent they are right. In the absence of a toolset of best practices legal researchers guess words.

Here's the question? Why guess words when the text and/or number of your controlling statute, rule, regulation or judicial opinion forces your choice of words.

782.04 is the number assigned by the Florida legislature to the first degree murder statute in that jurisdiction. If we want to check first degree murder cases in Florida, we anchor our query with this number. Not only do we find every first degree murder case citing our statue, that's all we find because with such a unique search term, it's impossible to find anything but first degree murder cases.

The gatekeepers of legal research love to say, "You never know where you might find the answer." This is crap!

Of course we know. We're going to find our answer in a judicial opinion that construes our controlling codified item(s) of information or concept(s) for the reason(s) we care about. Or not. But we're going to resolve the search to 'yes' or 'no' in a click or two. Guided by the strict language of the law, we find what's there, what's not there and move on.

782.04 & "sexual battery" finds the subset of Florida first degree murder cases where the separate felony of sexual battery is involved. Had we been guessing words, our query would have been poisoned by the addition of the term 'sexual assault', for example. But, we were not guessing. 'Sexual battery' was cribbed directly from the plain language of 782.04. Our additional search term choice was forced by the statutory language.

Throughout our search, we consistently invoke the language of the law. We never step outside the four squares of terms chosen by legislators, regulators, rulemakers or judges. Unless the facts of our case force an alternative or additional choice of words.

Perhaps the murder weapon is a knife.

782.04 & "sexual battery" & (knife or stab!)

This search finds opinions citing our statute in a sexual battery context, together with knife or derivatives of stab, i.e. stab, stabbed, stabbing. Our alternative 'or' terms are grouped in parenthesis. As a Boolean searcher, this is the only time you use parenthesis.

Anchor your query with the number assigned to the controlling codified item of information driving your search. If necessary, filter these results by leveraging the unique nomenclature provided in the text of the controlling law, regulation or rule. Never - ever - guess words.

Mission Statement

2009-02-05T18:27:00.000-08:00

In 1999, I founded TheLaw.net Corporation. In 2000 we started selling low, flat-rate, legal research subscriptions with a national scope. Back then we had two things to sell: price and coverage. Today, in our 11th year, we are proud to offer the most intuitive, flexible case law search engine in America at any price.

TheLaw.net would make a great Harvard Business School course on how to grow a sustainable start-up from cashflow. The company has been cash positive since Day One - a success by any objective measure. That said, our biggest challenge has been fighting computer illiteracy.

Legal researchers use the computer differently and badly. That’s why in December of 2008, I decided to start this blog, Legal Research Best Practices. For your information, before I started this blog, the phrase legal research best practices did not appear in an advanced search of Google's index.

I have a populist attitude when it comes to American law. I don’t believe it should be the commodity it has become. I don’t think we should have to go to multi-billion dollar, offshore monoliths like Thomson-Reuters and Reed Elsevier so we can rent databases comprised primarily of information originally paid for by American taxpayers.

The philosophy behind TheLaw.net Corporation is that for a relatively nominal cost, everyone gets to see everything. Thereafter, everyone makes their best argument and may the smartest lawyer win. Go ahead. Call me an idealist. I take it as a compliment.

The original purpose of this blog was to teach individuals how to use the computer to supercharge their search results. In other words, I wanted to teach legal researchers how to do an end-run around all of these annotations, headnotes and key numbers the gatekeepers of legal research - most of whom have never appeared in court - contend represents the Gold Standard.

I wanted to show folks how to replicate the results they receive using these various casefinders, in just a click or two on the computer. Here’s what happened to that idea.

In the course of comparing my results to the resources provided by West attorney-editors I discovered a lot of missing annotations. For instance, I conducted a study of jurisprudence related to the Federal wire fraud statute – 18 U.S.C. § 1343 - the details of which are published here.

West's 1343 Annotated lists approximately 1,000 headnotes in the so-called Notes Of Decisions. Many of these headnotes cite the same opinion for different reasons. Others cite the same opinion for the same reason, but appear in more than one 1343-related category. Accordingly, 1343 Annotated cites to less than 1,000 unique opinions. That’s bad news for West because according to my research, we have more than 3,000 Federal judicial opinions that construe this statute.

Where are the notes regarding the other 2,000 opinions?

West says its annotations are complete, that everything is all in one place and that all you have to do to ensure you don’t miss any important law is become a subscriber. I wonder if this is an aberration? Maybe the attorney-editor assigned to 1343 graduated last in law school, still lives at home with his mother in Eagan, Minnesota and his pocket-protector recently sprang a leak. Who knows?

About a week ago, I'm talking to our intellectual property counsel about this issue. In advance of our meeting and with him in mind, I pull the annotations to 17 U.S.C. § 107. Then I run a national search using TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0. My results are pre-sorted by Relevance - a term of art meaning search term frequency.

My query is: 17 /5 107 & "fair use" which asks for opinions where the section number appears within five words of the title number, together with at least one appearance of the phrase fair use someplace in the document.

I receive several hundred hits from Federal appellate and district reported opinions. My top 10 reported hits are:

1. 227 F.3d 1110
2. 478 F.Supp.2d 607
3. 203 F.3d 596
4. 211 F.3d 21
5. 142 F.3d 194
6. 523 U.S. 135
7. 862 F.Supp. 1044
8. 847 F.Supp. 142
9. 214 F.3d 1022
10. 37 F.3d 881

Hit No. 1 is noted twice in 107 Annotated.

Hit No. 7 is noted six times.

Hit No. 8 is noted 13 times.

Hit No. 9 is noted once.

Hit No. 10 is noted once.

Hits Nos. 2 thru 6 are not noted in 107 Annotated, even though six of the fourteen headnotes created by West's attorney-editors for Hit No. 3 – 203 F.3d 596 – expressly cite and link to section 107.

Similarly, 17 of the 19 headnotes created by West attorney-editors in connection with Hit No. 5 – 142 F.3d 194 – expressly cite and link to section 107. How does this case not make it into 107 Annotated? Do the headnote people not talk to the annotation people?

Hit No. 6 – Quality King Distributors v. L'anza Research, 523 U.S. 135, 118 S.Ct. 1125, 140 L.Ed.2d 254 (1998) – contains the following language: "The 'fair use' defense embodied in § 107 FN22 would be unavailable to importers if § 602(a) created a separate right not subject to the limitations on the § 106(3) distribution right....In the context of this case, involving copyrighted labels, it seems unlikely that an importer could defend an infringement as a “fair use” of the label. In construing the statute, however, we must remember that its principal purpose was to promote the progress of the “useful Arts,” U.S.Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8, by rewarding creativity, and its principal function is the protection of original works, rather than ordinary commercial products that use copyrighted material as a marketing aid. It is therefore appropriate to take into account the impact of the denial of the fair use defense for the importer of foreign publications. As applied to such publications, L'anza's construction of § 602 “would merely inhibit access to ideas without any countervailing benefit.'”

The foregoing United States Supreme Court opinion is not noted in 107 Annotated.

In light of this pattern, the Mission of this blog is to show you how to quickly find the opinions opposing counsel has been missing as a result of reliance on West's manmade casefinders.

Before the computer there was no way to know what you were missing browsing annotations. Before the computer, if you missed important law, opposing counsel missed it, too. You both used the same key numbers, annotations and headnotes to locate any potentially relevant opinions.

Today we can compare results and the upshot is that the index of judicial opinions created by the computer is complete. Indexes and pathfinders created by attorney-editors, by definition, are partial. Complete beats partial every time. But, only if you have a set of best practices in place to ensure you are finding everything you need and nothing you don't need in a couple of mouseclicks.

This blog is intended to ensure - regardless of whether you use West, Lexis or TheLaw.net - that you will know how to find what you need quickly, easily and with confidence. The advanced search techniques set forth herein will keep you from wasting hours browsing headnotes, annotations and key numbers.

You will have more in less time without missing cases, making you the smartest lawyer in the room and a force to be reckoned with!

Tutorial: Advanced Search Techniques

2009-02-04T10:58:00.001-08:00

Note: Click here for printer friendly PDF version of this article.

About "Advanced." "Advanced" doesn't mean difficult. "Advanced" is a computer-related term of art that means "no one does it!"

You're a lawyer. You can tell me whether principles of collateral estoppel and res judicata apply in jurisdictional questions. Accordingly, I know you separate the two words with an ampersand and click Search! So, let's do this.

The sample searches in this tutorial are anchored to and driven by the Florida first degree murder statute. Watch how we build our individualized search path. First we find all opinions citing our statute. Next, we find all opinions citing our statute for the reason we care about. Then, using Equalizer's results analysis tools we pinpoint the leading case from among our results. Thereafter, we look for cases citing that case for the reason(s) we specify.

Accordingly, our search pivots. It goes from being all about the statute, to being all about our case. Along the way, we filter using terms provided by the text of the statute. That way we are sure to speak in the language of the law, avoiding the diffuse, ambiguous results and information overload that comes from word guessing.

If you decide to practice these searches, run them only in the Florida state database. If you don't know how to isolate only the Florida state database, click here.

1) Lookup A Known Opinion
Instructions: All you need is volume and starting page.
Sample Search: Enter 792 P.2d 801 and click SEARCH
Results: Your opinion pops up.

2) Lookup More Than One Known Opinion Simultaneously
Instructions: To lookup multiple opinions in a single search separate each citation with a comma.
Sample Search: Enter 792 P.2d 801, 375 So.2d 836 and click SEARCH
Results: Both opinions pop up.

3) Find Any Opinions Citing Your Statute*
Instructions: To find opinions citing the codified item of information driving your search, simply enter the number. In Florida, for example, when we search on murder or homicide we receive in excess of 10,000 opinions containing at least one reference to one of our search terms.
Sample Search: Check the Florida State Database, enter 782.04 and click SEARCH
Results: On this date we find 998 Florida state opinions that expressly cite the Florida first degree murder statute.

4) Find Any Opinions Citing More Than One Statute
Instructions: To find opinions citing more than one statute, enter your two statute numbers separated by &.
Sample Search: Enter 782.04 & 782.02 and click SEARCH
Results: On this date we find 16 Florida state opinions that expressly cite the Florida first degree murder statute, together with the justifiable homicide statute.

5) Find Any Opinions Citing A Word
Sample Search: Enter murder and click SEARCH

6) Find Any Opinions Citing More Than One Word
Instructions: To find opinions citing more than one search term anywhere in the text of the case, separate the terms with AND or the 'and' symbol - &
Sample Search: Enter murder & homicide and click SEARCH
Results: Opinions containing at least one reference to each term pop up.

7) Find Any Opinions Citing A Phrase
Instructions: Use quotations marks to find opinions containing a specific phrase.
Sample Search: Enter "sexual battery" and click SEARCH
Results: Opinions containing at least one reference to your phrase pop up.

8) Find Opinions Citing More Than One Phrase
Instructions: To find opinions citing more than one search term anywhere in the text of the case, separate the terms with AND or the and symbol - &
Sample Search: Enter "first degree murder" & "sexual battery" and click SEARCH
Results: Opinions containing at least one reference to each phrase pop up.

9) Find Opinions Including Alternative Number(s)/Word(s)/Phrase(s)
Instructions: To find opinions containing alternative search terms anywhere in the text of the case, separate the terms with OR.
Sample Search: Enter "sexual battery" or "sexual assault" and click SEARCH
Results: Opinions containing at least one reference to one phrase pop up.

10) Find Any Opinions Citing Part Of A Word(s)/Phrase(s)
Instructions: To truncate or to find derivative terms use an asterisk ( * ) or exclamation mark ( ! ).
Sample Search: Enter employ* and click SEARCH
Results: This search finds opinions containing employ, employs, employed, employee, employment, etc.

11) Find The Opinion Citing Your Search Term(s) Most Often
Instructions: The column on the far left on your results screen is captioned Relevance. This is an abbreviated way of saying search term frequency. Relevance speaks to the substance of the conversation regarding your search criteria. Results are sorted by Relevance by default. The higher percentage ranking an opinion receives, the more relevant it is in relation to other opinions matching your search criteria.

12) Find The Most Recent Opinion Matching Your Search Criteria
Instructions: The column in the right half of your results screen is captioned Decision Date. To sort results by recency click the link captioned Decision Date. The most recent term to cite your case is not necessarily the most relevant. Appellate opinions typically resolves three to five questions of law. Your case may or may not be cited most often for your point of law. All this does is to provide you with the most recent opinion to match your search criteria regardless of search term frequency or citation frequency.

13) Find The Most Cited Opinion Matching Your Search Criteria
Instructions: The column on the far right of your screen is captioned Citetrak Entire Database. Viewed vertically, a series of numeric hyperlink appear. Each numeric hyperlink tells you in the first instance, whether an opinion has been cited. More than half of all published opinions have never been cited. Accordingly, more often than not the numeric hyperlink assigned to a given opinion in your results list will be zero ("0"). By default, the number assigned to each opinion tells you how many times it has been cited nationally. If you click the link you will see the cases. To sort by citation frequency, click the link captioned Entire Database. The most cited opinion matching your search criteria is now ranked first. Considering relevance together with citation frequency, will provide you with at-a-glance insight into opinions that are being cited most often for your point of law. A "most cited opinion" that has a 10% relevancy ranking is being cited primarily for point(s) of law that do not match yours. Conversely, a most cited opinion with a relevancy ranking of 90% is being cited most frequently for your point of law.

14) Find All Opinions Citing Your Statute For The Reason(s) You Specify
Instructions: Using the text of the statute as your guide, choose the word or phrase that's important to you and filter your results by adding said word or phrase to your search.
Sample Search: Enter 782.04 & "sexual battery" and click SEARCH
Results: This search finds any opinions citing your statute, together with additional search terms anywhere in the text of the case.

15) Find Any Opinions Citing A Number/Word/Phrase Together With At Least One Of Several Alternative Number(s)/Word(s)/Phrase(s)
Instructions: Using the facts of the case to force our choice of words, we filter by alternative terms, any instance of which would be relevant to our case.
Sample Search: Enter 782.04 & (knife or razor or stab!) and click SEARCH
Results: This search finds opinions citing your statute, together with at least one variation related to the cause of death.
Note: When searching for at least one occurrence of alternative terms together with at least one instance of a specific term, you must use parenthesis to group the alternative terms. It's like an algebra equation. This is also the only circumstances in which you would use parenthesis.

16) Find Any Opinions Citing A Number/Word/Phrase Within A Specified Number Of Words Away From Any Other Number/Word Phrase
Instructions: Find any cases citing to a specified Federal statute or regulation.
Sample Search: Enter 18 /5 1344 and click SEARCH
Results: This search asks for opinions where the section appears within 5 words of the title number. We could have entered, for example: "18 U.S.C. § 1344" or "18 U.S.C. sec. 1344" or "18 U.S.C. section 1344" or "18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1014, 1344". Why do all of that typing when 18 /5 1344 solves for every contingency in one mouseclick?
Note: This format also works if your primary practice jurisdiction originates in the states of Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont or otherwise, where the statutory format is Title Number/Jurisdiction/Section Number.

17) Find Any Opinions Citing Your Opinion
Instructions: Put quotation marks around your citation to turn it into a search phrase. This is called a citation driven search. You've been doing citation driven searches for years using the West and Lexis citators.
Sample Search: Enter "792 P.2d 801" and click SEARCH
Results: You find opinions citing your opinion in the jurisdictions you selected.

18) Find Any Opinions Citing Your Opinion For Your Point Of Law
Instructions: This search began with the Florida first degree murder statute - 782.04. Our search lead us to 997 opinions. Our search on 782.04 & "sexual battery" lead us to 145 opinions. The most cited/relevant of these 145 opinions is 375 So.2d 836. CiteTrak instantly tells us that this opinion has been cited 87 times. We know that appellate opinions typically resolve three, four or five points of law. When we started our search it was all about the statute. Now it's all about this judicial opinion. But, we only want the subset of 87 opinions that cite our case for our point of law.
Sample Search: Enter 375 So.2d 836 & "sexual battery" and click SEARCH
Results: Of the original 87 opinions citing our leading case, 23 of them also expressly reference the term "sexual battery." In the results we sort by recency (Decision Date) and learn that the most recent opinion (of the 23) to cite our opinion for our reason is: Brown v. State, 761 So.2d 1135 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 2000)
Note: In seconds we went from the batch of 997 opinions citing our statute, to the subset of 145 opinions citing our statute for our point of law, to the subset of 23 opinions citing our most relevant opinion for our point of law, to the most recent opinion to cite our leading case for point of law. Not bad for a couple of minutes work.

----------

* - For purposes of this tutorial, the term "statute" means statute, rule or regulation. All are codified items of information, comprised of a unique set of numbers in a unique format. Always anchor your search with the number assigned to the item of information driving your search. Why? For the same reason 404(b) is a better search term than prejudicial.

Mark Whitney

2009-01-31T10:14:00.000-08:00

Welcome to Legal Research Best Practices! My relationship with personal computing began in 1984, when I purchased an IBM XT with 10 MB of memory. For $6,000 one could type and print a document and project mortgage payments. Good times.

But, it was the summer of 1995, when serial entrepreneur Jim Barksdale and University of Illinois student programmer Marc Andreessen, released Netscape v. 1, forever transforming the human exchange of information. In my opinion, the release of Netscape represents human history's single most empowering event for the individual.

I was a 35 year-old ace legal researcher and writer, earning a fine living primarily in high stakes Federal criminal litigation. I even developed my own set of best practices for finding opinions no one else could find.

I conducted the research, analysis and documentation that lead to a $400,000 malpractice judgment against F. Lee Bailey. I was the first to identify, research and document the jurisdiction problem that resulted in the reversal and dismissal of an $8,769,740 million judgment in Lyndonville Savings Bank v. Lussier, 211 F.3d 697 (2nd Cir. 2000). My research and writing lead to the announcement of a new rule of law pursuant to the 1984 Bail Reform Act, when a unanimous panel of the United States Court Of Appeals for the First Circuit declared that Federal criminal defendants may not be detained in prison pending resentencing de novo.

When Netscape was released I took a year off, spending some 80 hours a week in front of the computer. At the end of that year, I co-founded Advanced Internet Research Strategies (AIRS), a company that predates Google and is still in business today. I spent six months writing and honing the curriculum. Thereafter, I spent two years teaching corporate America how to force true results from public search engines like Alta Vista, HotBot and Yahoo.

Back then, when Microsoft, Netscape and IBM, wanted to know how to use the Internet as a competitive intelligence tool, I am the guy they called. For $10,000 I would spend a single business day with 20 researchers or less.

In addition to corporate training, I conducted public seminars in Marriott meeting rooms from coast-to-coast. Different city every day. $1,000 a seat for eight hours, generating upwards of $75,000 a day in speaking fees. Ultimately, 55,000 corporate researchers would participate in this curriculum.

The first body of information to migrate online was porn. The next was legal information, as Federal and state governmental instrumentalities began uploading cases, statutes, rules, regs, forms, executive agency and legislative information.

The public web is a great reference resource. In fact, during the weeks and months to come I will be sure to post several Google tutorials so you can find just what you want and only what you want in one mouse click.

That said, the public web will never be a tool for conducting real legal research because the case law posted here is not comprehensive, verifiable, accountable, citable, sortable or checkable.

On January 1, 1999, I began working full-time on the project that would evolve into TheLaw.net Corporation. TheLaw.net was then and is now, a boutique infomediary that delivers all American primary law - proprietary, searchable, sortable, citable and checkable - to your desktop for less than $50 a month.

On August 1, 2000, TheLaw.net started booking subscriptions. The company has been cash positive ever since. Now in our 11th year, our flagship application, TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0, is considered America's No. 1 legal research value.

Like Netscape and Microsoft Internet Explorer, Equalizer is a tool that has forever changed the lives of the local practitioner in today's online law office. Game-changing in that the playing field has been forever leveled in terms of access to primary resources with a national scope. Game-changing in that Equalizer is the superior case law search engine on the market today.

The opportunity for small-medium research environments is that large institutional users are - well - too institutionalized to change the way they do business. Morover, what they've been doing all these years has worked for them. They cannot imagine they're missing anything. To them, the notion that they are somehow lagging behind and missing cases by performing book-like research on a computer screen is laughable.

Tens of thousands of attorneys from coast-to-coast have come to TheLaw.net from Westlaw and Lexis. They know how to find all of the opinions Westlaw users are missing browsing headnotes, annotations and key numbers. They know how to do this in a couple of mouse clicks.

The information on this blog is used as an interactive support tool for subscribers to TheLaw.net. However, the advanced search strategies, processes, and other information revealed herein will supercharge your search results regardless of whether you subscribe to Westlaw, Lexis or TheLaw.net.

ADVANCED SEARCH BY STATUTE

2009-01-23T14:48:00.000-08:00

Remember what they told you in law school? "All research begins with the black letter law." The more things change. the more they stay the same. This tutorial teaches you how to:

1. Find all of the opinions citing your statute in one mouse click.

2. How to filter your results on an individualized basis such that - in a mouseclick - you see all of the opinions construing your statute for the reason(s) you specify.

Remember, you are searching a complete index of judicial opinions. Not browsing a partial index that annotations, headnotes and key number represent. For this teaching example, we use the Florida murder statute 782.04. But, you can replicate this process in your state. We call this a statute driven search.

1. Open TheLaw.net Equalizer

2. Enter murder.

3. Check the box for the Florida State Database.

4. Click Search. We receive more than 10,000 hits. Go back. (BACK BUTTON)

5. Delete murder. Replace it with the statute number. 782.04. Yes. Just the number.

6. Click Search. 997 hits. This is your database of Florida murder cases. All 997 of them. Everyone of them expressly cites your statute. Good times! Go back. Want to know the most cited murder case in Florida? Click "Citetrak Entire Database." It is: State v. Dixon, 283 So.2d 1 (Fla., 1973).

7. Using the statutory text as your guide - no word guessing - filter on a relevant term, such as sexual battery. Your search should look like this: 782.04 & "sexual battery" (Screen capture)

8. Click Search. 145 hits. Better still. This is your database of Florida murder opinions involving allegations of sexual battery. Results are sortable by search term frequency (Relevance), first party name (Case), recency (Decision Date) and citation frequency (Citetrak Entire Database). Opposing counsel is not going to find a case you don't have. They are all here. Go back.

9. Go back. You can keep refining. Is the murder weapon a knife? 782.04 & "sexual battery" & knife. 22 hits. Amazing! Most cited: Henyard v. State, 689 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1996)

10. Pick your poison: 782.04 & "double jeopardy" finds opinions construing your statute in the context of a double jeopardy claim.

Notes: (a) Phrases get quotation marks, (b) and/& are one in the same, (c) West's 782.04 Annotated represents a partial index of the relevant opinions. It is a 500 page, 180,000 word document, (d) Annotations do not provide individualized results. They represent a mass customized approach to legal research. Browsing annotations on a computer is book research on a computer. The best we could do in the days of books. Those days are done. (e) Using the statutory text as your guide and your detailed knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the controversy at hand, together with advanced Boolean logic, we ask for what we want, resolve our search to "yes" or "no" in a couple of mouse clicks (without word guessing) and we're done. (f) Of course, with TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0, when you have an odd set of facts and your best argument is persuasive, in one mouseclick you can go national. (g) West charges approximately $10,000 a year for a subscription containing the same judicial opinions as TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0!

The Lawyers Weigh In

2009-01-21T16:40:00.000-08:00

February 10, 2009
Mark: Just wanted you to know I am researching the enforceability of non-compete
covenants against real estate brokers, have an Alaska case that cited about
a dozen cases nationally on that very issue. Your help (and oh yes, Law.net's) help has been invaluable! ~James Hochman, Coman & Anderson P.C., Lisle, IL

Mon, 19 Jan 2009
Mark: I just renewed my subscription and wanted to let you know how helpful Law.net has been. As recently as last week I was chair of an arbitration panel and while the lawyers were citing cases during argument, I was reading them on my laptop via TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0. Thanks for all of your good services. ~Mert, Scottsdale, Arbitration, Mediation and Special Master Services, Member, U.S. Supreme Court, Arizona and Illinois Bars, American Arbitration Association Arbitration and Mediation Panels, Arbitrator, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority

***

Wed, 21 Jan 2009
Mark: I'm a solo firm doing civil rights and constitutional claims for plaintiffs. As such, I don't make a lot of money. I just wanted to thank you so much for offering this alternative to high-priced research services like Westlaw. In addition, I had a problem yesterday and you helped me immediately and personally. Your product and your service make a big difference, and is greatly appreciated. Thanks again. ~Trish, Denver

***

Your concept is great and for the money there is no better bargain for legal research. Our Lexis bills have dropped to 10% of what they were before. Thanks! ~Intellectual Property, Chicago

***

"Thanks! I am in my basement, in my sweats, doing billable research. I love it!" ~General Practice, Baltimore

***

"I'll take this opportunity to say that you've got a great product, and I'm glad I got it. You're absolutely right: I was sick of paying Westlaw."~General Practice, Sherwood, OR

***

"Thank you for a terrific facility. I installed it on Sunday and began using it immediately. It was marvelous and turned up cases that I probably otherwise would have missed. I really appreciate it....Again, my thanks for a wonderful product." ~Intellectual Property, Boston

***

"My firm is in Washington state and I have practiced there for 20 years. We are very happy with TheLaw.net. I am a commercial real estate and business attorney, and TheLaw.net is a great service for my practice. My commercial litigation partner has also commented on how great TheLaw.net is for his legal research needs." ~Business-Commercial Real Estate, Seattle

***

"As always your response is so fast its scary! I again want to comment about the excellent service I have received when I have contacted your office for technical help. The response has always been both prompt and helpful." ~Civil Litigation, Chicago

***

"I've been using this program for a couple of days,along with WestLaw, and I really like it. It's easy and fast and returnedthe same cases as WestLaw in an apples-to-apples test. Nice job. Looks like a keeper!" ~Family Law-Employment Law-Civil Rights, Fort Lauderdale

***

"I have Westlaw access that includes Florida, 11th circuit and Supreme Court cases. I use TheLaw.net to do preliminary research on cases, and final research on rules, statutes, and regulations in other states and other circuits. Also I find the easy access to periodicals, court addresses, etc. very useful. I find myself using TheLaw.net more for statutes and regulations than Westlaw---it's quicker." ~Litigation-Employment-Stockbroker Malpractice, Sarasota

***

"I am very satisfied. Fee based services are too expensive, and maybe too complex for 99% of legal research." ~Intellectual Property, Lafayette, IN

***

"Got it, installed it with no problem, and have used it extensively already. Looks like a great product for a fair price. Thank you!" ~Taxes and Franchises, Round Rock, TX

***

"I have been pleased with the service and the reasonableness of its cost. It is perfect for a solo practitioner." ~General Practice-Sole Practitioner, Taos, NM

***

"I really like it! It is so easy to use!" ~Information Technology, Intellectual Property, Washington, D.C.

***

"Very economical, more recent than CD based program. Our CD program is limited to Texas and TheLaw.net is more broad-based." ~Estate Planning-Business and Probate Litigation, Dallas, TX

***

"I am thrilled at the product and its reliability for the price. Terrific bargain!" ~Labor-ERISA-Civil Rights Law, Washington, D.C.

***

"I am an attorney in Taos. As you may guess, the legal research tools available in Taos are limited, so I have tried a wide variety of internet research tools. Over a year ago, I found TheLaw.net. It has been great. It provides all the tools of Westlaw and Lexis at a fraction of the cost. A few times I have found cases that the large firms in Albuquerque, using another service, have been unable to find. TheLaw.net, besides being user friendly is also quick to respond by either e-mail or voice to my questions. I recommend this service." ~General Practice, Taos, NM

***

"Especially approve of broad range of resources (i.e. legislative info, etc.) I find it very useful!"Federal Criminal Defense, New York

***

"So far everything is great and we have found it to be really fast! You guys are really friendly, we'll let you know if we need some support! Thanks!" ~Corporate Law, Little Rock

***

"I am using the service. I like it so far. It really offers a lot and I expect to get a lot of use from this. In fact, I may have a few friends who will sign up. I just have to get them over here to try it." ~Admiralty, Construction, Commercial Litigation and Administrative Law, Fort Lauderdale

***

"We think TheLaw.net is great - it has made life much easier in the world of searching and it is fast!" ~Business and Employment Litigator, Boston

***

"Thank you SO SO SO much! How nice it is to deal with a real live person (with a sense of humor, too!) instead of a huge conglomerate or institution of nit wits. THANK YOU!!" ~Family Law and Criminal Law, Raleigh

***

"Thanks for your quick and effective tech support today. I am back up and running with The Law.net. In today's tech support environment of endless hold times and spotty service, it's nice to see that somebody still knows how to do it right! ~Civil Litigation, Philadelphia

***

"You are brilliant. Your written directions actually worked. I decided to take the plunge and try the directions, but was prepared to call for help. Your directions and my success made my day. Sometimes little machine things are wonderful. Have a great weekend!" ~General Counsel's Office, Tech 25 Company, Plano

***

"Thanks again for all your efforts, and for the update. I utilize and appreciate your product. Nothing works better than the personal touch though, and your assistance is much appreciated." ~General Counsel, Oakbrook

***

"I appreciate your unfailing politeness and courtesy, as well as the immediate attention to my needs. Hope to see you again some time." ~Bankruptcy, Civil Litigation, St. Louis

***

"Thank you. The follow through is much appreciated, but not often experienced in software markets. Bravo!" ~International Law, Houston

***

"I received your notice to renew my subscription and wanted to bring you up to date with what's happening here. My business partner and I decided last year that we were about ready to retire. We will be closing the business (and heading to greener fairways) the end of April 2006. For that reason, and only that reason, we will not be renewing our subscription. I wanted to thank you so much for all your help and extra effort over the years. Your service has been excellent and I have enjoyed working with you. If I ever have a need in the future, or if I come across anyone that would benefit from your service, you will be the first to know. Thanks and best of luck to you!" ~Arbitrator, Cincinnati

OPEN YOUR BROWSER

2009-01-21T13:42:00.001-08:00

I say to the attorney, "Open your browser."
He snaps, "Don't get technical with me!"

MICHIGAN ATTORNEY SEES THE LIGHT

2009-01-21T11:27:00.000-08:00

A lawyer calls me from Michigan. Says he's having a hard time finding clients. "You're from Michigan!" I go, "We have bankruptcy opinions. Diversify!"
"I don't know if this is going to work for me," he says.
"Do you have hands with fingers attached?"
"Yes," he goes.
"You'll be fine."
Sold. I am the best. There is no question about it.

TO CATCH A WESTLAW REP

2009-01-21T09:07:00.000-08:00

Last week an attorney from Fair Oaks, California sent me an email wherein he states: "As a Westlaw user, my most valuable tool is annotized Codes with click to the cited cases." (emphasis added)

Which brings us to today's lesson, an examination of the terms "everything" and "complete."

Let's pretend that by day you're a - oh, I don't know - Westlaw® representative. But, by night - well, just to make things fun, let's pretend you recently had a conversation with TV's Chris Hansen. Compared to knocking on lawyers' doors, "I just turned 13 and I can't wait to meet you" sounds pretty good!

Problem is, now you're looking at serious jail time. But maybe you can cut a deal. Do a little horsetrading. You have this nagging suspicion that your employer, this multi-billion dollar institution, has been operating in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the Federal wire fraud statute.

Exhibit A is this online brochure you've been peddling to the nation's attorneys, which states the following in relevant part: Westlaw combines "book-like indexing, browsing and viewing with links to everything discussing your statute, all in one place....[Y]our research is complete and on point." ~Westlaw® StatutesPlus™, 2009.01.21.

You're telling me I can browse and view? What's next? Paula Abdul judging a singing competition?

Now, about that "everything" and "complete."

Westlaw's 18 U.S.C. § 1343 annotated, an 80,801 word document, provides approximately 1,000 so-called "Notes Of Decisions" in 240 categories. Many of these headnotes direct you to the same opinion more than once. Meaning, Westlaw's annotations cite to less than 1,000 opinions, for wire fraud related points of law that you may or may not care about. "Browsing" is a fancy way of saying "stumble upon."

However, using TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0 and "advanced Boolean logic" - 18 /5 1343 and wire - we instantly reveal the thousands of opinions your vaunted West attorney-editors did not index in the § 1343 annotations. Powerful evidence that the annotations are anything but "complete."

So, what kind of deal can you expect to cut?

Using TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0, in one click we metasearch opinions from the F.Supp., F.Supp.2d, F.2d, F.3d for opinions citing our statute and the relevant section of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

18 /5 1343 & !5K1.1 & "substantial assistance"

"BOOM! POW! To the moon, Alice!" 25 hits! Five seconds. Done. Results that are sortable by Search Term Frequency, Citation Frequency, Most Recent, First Party Name and Court Hierarchy.

We have 22 published (aka citable) opinions matching our search criteria. Meaning they contain at least one express reference to the controlling statute, the controlling sentencing guideline and the term "substantial assistance." See, United States v. Burke, 107 F.3d 868 (4th Cir. 1997), United States v. Bidloff, 82 F.Supp.2d 86 (W.D.N.Y. 2000), United States v. Brown, 130 F.Supp.2d 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), United States v. Conway, 81 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 1996), United States v. Crisp, 454 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2006), United States v. Dale, 991 F.2d 819 (D.C. Cir. 1993), United States v. Dowdell, 272 F.Supp.2d 583 (W.D. Va. 2003), United States v. Hamrick, 741 F.Supp. 103 (W.D.N.C. 1990), United States v. Hare, 49 F.3d 447 (8th Cir. 1995), United States v. Johnson, 34 F.Supp.2d 535 (E.D.Mich. 1998), United States v. Korman, 343 F.3d 628 (2nd Cir. 2003), United States v. Lagorga, 64 F.3d 664 (6th Cir. 1995), United States v. Livesay, 525 F.3d 1081 (11th Cir. 2008), United States v. Lovell, 81 F.3d 58 (7th Cir. 1996), United States v. Milan, 304 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 2002), United States v. Napoli, 179 F.3d 1 (2nd Cir. 1999), United States v. Pasqualone, 953 F.2d 1389 (9th Cir. 1992), United States v. Quigley, 382 F.3d 617 (6th Cir. 2004), United States v. Schaefer, 120 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 1997), United States v. Shulman, 107 F.3d 868 (4th Cir. 1997), United States v. Spedden, 917 F.Supp. 404 (E.D.Va. 1996), and United States v. Wallace, 458 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2006).

The annotations mention only Dale, supra, for a point of law we're not focused on. "Internal Revenue Code is not exclusive basis for tax fraud prosecutions; such fraud may also be pursued under general 'wire fraud' statute." Blah. Blah. Blah.

They fail to mention any of our remaining 21 opinions for any point of law, much less the one we care about. The Notes Of Decisions do not expressly cite to § 5K1.1 at all. For any reason. Out of 80,000 words, the term "substantial assistance" is referenced once, in a dingle headnote. Even though 90% of § 1343 defendants plead guilty. Sure, you might stumble over some cases browsing the § 5K1.1 annotations. But, the statute of conviction is § 1343. We already have our cases. And there's no reason to believe that crack West attorney-editor did a better job annotating § 5K1.1 than he did § 1343. It's hit, miss, miss, miss, hit, miss, miss, etc.

Equalizer reveals the knowledge gap between what Westlaw says you're browsing and what you're not browsing. You can't browse what's not there.

At least now we can infer why our protagonist's business practices meet the elements of a presumptive § 1343 violation. Rather than Boolean search, they apparently trust their own annotations. Awkward!

I mean, all they have to do is enter:

18 /5 1343 & wire & (website or "web site")

BOOM! POW! In seconds, TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0 delivers 18 Federal appellate hits! We sort our results by citation frequency to surface the most cited Federal appellate opinion containing an express reference to the controlling statute, the term "wire" and either "website" or "web site." Our case is United States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65 (2nd Cir. 2006).

Reifler actually appears among the § 1343 annotations. However, United States v. Martin, 228 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000), does not.

We didn't bother to cross reference our remaining 16 opinions. Do we really have to?

TUTORIALS EXPLAINED

2009-01-20T19:30:00.001-08:00

The reviews, editorials and tutorials published on this site have clickable blue hyperlinks which could be to something serious like a statute or something silly like when I'm making fun of your favorite West attorney-editor.

Sample search queries are always red and italicized.

e.g. 12.1-16-01 and (knife or stab!) and "West! Rep!"

A MURDER IN NORTH DAKOTA

2009-01-20T18:30:00.000-08:00

You practice criminal defense in, let's say, North Dakota. Your client is an attorney charged with a class AA felony for stabbing his Westlaw representative to death. With an urgent need to catch up on murder in North Dakota you rent Fargo.

You already know that a mere fifteen North Dakota opinions expressly mention the controlling statutory subsection - 12.1-06-01(1). You know this because your search is built around the number assigned to the statute.

Using common sense, your no frills "advanced" Boolean query is simply: 12.1-06-01(1). That's why they call it Boolean logic.

Using Westlaw® we search the full text of North Dakota judicial opinions and retrieve 15 cases. We rerun the identical search using TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0 and receive the same 15 cases.

Of course, we might have tripped over some relevant opinions browsing Westlaw's annotations of 12.1-16-01. But this 7,819 word document identifies only eight of the 15 opinions we found earlier by simply anchoring our search query with the legislative number assigned to our controlling statutory subsection.

The Key Number System® has you chasing your tail, too.

To begin with, the several dozen key numbers assigned to various headnotes by your crack West attorney-editor, invite you to run - quite literally - in 90 different directions.

Using KeySearch®, we query North Dakota keys on the term murder. Thereafter, we are invited to substitute homicide. Westlaw serves this screen, which among other distractions, attempts to upsell us. "Did you want fries with that?"

A key number linking you to North Dakota murder cases would be nice. Not that you need the second steering wheeel, what with the benevolent North Dakota legislature providing a unique free number at no extra charge.

Using TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0 we learn that nearly 350 opinions in North Dakota contain at least one reference to the term murder or homicide. As Equalizer's results screen makes plain, approximately 300 of them make at least one reference "murder" or "homicide" and to "guilty" or "convict" or "convicted" or "sentence" or "sentenced" or sentencing"...

(murder or homicide) and (convict! or guilty or sentenc!)

...suggesting most, if not all, are criminal cases.

The vaunted Westlaw annotations of 12.1-06-01 cite a mere 43 unique opinions.

Want to read North Dakota murder cases related to your specific facts? How about the eight involving knives?

12.1-16-01 and (knife or stab!) and "West Rep!"

(Note for my readers in Wasilla: If you include "West Rep" to your query, I reserve the right to talk about you behind your back.)

On the off chance you're wondering how convicted murderer Shawn Novotny made out when he sought a discharge in bankruptcy of the $100,000 judgment entered in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Dennis as a result of his decision to shoot their daughter, Amy, in the back, I've got good news!

The headnote for that opinion is one of several gems binned among West's annotations to 12.1-16-01. The cite is 226 B.R. 211. Good luck getting to it. Unless you pay West approximately $500 a month for the bankruptcy slice. Or are otherwise intrepid enough to click outside The Plan.

(Note: All subscribers to TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0 enjoy unfettered access to all bankruptcy opinions, as part of their $48 a month (annualized) national plan.)

The annotations, as compiled by West attorney-editors, omit any reference whatsoever to nearly 50% of the judicial opinions that expressly cite your controlling statutory subsection.

And along the way they direct you to bankruptcy court. Good times. No wonder you hate legal research.

Remember the maxim that all research begins with the black letter law. Ask yourself, "Self, what is the item of information driving my search? Is it a statute, rule, regulation, case citation or some unique concept?"

Answer that question, you'll be well on your way and nobody has to get hurt.

(If you liked this review, you'll love Key Number Mythology.)

GOOGLE RANKS LRBP #1

2009-01-18T23:19:00.000-08:00

Legal Research Best Practices has only been around for a week and it is already ranked #1 in Google! Why? Because in the United States there is no such thing as legal research best practices. They do not exist.

Don't tell this to law librarians. Don't tell the West reps creeping around college campuses or the Poobahs. Don't tell any of these glassy-eyed gatekeepers. Good luck convincing anyone that browsing headnotes, key numbers and annotations is anything but the Gold Standard. Although some may be persuadable.

You know who I am? OK. I'm Mark. But, for your purposes I'm Bill James. The Bill James of legal research. The guy who explodes myths and shows you the massive amounts of important law you are missing as a result of your misplaced reliance on manmade indexes.

More to come.

KEY NUMBER MYTHOLOGY

2009-01-17T13:24:00.000-08:00

(Editor's Note: The purpose of this review and critique of the West Key Number System®, is to supercharge your search results whether you use Westlaw®, Lexis® or TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0. This review compares the results we can expect from book research, with the results we can expect using advanced Boolean logic. For the purposes of this review, "book research" is a term of art that refers to browsing indexes of headnotes, key numbers and annotations, regardless of whether you prefer Westlaw's electronic replicas to actual books.)

An indictment is unsealed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, charging your client with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. The Feds say your guy, a real estate developer, submitted a false loan application in support of a business loan. If convicted of this Class B Felony, he faces up to 30 years in prison.

•YOUR ARSENAL
You subscribe to Westlaw. Why? Because you are impressed by Thomson-Reuters' claim that "West attorney-editors categorize, organize, and summarize the law to help you find what you need quickly and ensure that you don’t miss anything." (emphasis added)

You are enticed by Westlaw's homepage trumpeting: "Better results faster." Who doesn't want that?

You purchase the United States Code Annotated because you are impressed by West's claim that "annotations provide a complete picture of the law as interpreted, construed, and applied by the federal courts." (emphasis added)

You subscribe to the West Key Number System ("KNS") because you are impressed by West's claim that key numbers allow you to "quickly find other cases that address your exact point of law in any jurisdiction." You are persuaded by West's argument that "[m]uch legal research is a hunt for principles or concepts not easily retrieved with word searches." (emphasis added)

And that, "West topic and key numbers enable you to find cases stating or applying a legal concept, even if those terms aren't in the opinion." How cool is that?!

You frequently accept West's express invitation to narrow your results by adding key numbers to your word searches, so you can "narrow your search results and still get the cases you want." (emphasis added)

Your client doesn't want to go to prison. Together you choose the lifestyle choice to take the Federal government to trial. He mortgages the house to pay your fee.

You know Westlaw charges far more than any other online infomediary. But they are the best and so are you. So, you sign the contract, agreeing to pay approximately $10,000 for the annual national plan of American primary law.

Your opponent is the largest law firm in the world - the United States Department of Justice. But, with West's toolset of foolresistant pathfinders - annotations, key numbers and headnotes - you are armed to the teeth. You feel secure. After all, you've got the collective thinking of West's expert attorney-editors in your hip pocket.

You go through these gyrations because your worst nightmare is missing important law.

•KEY NUMBERS TO THE RESCUE!
You sign on to KeySearch®, searching keys to the Second Circuit on the phrase "false loan application". BOOM! You are instantly linked to your key number - 52K209.20 - False Statements To Banks. Good times!

>>The KNS generates a 1,263 word document containing 17 headnotes.

>>The 17 headnotes are inspired by the following seven opinions: United States v. Autorino, 381 F.3d 48 (2nd Cir. 2004), United States v. Chacko, 169 F.3d 140 (2nd Cir. 1999), United States v. Cleary, 565 F.2d 43 (2nd Cir. 1977), United States v. Hinton, 703 F.2d 672 (2nd Cir. 1983), United States v. Koh, 199 F.3d 632 (2nd Cir. 1999), United States v. Sabatino, 485 F.2d 540 (2nd Cir. 1973 and United States v. Sackett, 598 F.2d 739 (2nd Cir. 1979).

>>Of these seven opinions, five construe 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which specifically punishes false statements in the context of loan and credit applications: Autorino, Chacko, Cleary, Sabatino and Sackett. The Feds could have charged your guy under this statute. They chose not to. This is a § 1344 prosecution. For the purposes of this search, you don't care about § 1014 prosecutions.

>>Hinton has you chasing your tail. It construes 18 U.S.C. § 2113: Bank Robbery and Incidental Crimes. "What's that doing there?" you wonder.

>>Koh is the lone opinion West attorney-editors identify as construing § 1344. Not only that, it's a false loan application case! The relevant headnote in Koh links you to a 20,243 word document containing 296 headnotes. You print the document. It's 60 pages. Of headnotes.

•REALITY CHECK
You've never much been one for the computer. You don't have a set of best practices in place for conducting legal research. You browse headnotes, key numbers and annotations. Book research on a screen.

You occasionally do some keyword searching but you don't trust the results. In fact you hate legal research so much, the last thing you want to do is read a judicial opinion. Nothing like saving time with those battle-tested West pathfinders.

Isn't that what they taught you in Wolf v. Pig?

Would you be surprised to learn that the database of citable (aka "published") opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit contains, not one, but five (and only five) opinions that include at least one reference to § 1344, together with at least one reference to the term "false loan application"?

Using TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0 and the following query: 18 /5 1344 and "false loan application" I learn that the following five opinions match my search criteria: criteria: United States v. Confredo, 528 F.3d 143 (2nd. Cir. 2008), Koh, supra, (2nd Cir. 1999), United States v. Seda, 978 F.2d 779 (2nd Cir. 1992), United States v. Vebeliunas, 76 F.3d 1283 (2nd Cir. 1996) and United States v. Zyskind, 118 F.3d 113 (2nd Cir. 1997).

Using Westlaw and the identical query in a search of the Second Circuit database of reported opinions serves up the same five opinions. Not "better results faster." The same results in one click of the search button. Doesn't get any "faster" than that!

•UH-OH! MISSING OPINIONS.
Four of the five opinions - Confredo, Seda, Vebeliunas and Zyskind - do not appear among the original seven opinions referenced in my original key number results. Koh is the only Second Circuit opinion identified by West attorney-editors for my exact point of law.

But, in fairness, Koh does lead me to the above-noted 60 pages of headnotes. It may take awhile, but certainly if I take the time to review these voluminous headnotes, I will find the four missing cases.

Nope.

Unfortunately, Westlaw attorney-editors make no reference to the missing four opinions in this lengthy document. Nor do they identify any additional opinions from the Second Circuit that refer to § 1344 and the term "false loan application".

Check the West versions of Confredo, Seda, Vebeliunas and Zyskind for yourself. They make no reference to the key number [52K209.20] that lead us to Koh.

Apparently the "Westlaw Advantage" is not an advantage after all. Apparently, West attorney-editors are unable to "ensure that you don't miss anything."

In fact, reliance on the KNS causes us to miss four citable opinions in our primary jurisdiction. Opinions that West attorney-editors either missed, disregarded or misfiled.

•BOOLEAN LOGIC TRUMPS BROWSING PATHFINDERS
West would like you to believe that its manmade index of judicial opinions is somehow superior to advanced Boolean logic, due to the conclusory statement that "[m]uch legal research is a hunt for principles or concepts not easily retrieved with word searches." (emphasis added)

Westlaw's slogan ought to be, "The less you know about your computer, the more you'll like Westlaw."

Using my company's flagship application, TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0, I go national in one mouseclick! POW! I find the 18 citable Federal opinions containing at least one reference to § 1344, together with at least one reference to the term "false loan application": United States v. Barrow, 118 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 1996), United States v. Bolden, 889 F.2d 1336 (4th Cir. 1989), United States v. Brekke, 152 F.3d 1042 (8th Cir. 1998), Confredo, supra, United States v. De La Mata, 266 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2001), United States v. Defterios, 343 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2003), United States v. Giannetta, 717 F.Supp. 926 (D. Me. 1989), United States v. Goldberg, 913 F.Supp. 629 (D. Mass. 1996), Koh, supra, United States v. Panadero, 7 F.3d 691 (7th Cir. 1993), United States v. Real Property at 6625 Zumirez Drive, 845 F.Supp. 725 (C.D.CA. 1994), United States v. Rogers, 898 F.Supp. 219 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), United States v. Rothberg, 954 F.2d 217 (4th Cir. 1992), Seda, supra, United States v. Thomas, 451 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2006), Vebeliunas, supra, United States v. Willis, 997 F.2d 407 (8th Cir. 1993) and Zyskind, supra.

•DEEP, INDIVIDUALIZED SEARCHING
Furthermore, when I refine my search to include the term "real estate" I find a subset of four opinions from among my original list of 19 opinions that also include a reference to my refining search criteria.

18 /5 1344 and "false loan application" and "real estate" serves up Brekke, De La Mata, Vebeliunas and Willis.

Guided by the text of opinions we've been reviewing, we find second way to say the same thing and refine our search accordingly. Using either TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0 or Westlaw enter:

18 /5 1344 and ("false loan application!" or "fraudulent loan application!")

Metasearch published Federal appellate opinions - BOOM! - in one mouseclick we find the 59 opinions nationally that include at least one reference to our statute and at least one reference to one of our two phrases. (Note: Parenthesis are used in Boolean logic for purposes of grouping alternative search terms. You should never use them otherwise. The exclamation mark (!) captures "application" and "applications".)

We fold "real estate" back into the mix:

18 /5 1344 and ("false loan application!" or "fraudulent loan application!") and "real estate"

BOOM! 22 published Federal appellate and 4 published Federal district court opinions match our criteria!

•KEY NUMBERS: YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE
The best that can be said about the KNS is that the results are unwieldy and incomplete when compared with what can be achieved using advanced Boolean logic. The KNS can result in you missing important law. It will almost certainly slow you down. It frequently guides you off course. It will even lead to time wasted as a result of information overload.

The KNS identifies opinions in jurisdictions you can't get to unless you have an expansive plan. The KNS attempts to lure you outside The Plan. Which, of course, is the real plan.

I am less interested in the atypical instance where a West attorney-editor indexes an opinion based on a concept that does not appear in the text of opinions, than I am about the overlooked, disregarded or misfiled opinions which expressly do include our concept in the text.

•RELEVANT QUESTIONS
If your real estate developer client is charged with submitting a false loan application to the bank in alleged violation of § 1344, don't you want to read all 18 opinions?

Don't you want to be able to find, in one mouseclick, the four opinions nationally that also mention the term "real estate"?

It's never going to happen browsing the time-consuming collection of West pathfinders. And it's certainly not going to happen by adding a key number to your search query! Better to hope your opponent takes this advice.

And what of the fact that I can find everything I want (and nothing I don't want) faster and better than you can? It creates a competitive situation, huh?

•BOOLEAN SEARCH OVER BROWSING
Before computers, the idea of relying on headnotes, annotations and key numbers generated by individuals who know nothing about the totality of circumstances surrounding your client, was a compromise everyone was forced to make because the alternative was reading all the opinions in the library.

Using the computer, you are reading all the opinions in the library! That's the difference.

All research starts with the black letter law. All you have to do to be a successful researcher, regardless of the database you rent, is ask yourself the following question: What is the item of information driving my search?

You find those opinions in one mouseclick, using advanced Boolean logic to search a complete index of the opinions. You do this because the results are superior to those generated by trolling through the partial index created by the vaunted West attorney-editors.

A complete index trumps a partial index by definition. But only if you know how to use your computer. Today I've shown you how easy it is to be "advanced."

•CAN ANNOTATIONS RESCUE KEY NUMBERS?
I know what you're thinking. You're thinking statutes annotated.

Think again.

18 U.S.C. § 1344 annotated is a 31,224 word document.

No worries. I read it for you.

Let us not forget, we already have the only five opinions from our primary circuit, citing our statute for our reason. We found them in one mouseclick. Let's compare our results with the results we would have received from West's annotations had we chosen to waste time consulting them.

One of my cases, Confredo, is noted once in the context of defining fraud loss for purposes of sentencing. Another, Seda, is noted once in the context of a constitutional infirmity arising when the Feds charged §§ 1344 and 1014 on the same facts.

The annotations to § 1344 do not, however, mention Koh, Vebeliunas or Zyskind. The ommission of Koh is particularly interesting because it is the only opinion from among my 17 original key number results that is on point.

I wonder if the annotation people and the key number people talk? I wonder if they have any idea that sixty percent of my five opinions are not noted in the annotations to § 1344 and that the KNS fails to note 80% of my five opinions? I'm just asking the question.

Key numbers are a costly, ineffective second steering wheel that at best deliver partial results. Even these partial results are buried in lengthy collections of notes that have nothing to do with the point of law we're focused on.

In stark contrast to the KNS, we receive comprehensive results whenever we fashion search queries around the title and section numbers provided at no extra charge by our friends in the United States Congress. The numbers we already paid for with tax dollars.

•ANNOTATIONS ARE NOT COMPREHENSIVE
Here's the real killer. At least 1,500 citable Federal opinions mention § 1344. West's § 1344 annotations are comprised of 296 headnotes, binned in 43 categories. In the aggregate, these headnotes cite to only 205 unique opinions. A dozen of the 296 headnotes cite to opinions that are not citable because they are not published.

Approximately 1,300 relevant, citable Federal opinions are not noted in the § 1344 annotations. These unnoted opinions represent approximately 85% of all § 1344 law!

Comprehensive? Exacting? Advantageous? Better results faster? And, again, how about that ballsy statement: "West attorney-editors categorize, organize, and summarize the law to help you find what you need quickly and ensure that you don’t miss anything." (emphasis added)

People are doing time for less deceiving claims.

WELCOME TO LRBP!

2009-01-15T18:39:00.000-08:00

Welcome to Legal Research Best Practices (LRBP)! I’m Mark. I’ll be your Editor in Chief!

This blog does not have a Mission Statement. It has attitude! The goal of this site is to make you an elite legal researcher. My credentials? To begin with, I have a little something called a high school diploma. Take that G.E.D. recipients!

After seeing my 90 minute, award-winning, political-dramedy, Fool For A Client, a reviewer at NYTheatre.com declared me “the foremost amateur attorney in the history of the United States.”

Besides that, for more than a decade I have served as President of TheLaw.net Corporation, a company I founded on January 1, 1999. Among other things, my company has the best case law search engine on planet earth.

As an American Entrepreneur for nearly 30 years, I’ve been sued civilly a couple of dozen times and never lost. I also noticed there's nothing civil about a civil suit.

As a pro-se litigant, I’ve won multiple appeals and motion hearings in Federal court against the largest law firm in the world – the United States Department of Justice.

My legal research, analysis and documentation once resulted in a $400,000 malpractice judgment against F. Lee Bailey.

I was the first to notice that this skunk at then Hale & Dorr, lied about Federal jurisdiction so his bank client could fraudulently pursue state claims in Federal court against a defrocked bank president. So much for that $8 million judgment!

My best credential is that I've spent the last 10 years talking to lawyers. Phone. Email swaps. Web conferencing. I even meet them in person when they come to see my show - which they do in droves. Approximately 400,000 of our nation's attorneys are on my corporate mailing list.

I am the best. There is no question about it.

As a result of talking to all of these lawyers, I know what they know and what they don't know. What they don’t know is computers. Many arrogantly and foolishly take great pride in the fact that they don’t even know how to operate a computer.

I remember this one day I go, “Open your browser."

“Don’t get technical with me!” the lawyer snaps.

Guess what? I can tell whether you are a good legal researcher based on how you give me your phone number. If you say, “Call me on my cell phone” - not an advanced legal researcher. It’s just a phone. But, you're so enamored with the technology, you make a distinction between the phone and the cell phone.

What’s that? You call your phone a cell phone, yet you still fancy yourself an elite compusearcher? Why? Because you know how to browse key numbers, headnotes and annotations? You know how to click your way through directories? That’s called book research.

You're like my Dad. Ten years ago we move west from New England. My Dad goes to a yard sale. Finally buys an answering machine. To this day, it still plays the previous owners greeting.

Mom sends an email. Writes the entire message in the subject line.

The point is that when we browse browse casefinders like annotations, headnotes and key numbers that's not search. . If you're using the computer to do what you used to do with books you are missing cases. I'm not talking a case or two here and there. I am saying that you are systematically missing citable opinions that construe the item of information driving your search for the factual and/or legal reasons you care about.

Opposing counsel misses cases, too. Because you both use the same old pathfinders that partially index the nation's judicial opinions.

Manmade indexes were great when all we had were books. It's the best we could do. It was the only way you could avoid finding opinions that might be helpful, without reading all of the cases in the library.

But, these manmade summaries provide only a partial index don’t they? I said, “Don’t they?!” Y(You should be nodding in agreement.)

Isn't it also a fact that computers index the entire opinion?

So, which is the superior index? The partial index written by propellerheads at Westlaw or the entire index compiled by a foolproof robot?

The correct answer is the entire index. But, only if you have a set of easy-to-learn best practices in place so that you can find everything you need - and nothing you don't - with precision.

Onec you do know how to ask for what you need with precision, well that creates a competitive situation doesn’t it? Because now you know something opposing counsel doesn't know. You know something about what the gatekeepers of the legal research industry have been hiding from you to keep you dependant on their outmoded pathfinders.

When you become a lawyer you check a bit of your First Amendment rights at the door, huh? For example, you're not meant to speak ill of a fellow lawyer.

You learn that the Honorable Donald Thompson of Oklahoma gets caught presiding over a trial wearing nothing under his robe but a penis pump, you don't say, "They charged him with taking the law into his own hands!"

He gets four years and you think, "Wow! Stiff sentence."

But, you keep your thoughts to yourself. You don't even publicly note the irony that when all is said and done, even his lawyer can't get him off!

But, as a non-lawyer, who has spent more than 5,000 hours in the law library and trust me, has forgotten more about real legal research than you will probably ever know, I am free to tell it like it is.

Your reliance on headnotes is causing you to miss important law. You are missing cases with key numbers. You are missing cases and/or finding irrelevant cases in the way you construct search queries. The thought processes you use when you use KeyCite are stunted compared to what they would be if you had a reasonable grasp of advanced Boolean logic.

The processes revealed on this site will work with Westlaw and the Westlaw imitators. Before long, you will be so skilled at advanced Boolean logic and in defining and refining your search, that before long will say to yourself "Self, why am I wasting all of this money on Westlaw?"

Lawyers graduate from institutions. Upon graduation they take an exam allowing them to join another institution called the bar association. They are officers of institutions called courts. Their preferred infomediary - Westlaw - is an institution. Its users are institutionalized.

Westlaw users are book researchers. My clients are computer researchers. To them, a collection of headnotes amounts to information overload and tailchasing, compared to what we can do with advanced Boolean logic. An off-point headnote is time wasted. Seconds wasted become minutes. Minutes become hours. Hours become days – browsing. Browsing directories and missing cases you could be finding, if only you knew how.

To be fair, Westlaw doesn’t miss cases. Westlaw users do. Annotated statutes provide only partial redirect to opinions citing your statute. And, they rarely provide redirect to the opinions that cite your statute for the reason you really care about.

Not infrequently, the reasons you care about do not exist, even generically, among the headings created by West editors. The results provided by annotations feel arbitrary and incomplete, when compared to what can be accomplished by an elite researcher using advanced Boolean logic within the context of a self-defining matrix of search paths.

My advanced search strategies expose the gap between what you think you're accomplishing with Westlaw and what you've completely failed to accomplish.

For example, the West Key Number System does not provide redirect to the universe of opinions that cite your statute for the reasons you care about. My search strategies reveal the important law you've been missing as a result of your disproportionate reliance on Key Numbers.

West’s KeyCite is a cumbersome way to validate research. It leads to anecdotal research validation, that may or may not be related to the point of law you're focused on, when compared to what can be accomplished using advanced Boolean logic within the context of a search interface that allows you to individualize your results.

A primary function of today's KeyCite is to lure you back to the Westlaw Cash Register! “Can we get a cashier? Sucker on aisle two wants to click outside the plan!” Westlaw is like legal research roulette.

Headnotes, by definition, provide a partial characterization of an opinion. My strategies prevent you from slogging through irrelevant headnotes. If you like a case for a death penalty reason, you don’t want to waste time browsing through the 404(b) notes of that opinion. Nobody wants that once they know they have a choice.

Before the computer there was no way to know what you missed. There was no way to know what West attorney-editors disregard, overlook or misfile.

You use key numbers, annotations, headnotes, legal encyclopedias, law reviews, law journals and other casefinders and you find what you find. But, you don't know what you're missing.

Today you can actually compare book results with computer results. Your ability to individualize your search disintermediates the need for casefinders that offer an outmoded, mass-customized approach to problem solving.

The revelations and processes provided on this blog will cause you to question everything you think you know about legal research. You may well panic when I prove to you that by browsing Westlaw's toolset of pathfinders, you are missing opinions related to the facts and/or law driving your search.

You will marvel at the comprehensive results one can generate in a single mouseclick with pinpoint precision!

Importantly, you will learn that the terms “advanced” and “elite” do not mean difficult. They simply mean no one's doing it, because the gatekeepers of the legal research industry have taught you that browsing directories represents the gold standard of legal research. What a load.

I will show you how over-reliance on KeyCite, key numbers, annotations and headnotes leads to dangerously incomplete research. When I’m finished, you will want to stop browsing and start searching.

Along the way, I will introduce you to a new, better case law search engine. It's the centerpiece of TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0. I will show you how to find the most cited opinion on any point of law in less than ten seconds. A click later you'll be looking at most recent opinion nationally that includes at least one reference to your search term(s).

I will show you how to sort results by court hierarchy when conducting a national search.

The strategies revealed on this site will make you a better Westlaw user, supercharging your results. But, they are secrets. Secrets they don’t want you to know, like that weasel Kevin Trudeau says on TV.

This site is read by lawyers and paralegals from coast-to-coast. So, most of the teaching examples I use are Federal. I also rely on examples related to areas of the law for which I have a Godlike knowledge. For me, that’s Federal criminal practice. Criminal practice is filled with drama. People go to prison. Some are put to death. There are real struggles involved and that makes for better stories.

THE ETHICAL ENTREPRENEUR

2009-01-14T17:22:00.000-08:00

It is certainly not surprising that in a nation of laws we don’t hear more about ethics. Humans are driven by self-interest. In commercial, political, educational, charitable and religious endeavors, the seeds of ethical lapses are sown in the fertile soil of divided loyalties. And it’s always about money, sex or political capital.

Each of us has an innate ethical code that is reflected in the quality of our actions and inactions when confronted with competing interests. How do you balance the equities? Is it mostly about you? Are there areas of your life wherein your ethical code simply lays dormant? Nothing inspires me more than reading about some great entrepreneurial adventure. And, nothing frustrates me more than seeing otherwise solid citizens forced to weather the fallout of their short-term gain mentality.

I am arguably the last person to be writing a essay on this subject. As a high school graduate and convicted felon my storefront credentials are a tad thin.

However, unlike the preacher who threatens damnation in the abstract, I have had the opportunity and personal misfortune of enduring the hell-on-earth reality of a Federal criminal conviction. My lengthy residency in the belly of the beast provided an eye-opening look at life under total government control. Nothing hammers home the concept of hitting bottom like a prison strip search. more>>>

Welcome!

2009-01-10T11:20:00.000-08:00

Welcome to legal research best practices! If you're an attorney or paralegal, this is the site that teaches you how to supercharge your legal research results whether you use Westlaw, Lexis or TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0.

*********************************
Matthew T. Abruzzo Marcus Wilson Acheson William Marsh Acker Harold Arnold
Ackerman James Waldo Ackerman Raymond L. Acosta Jackson Leroy Adair Arlin
Marvin Adams Elmer Bragg Adams George Adams George Bethune Adams Henry Lee
Adams John R. Adams Lynn S. Adelman Jesse Corcoran Adkins Simon Louis Adler
Lance M. Africk G. Steven Agee Robert Peter Aguilar Ann L. Aiken Robert Andrew
Ainsworth Alexander Akerman Anthony A. Alaimo Arthur Lawrence Alarcon William
Harold Albritton Ruggero John Aldisert Ann Aldrich Bailey Aldrich Edgar
Aldrich James Henry Alesia Samuel A. Alito Charles Mengel Allen Florence
Ellinwood Allen William Joshua Allen Wayne Edward Alley Clarence W. Allgood
James V. Allred James Lindsay Almond Samuel Alschuler Donald Douglas Alsop
William Haskell Alsup Frank X. Altimari Cecilia M. Altonaga Micaela Alvarez
Richard Henry Alvey Thomas L. Ambro Donetta W. Ambrose Charles Fremont Amidon
Carol Bagley Amon Wayne R. Andersen Albert Barnes Anderson Aldon Junior Anderson
George Ross Anderson George Weston Anderson Harry Bennett Anderson J. Blaine
Anderson Joseph Fletcher Anderson Percy Anderson R[obert] Lanier Anderson
Robert Palmer Anderson Stanley Thomas Anderson Stephen Hale Anderson Thomas H.
Anderson Maurice Neil Andrews Michael M. Anello Alexis Caswell Angell John II
Antoon Herschel Whitfield Arant Richard Joseph Arcara George Arceneaux Robert
Wodrow Archbald Glenn Leroy Archer Christine M. Arguello M. Christina Armijo
Saundra Brown Armstrong Morris Sheppard Arnold Richard Sheppard Arnold Thurman
Wesley Arnold Winston Eugene Arnow Sidney Myer Aronovitz Alfred Albert Arraj
Janet Bond Arterton Marvin E. Aspen Carl Clyde Atkins Nancy Friedman Atlas
William Hawley Atwell Anthony Thomas Augelli Richard Bevan Austin Henry Edward
Autrey John Boyd Avis Sharion Aycock Lewis Thornton Babcock Harold Baer John
Preston Bailey Thomas Jennings Bailey Lourdes Gillespie Baird Francis Elisha
Baker Harold Albert Baker John Harris Baker William Eli Baker Bobby Ray Baldock
Alexander White Baldwin Henry Baldwin James Harris Baldwin Phillip Benjamin
Baldwin Thomas Austin Ballantine Bland Ballard Robert C. Baltzell Paul J.
Barbadoro Carl J. Barbier Philip Pendelton Barbour William Henry Barbour Guy
Kurtz Bard Sarah Evans Barker William Julius Barker Rosemary Barkett Alfred
Dickinson Barksdale Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale George Herbert Barlow Job Barnard
David Leonard Barnes Harry F. Barnes John Peter Barnes Stanley Nelson Barnes
John Watson Barr James Emmett Barrett Michael Ryan Barrett William Hale Barrett
Allen Edward Barrow, Maryanne Trump Barry John Ries Bartels Harvey Bartle D.
Brook Bartlett Richard Bassett William G. Bassler Walter Maximillian Bastian
Joseph F. Bataillon Alice Moore Batchelder John D. Bates Marianne O. Battani
Timothy C. Batten Richard Howard Battey James Franklin Battin Frank Joseph
Battisti Deborah A. Batts Robert Lynn Batts William Joseph Bauer Arnold Bauman
John Baxter Michael M. Baylson David L. Bazelon Carlos T. Bea C[larence] Arlen
Beam George N. Beamer Robert Sharp Bean Charlton Reid Beattie James Helmick
Beatty William Louis Beatty James A. Beaty Campbell Eben Beaumont Louis
Charles Bechtle Axel John Beck Edward Roy Becker William Henry Becker Sandra
Shank Beckwith Gunning Bedford Thomas Bee William Trulock Beeks Peter Hill
Beer Robert R. Beezer Ralph R. Beistline David Owen Belew Griffin Boyette Bell
J. Spencer Bell Robert Cook Bell Robert Holmes Bell Samuel H. Bell Charles
Byron Bellinger Robert Clinton Belloni Monti L. Belot Fortunato Pedro Benavides
Charles Linnaeus Benedict Roger T. Benitez Marion Tinsley Bennett Mark W.
Bennett Richard D. Bennett Dee Vance Benson Egbert Benson Paul Benson William
Duane Benton Richard M. Berman Helen Ginger Berrigan William Odis Bertelsman
Marsha Siegel Berzon Francisco Augusto Besosa Solomon Hicks Bethea Samuel
Rossiter Betts Joseph Frank Bianco Alexander Bicks Francis Biddle Samuel
Frederick Biery Neal Brooks Biggers Asa Biggs John Biggs Richard Mansfield
Bilby Edward Coke Billings Franklin S. Billings Edward Franklin Bingham George
Hutchins Bingham Stanley F. Birch Jean Galloway Bissell John Winslow Bissell
Vincent Pasquale Biunno Bruce D. Black Hugo Lafayette Black Lloyd Llewellyn
Black Norman William Black Susan Harrell Black Walter Evan Black Robert E.
Blackburn Sharon Lovelace Blackburn Harry Andrew Blackmun Charles Stanley Blair
John Blair Catherine C. Blake Theodorick Bland Samuel M. Blatchford Solomon
Blatt Benjamin Franklin Bledsoe Alan Neil Bloch Frederic Block Henry Williams
Blodgett Mosher Joseph Blumenfeld Alexander Boarman Joseph Lamb Bodine Ralph C.
Body Danny Julian Boggs Andrew Wendell Bogue Luther Lee Bohanon George Hugo
Boldt Susan Ritchie Bolton Hugh Lennox Bond William Bondy Homer Truett Bone
Robert C. Bonner Dudley Baldwin Bonsal Robert Boochever Wilbur Franklin Booth
William Augustus Bootle Wayne G. Borah Herbert Stephenson Boreman Robert Heron
Bork Paul D. Borman Michael Boudin Benjamin Bourne George M. Bourquin Karon O.
Bowdre Dudley Hollingsworth Bowen John Clyde Bowen Pasco Middleton II Bowman
Hugh Henry Bownes Henry Boyce James Edmund Boyd Marion Speed Boyd Christopher
A. Boyko Edward James Boyle Francis Joseph Boyle Jane J. Boyle John Boyle
Patricia Jean Ehrhardt Pernick Boyle Terrence William Boyle Charles Albert
Boynton Thomas Jefferson Boynton Robert C. Brack Edward Green Bradford Edward
Green II Bradford Andrew Coyle Bradley Joseph P. Bradley James J. Brady David
C. Bramlette Henry Bramwell Louis Dembitz Brandeis Clifton Rhodes Bratcher
Howard C. Bratton Sam Gilbert Bratton William Hiram Brawley David Brearley J.
Daniel Breen Jean Sala Breitenstein Stephen W. Brennan William Joseph Brennan
Thomas Rutherford Brett David Josiah Brewer Elisha Hume Brewster Leo Brewster
Rudi M. Brewster Charles R. Breyer Stephen Gerald Breyer Charles L. Brieant
Charles Guy Briggle John Bright Myron H. Bright Clarence Addison Brimmer
Philip A. Brimmer Leonie M. Brinkema David Briones Mary Beck Briscoe William
Bristol William Earl Britt Bower Slack Broaddus W. Craig Broadwater John White
Brockenbrough Raymond Joseph Broderick Vincent Lyons Broderick Anita Blumstein
Brody Morton Aaron Brody Isaac Hopkins Bronson Gene Edward Brooks George
Washington Brooks Henry Luesing Brooks Robert Cameron Broomfield Wade Brorby
Stanley Seymour Brotman Addison Brown Anna J. Brown Arthur Lewis Brown Bailey
Brown Garrett E. Brown Henry Billings Brown Janice Rogers Brown John Robert
Brown Morgan Welles Brown Paul Neeley Brown Robert Lewis Brown Wesley Ernest
Brown James O. Browning James Robert Browning William Docker Browning John
Bruce Walter Bruchhausen Melvin T. Brunetti Albert Vickers Bryan Albert Vickers
Bryan Frederick van Pelt Bryan George Seabrook Bryan Nathan Philemon Bryan
Robert Jensen Bryan David Ezekiel Bryant Frederick Howard Bryant Randolph Bryant
Vanessa Lynne Bryant William Benson Bryant William Curtis Bryson Nicholas John
Bua Jerry Buchmeyer Naomi Reice Buchwald Susan C. Bucklew James Lane Buckley
Elaine E. Bucklo Ronald Lawrence Buckwalter Carl Olaf Bue Joseph Buffington
Frank William Bullock Jonathan Russell Bullock Renee Marie Bumb Romanzo Bunn
David L. Bunning Lucius Desha Bunton Juan Guerrero Burciaga Warren Earl Burger
Franklin D. Burgess Timothy Mark Burgess Harold P. Burke Lloyd Hudson Burke
Ellen Bree Burns James Milton Burns Larry Alan Burns Louis Henry Burns Owen
McIntosh Burns Waller Thomas Burns Billy Michael Burrage Garland Ellis Burrell
Warren Booth Burrows Harold Hitz Burton David C. Bury Richard Busteed Algernon
Lee Butler Charles Randolph Butler Pierce Butler William Butler H. Dean
Buttram John Decker Butzner Jay S. Bybee Kermit Edward Bye Mortimer W. Byers
Charles Willing Byrd William Matthew Byrne William Matthew Byrne James Francis
Byrnes Ted Cabot Jose Alberto Cabranes James Chris Cacheris John Cadwalader
Francis Gordon Caffey Andrew Augustine Caffrey Clyde S. Cahill Edward Norman
Cahn Adrian Joseph Caillouet Guido Calabresi Alexander Caldwell Henry Clay
Caldwell Karen K. Caldwell William W. Caldwell Rhydon Mays Call Consuelo Maria
Callahan Marion Jones Callister William G. Cambridge Benjamin Franklin Cameron
Jack Tarpley Camp Laurie Smith Camp David G. Campbell John Wilson Campbell
John Archibald Campbell Levin Hicks Campbell Marcus Beach Campbell Ralph E.
Campbell Tena Campbell Todd J. Campbell William Joseph Campbell Santiago E.
Campos William Cameron Canby Hiram Rafael Cancio John Matthew Cannella William
Alexander Cant A. Richard Caputo Richard J. Cardamone Kathleen Cardone Benjamin
Nathan Cardozo John Emmett Carland Edward Earl Carnes Julie E. Carnes Cormac J.
Carney George Albert Carpenter George Moulton Carpenter Charles Hardy Carr
George Carter Carr James G. Carr Patrick Eugene Carr James R. Carrigan Earl
Hamblin Carroll George Harrold Carswell David O. Carter Gene Carter James
Marshall Carter Oler Jesse Carter Robert Lee Carter David Kellogg Cartter
Salvador E. Casellas Richard Conway Casey John M. Cashin Paul G. Cassell Fred
James Cassibry William John Castagna P. Kevin Castel Ruben Castillo Latham
Castle John Catron Barbara A. Caulfield Robin J. Cauthron Charles Cheatham
Cavanah Dennis M. Cavanaugh Richard F. Cebull Lamar John Ryan Cecil Lester
LeFevre Cecil Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum Anthony Joseph Celebrezze David S.
Cercone Carmen Consuelo Cerezo Michael A. Chagares Richard Harvey Chambers
Robert Charles Chambers Stephen Sanders Chandler Robert Foster Chapman Deborah
K. Chasanow Harrie Brigham Chase Salmon Portland Chase Samuel Chase Thomas
Chatfield Robert N. Chatigny John Moses Cheney Michael Chertoff Stanley R.
Chesler Maxine M. Chesney William Calvin Chesnut Olin Hatfield Chilson Denny
Chin Nathaniel Chipman Emett Clay Choate William Gardner Choate Con. G.
Cholakis Herbert Young Cho Choy Herbert William Christenberry Albert Sherman
Christensen Sidney Lee Christie James Paul Churchill Robert J. Cindrich George
Edward Cire Harry M. Clabaugh Harry E. Claiborne John William Clancy T. Emmet
Clarie Bennett Champ Clark Charles Clark Charles Edward Clark Charles Dickens
Clark Chase Addison Clark Daniel Clark Ron Clark Russell Gentry Clark Thomas
Alonzo Clark Tom C. Clark William Clark John Hessin Clarke Joseph Calvitt
Clarke Thurmond Clarke Thomas James Clary Eric L. Clay Joseph Clay Claude
Feemster Clayton Henry De Lamar Clayton Robert Hardy Cleland Edith Brown Clement
U. W. Clemon Raymond Charles Clevenger Charles N. Clevert Adam C. Cliffe
John David Clifford Nathan Clifford Richard R. Clifton David H. Coar Howell
Cobb Andrew McConnell January Cochran Ernest Ford Cochran John Louis Coffey
Frank Morey Coffin Jennifer B. Coffman Albert Wheeler Coffrin Brian Mark Cogan
Mitchell Harry Cohen Maurice Blanchard Cohill Avern Levin Cohn James I. Cohn
Charles Cleaves Cole R[ansey] Guy Cole Frank Joseph Coleman James Plemon
Coleman William Caldwell Coleman John Caskie Collet Curtis Lynn Collier Lacey
A. Collier Audrey B. Collins Raner Christercunean Collins Robert Frederick
Collins William Robert Collinson Steven M. Colloton Rosemary M. Collyer LeBaron
Bradford Colt Bertram Thomas Combs James August Comiskey Richard Paul Conaboy
Kenneth Conboy Abraham Benjamin Conger Edward A. Conger Alfred Conkling Suzanne
B. Conlon Patrick Anthony Conmy Ben Clarkson Connally James C. Connell
Christopher C. Conner William Curtis Conner Aloysius Joseph Connor Henry Groves
Connor Glen Edward Conrad Robert James Conrad Joy Flowers Conti Samuel Conti
Leroy John Contie Anne C. Conway John Edwards Conway L. Scott Coogler Deborah
L. Cook Harold Dale Cook Julian Abele Cook Marcia G. Cooke James Aloysius
Coolahan Clarence Cooper Florence-Marie Cooper Frank Cooper Irving Ben Cooper
Mary Little Cooper John Thomas Copenhaver William Perry Copple Howard Francis
Corcoran Valdemar Aguirre Cordova Timothy J. Corrigan George Cosgrave Mark
Americus Costantino Denise Cote John Hazelton Cotteral John C. Coughenour
Alfred V. Covello James Harry Covington Virginia Maria Hernandez Covington Finis
E. Cowan Arnold Wilson Cowen Robert E. Cowen Elijah Allen Cox Emmett Ripley Cox
Joseph Winston Cox Owen DeVol Cox Sean Francis Cox Walter Smith Cox William
Harold Cox Alfred Conkling Coxe Alfred Conkling Coxe Robert Everett Coyle
Barbara Brandriff Crabb Walter Early Craig William Cranch Randy Crane Elisha
Avery Crary James Braxton Craven William Crawford William Creighton Thomas
Francis Croake Myron Donovan Crocker Marcia A. Crone Joseph Cross Paul Austin
Crotty Sam A. Crow John Powers Crowley Richard Dickson Cudahy Samuel Ray
Cummings Walter Joseph Cummings Edward Matthew Curran Thomas John Curran
Cameron McGowan Currie John Thomas Curtin Benjamin Robbins Curtis Jesse William
Curtis William Cushing Edward E. Cushman Jeremiah La Touche Cuyler Conrad Keefe
Cyr George Mifflin Dallas Ted Dalton T. F. Gilroy Daly Stewart R. Dalzell
Frank C. Damrell John Anthony Danaher Peter Vian Daniel Wiley Young Daniel
George B. Daniels Richard Joseph Daronco Leslie Rogers Darr John W. Darrah
Frederick Alvin Daugherty Martha Craig Daughtrey Glen H. Davidson Thomas
Whitfield Davidson Elmer David Davies John G. Davies Ronald Norwood Davies
William Davies Andre Maurice Davis Arthur Marshall Davis Charles B. Davis David
Davis David Jackson Davis Edward Bertrand Davis John Davis John Morgan Davis
John Warren Davis Legrome D. Davis Leonard E. Davis Mark Steven Davis Michael
James Davis Oscar Hirsh Davis Thomas Hoyt Davis W. Eugene Davis Benjamin
Cornwell Dawkins Benjamin Cornwell Dawkins Archie Owen Dawson Charles I.
Dawson Kent J. Dawson Robert T. Dawson Edward William Day William Louis Day
William Rufus Day Alston Gordon Dayton Ira De Ment Matthew Paul Deady James
DeAnda Raymond Joseph Dearie Bascom Sine Deaver Dickinson Richards Debevoise
Bernard Martin Decker Timothy D. DeGiusti John Jefferson DeHaven Mark W. Delahay
John Wayne Delehant Aida M. Delgado-Colon Robert Edward DeMascio Harold R.
DeMoss Arthur Carter Denison William Denman Robert Vernon Denney James L.
Dennis Samuel Der-Yeghiayan Dozier Adolphus DeVane James C. Dever Shane Devine
Edward James Devitt Charles Almon Dewey Gustave Diamond Paul Steven Diamond
John Dick Robert Paine Dick Mahlon Dickerson Philemon Dickerson Oler Booth
Dickinson Joseph A. Diclerico Richard A. Dier Frank Sigel Dietrich Samuel Hugh
Dillin John Forrest Dillon William P. Dimitrouleas Carolyn R. Dimmick Edward
Jordan Dimock John William Ditter Susan J. Dlott Armistead Mason Dobie
Frederic Dodge Rebecca F. Doherty Daniel R. Dominguez Maurice H. Donahue
Bernice B. Donald James A. Donohoe Dennis Francis Donovan George Donworth
Joseph Brannon Dooley John Francis Dooling Maurice Timothy Dooling Richard
Everett Dorr Peter Collins Dorsey David Singleton Doty William Orville Douglas
Robert George Doumar Robert Michael Dow David Dudley Dowd William F. Downes
James Edward Doyle William Edward Doyle John Drayton William Drayton Dee D.
Drell Samuel Marion Drer Christopher F. Droney John H. Druffel Thomas Drummond
James Duane Joel Fredrick Dubina Jan Ely DuBois Kristi DuBose Allen Bowie
Duckett Charles Holland Duell Brian Barnett Duff William S. Duffey Francis
Ryan Duffy Kevin Thomas Duffy Patrick Michael Duffy Patrick J. Duggan John
Malcolm Duhe Edward Dumbauld Allyson Kay Duncan Richard M. Duncan Robert
Morton Duncan Elmer Scipio Dundy Benjamin Cushing Duniway James Dunlop Adrian
Guy Duplantier Franklin Taylor Dupree Edward Henry Durell Stanwood R. Duval
Thomas Howard DuVal Gabriel Duvall William Lee Dwyer Charles E. Dyer David
William Dyer David Patterson Dyer John James Dyer Timothy B. Dyk Claire Eagan
William G. East Frank Hoover Easterbrook Joseph Oscar Eaton David M. Ebel
Robert L. Echols Peter C. Economus David Norton Edelstein Berry Avant Edenfield
Newell Edenfield Robert Allan Edgar Alonzo Jay Edgerton Henry White Edgerton
James Larry Edmondson Nancy Garlock Edmunds George Clifton Edwards Harry Thomas
Edwards Pierpont Edwards Thomas C. Egan Warren William Eginton Edward Clayton
Eicher Garnett Thomas Eisele John Thomas Elfvin J[ames] Robert Elliott James
Douglas Elliott Frank Burton Ellis Powhatan Ellis Thomas Selby Ellis James O.
Ellison Keith P. Ellison Oler Ellsworth Jennifer Walker Elrod Walter Raleigh
Ely Halmer Hull Emmons Albert Joseph Engel Kurt D. Engelhardt Morrison C.
England George Washington English William Benner Enright Richard Alan Enslen
Joan N. Ericksen Ralph R. Erickson Herbert Wilson Erskine John Erskine Robert
Tait Ervin Samuel James Ervin Richard Cannon Erwin Jesse Ernest Eschbach Joe
Ewing Estes William Lee Estes Luther Boyd Eubanks Beverly Daniel Evans Evan
Alfred Evans Orinda Dale Evans Terence Thomas Evans Walter Evans Hamilton
Glover Ewart Nathaniel Ewing David Alan Ezra David A. Faber George Gardner Fagg
Charles Fahy Valerie Baker Fairbank Thomas Edward Fairchild Guy Laverne Fake
Eldon E. Fallon Charles Breckenridge Faris Joseph James Farnan Edward Silsby
Farrington Joseph Jerome Farris Patricia C. Fawsett Peter Thorp Fay James Alger
Fee Gary Allen Feess John Feikens Wilfred Feinberg Martin Leach-Cross Feldman
Gary A. Fenner Warren John Ferguson Wilkie D. Ferguson Ferdinand Francis
Fernandez Juan B. Fernandez-Badillo Sandra J. Feuerstein John A. Field Richard
Stockton Field Stephen Johnson Field Phillip S. Figa Mark R. Filip Edward Louis
Filippine Sherman Glenn Finesilver Gustavus Adolphus Finkelnburg Philip J.
Finnegan Robert Firth Dale S. Fischer Nora Barry Fischer A[llen] Joe Fish
Clarkson Sherman Fisher D. Michael Fisher George Purnell Fisher John Fisher
Joseph Jefferson Fisher Raymond C. Fisher James Martin Fitzgerald Louis
FitzHenry Nicholas Battalle Fitzhugh Duross Fitzpatrick Sidney Allen Fitzwater
Louise W. Flanagan Thomas Aquinas Flannery Joel Martin Flaum Betty Binns
Fletcher William A. Fletcher Henry Franklin Floyd Herbert Allan Fogel Jeremy D.
Fogel James Thomas Foley Roger D. Foley Roger Thomas Foley Frederick Voris
Follmer David Folsom Harold Michael Fong Francis Joseph William Ford Hiram
Church Ford James L. Foreman Karl Spillman Forester Phillip Forman J. Owen
Forrester Abe Fortas Cassius Gaius Foster Rufus Edward Foster Edward Fox James
Carroll Fox Noel Peter Fox Donovan W. Frank Jerome New Frank Marvin E. Frankel
Felix Frankfurter Philip Fraser Emerich B. Freed Abraham Lincoln Freedman Frank
Harlan Freedman Louis J. Freeh Ralph McKenzie Freeman Richard Cameron Freeman
William C. Frey Bernard A. Friedman Daniel Mortimer Friedman Jerome B. Friedman
Monroe Mark Friedman Paul L. Friedman Henry Jacob Friendly Stephen P. Friot
Gregory Kent Frizzell Gregory L. Frost Helen Jackson Frye Julio M. Fuentes John
P. Fullam Mark E. Fuller Melville Weston Fuller Charles Britton Fulton William
Royal Furgeson Jose Antonio Fuste Richard Arthur Gadbois Paul V. Gadola Lee
Parsons Gagliardi Fernando J. Gaitan Arthur J. Gajarsa Clarence G. Galston
James Cullen Ganey Nicholas Garaufis Marvin J. Garbis Edward J. Garcia Hipolito
Frank Garcia Orlando Luis Garcia Jay A. Garcia-Gregory Paul G. Gardephe
Archibald K. Gardner James Knoll Gardner Merrick B. Garland Francis Arthur
Garrecht Wendell Arthur Garrity Leonard I. Garth Edwin Louis Garvin William
Lockhart Garwood Emilio M. Garza Reynaldo Guerra Garza Oler Gasch Patricia Anne
Gaughan Robert S. Gawthrop John Gayle Thomas Gibbs Gee Ferdinand August Geiger
Gustavo Antonio Gelpi Lloyd D. George John Francis Gerry Nina Gershon Nancy
Gertner Gerhard Alden Gesell Robert William Gettleman Susan Christine O`Meara
Getzendanner Walter Pettus Gewin Walter J. Gex Samuel Jameson Gholson John
Joseph Gibbons Julia Smith Gibbons Benjamin F. Gibson Ernest William Gibson
Floyd Robert Gibson Hugh Gibson John R. Gibson Kim R. Gibson Robert Murray
Gibson Gilberto Gierbolini-Ortiz Edward Thaxter Gignoux John Phil Gilbert
William Ball Gilbert Robert Budd Gilchrist James Tyrone Giles William Fell Giles
Donnell Gilliam Earl Ben Gilliam Helen W. Gillmor Ronald Lee Gilman Horace
Weldon Gilmore Vanessa D. Gilmore Douglas Howard Ginsburg Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Israel Leo Glasser John Gleeson Elias Glenn John Glenn John Lyles Glenn David
C. Godbey John Cooper Godbold Henry Warren Goddard Gerard Louis Goettel Nathan
Goff Alan Stephen Gold Arthur Joseph Goldberg Irving Loeb Goldberg Mitchell S.
Goldberg Thomas M. Golden Thomas Alan Goldsborough Irma Elsa Gonzalez Jose
Alejandro Gonzalez Louis Earl Goodman Herbert Funk Goodrich Alfred Theodore
Goodwin Joseph Robert Goodwin William Nelson Goodwin James Henry Gorbey Eugene
Andrew Gordon Jack Murphy Gordon James Fleming Gordon Myron L. Gordon Peyton
Gordon John J. Gore Neil M. Gorsuch Nathaniel M. Gorton Joan B. Gottschall
Ashley Mulgrave Gould Ronald Murray Gould Wallace Samuel Gourley Susan Graber
John Francis Grady Donald L. Graham James L. Graham Callie V. Granade Robert
Allen Grant Henry Norman Graven Frank Gray George Gray Horace Gray William
Percal Gray Ben Charles Green Clifford Scott Green Edward T. Green Joyce Hens
Green June Lazenby Green Joseph A. Greenaway Morton Ira Greenberg Harold H.
Greene John Thomas Greene J. Ronnie Greer Roger L. Gregory Walter Quintin
Gresham Robert Cooper Grier Thomas Poole Griesa William C. Griesbach Cyrus
Griffin Richard Allen Griffin Thomas Beall Griffith William Griffith Allan Kuhn
Grim James E. Gritzner Duncan Lawrence Groner Harlan Hobart Grooms Peter
Stenger Grosscup Kenneth Philip Grubb William Irwin Grubb Raymond W. Gruender
Lawrence Gubow Andrew J. Guilford Junius Foy Guin Ernest Allen Guinn Louis
Guirola George F. Gunn Murray Irwin Gurfein Philip S. Gutierrez Ralph B. Guy
Ronald A. Guzman James S. Gwin Barbara Kloka Hackett Sam E. Haddon Charles
Harold II Haden David Warner Hagen Ancer Lee Haggerty Alexander Burton Hagner
George Philip Hahn Charles Sherman Haight Fletcher Mathews Haight Thomas
Griffith Haight Richard T. Haik Sherrill Halbert Clarence Hale Cynthia Holcomb
Hall Dominic Augustin Hall James Randal Hall Janet C. Hall Kenneth Keller Hall
Nathan Kelsey Hall Peirson Mitchell Hall Peter W. Hall Robert Howell Hall Sam
Blakeley Hall Willard Hall Elizabeth Virginia Hallanan Moses Hallett Elbert
Bertram Haltom James Dandridge Halyburton Clyde H. Hamilton David Frank
Hamilton Elwood Hamilton Jean Constance Hamilton Phyllis Jean Hamilton
Frederick George Hamley Oler Deveta Hamlin Eli Shelby Hammond James Hughes
Hancock Augustus Noble Hand Learned Hand William Brevard Hand Andrew S. Hanen
Bert Emory Haney Cornelius Holgate Hanford John H. Hannah Allen Burroughs
Hannay John Berne Hannum Curtis LeRoy Hansen David Rasmussen Hansen William
Cook Hanson Thomas Michael Hardiman Charles Leach Hardy John Raymond Hargrove
John Marshall Harlan John Marshall Harlan Melinda Harmon Roy Winfield Harper
Samuel Hadden Harper Edward Francis Harrington Edward Harris George Bernard
Harris Oren Harris Stanley S. Harris Benjamin Harrison George Luzerne Hart
William Thomas Hart John Patrick Hartigan Richard Hartshorne Harris L. Hartz
Alexander II Harvey James Harvey Matthew Harvey Robert Bryan Harwell William
Henry Hastie Alcee Lamar Hastings John Simpson Hastings Carl A. Hatch Joseph
Woodrow Hatchett Paul Gerhart Hatfield Terry J. Hatter A. Andrew Hauk Falcon
Black Hawkins Michael Daly Hawkins Thomas Porter Hawley George Hay Katharine
Sweeney Hayden Johnson Jay Hayes William Q. Hayes Catharina Haynes William
Joseph Haynes Clement Furman Haynsworth Paul Raymond Hays William Hercules
Hays John Raymond Hazel Hayden Wilson Head Arthur Daniel Healey William Healy
Gerald William Heaney Thad Heartfield Upton Scott Heath Joe L. Heaton Frederick
Jacob Reagan Heebe Walter Meheula Heen Alvin K. Hellerstein Guy Tresillian
Helvering Robert Witherspoon Hemphill Albert John Henderson David Ezekiel
Henderson John Oler Henderson Karen LeCraft Henderson Thelton Eugene Henderson
Jimm Larry Hendren Jesse Smith Henley Edward J. Henning Robert Harlan Henry
William Bernard Herlands Henry Michael Herlong Robert Dixon Herman H[oward]
David Hermansdorfer David R. Herndon Judith C. Herrera John Gilpin II Heyburn
William J. Hibbler Smith Hickenlooper John Joseph Hickey Edwin Richley Hicklin
Larry R. Hicks S. Maurice Hicks Xenophon Hicks Lynn Carlton Higby Aloyisus
Leon Higginbotham Patrick Errol Higginbotham Thomas Aquinas Higgins Shelby
Highsmith Delmas Carl Hill Irving Hill James Clinkscales Hill Robert Madden
Hill Robert Andrews Hill Douglas Woodruff Hillman Noel Lawrence Hillman Edgar
Winters Hillyer Claude M. Hilton Carroll Clark Hincks Robert Lewis Hinkle
Ricardo H. Hinojosa Samuel Hitchcock David Hittner William Hitz John Sloss
Hobart Truman McGill Hobbs Faith S. Hochberg Walter Hartman Hodge William
Terrell Hodges Adolph A. Hoehling William Marcellin Hoeveler Julius Jennings
Hoffman Ogden Hoffman Walter Edward Hoffman Michael Robert Hogan Thomas
Francis Hogan Timothy Sylvester Hogan James Stuart Holden Cale James Holder
James F. Holderman H[ezekiah] Russel Holland James Buchanan Holland John Warthen
Holland Howard Clark Hollister William Judson Holloway William Harrison Holly
Harry Aaron Hollzer Jesse Lynch Holman Edwin Ruthven Holmes J[ames] Leon Holmes
Jerome A. Holmes Oler Wendell Holmes Sven Erik Holmes John David Holschuh
George Chandler Holt Alexander Holtzoff Richard J. Holwell Denise Page Hood
Joseph Martin Hood William Cather Hook Frank Arthur Hooper James Campbell
Hopkins Richard Joseph Hopkins Virginia Emerson Hopkins Francis Hopkinson
Joseph Hopkinson David Brock Hornby Odell Horton C[harles] Weston Houck Benson
W. Hough Charles Merrill Hough James Houston John A. Houston Daniel L. Hovland
Alex T. Howard Clinton Woodbury Howard George Howard Jeffrey R. Howard Joseph
Clemens Howard Malcolm Jones Howard Marcia Morales Howard Harland Bradley Howe
James Henry Howe David Howell Kenneth M. Hoyt Paul C. Huck Henry E. Hudson
Harry Lee Hudspeth Marilyn L. Huff Shirley Ann Mount Hufstedler Procter Ralph
Hug Charles Evans Hughes Lynn Nettleton Hughes Robert William Hughes Sarah
Tilghman Hughes George Murray Hulbert Rubey Mosley Hulen Frank M. Hull Thomas
Gray Hull J. Otis Humphrey David Campbell Humphreys West Hughes Humphreys Oscar
Richard Hundley William Leonard Hungate Roger L. Hunt Ward Hunt William Henry
Hunt Willis B. Hunt Edwin Ford Hunter Elmo Bolton Hunter James Hunter
Elisha Mills Huntington Harry Lindley Hupp David N. Hurd Daniel T. K. Hurley
Denis Reagan Hurley Charles Sterling Hutcheson Joseph Chappell Hutcheson
William D. Hutchinson Herbert J. Hutton Ellen Segal Huvelle Walter August Huxman
Daniel Henry Huyett James M. Ideman Michael Lambert Igoe Sandra Segal Ikuta
Susan Yvonne Illston Robert Alexander Inch Charles Anthony Ingersoll Joe
McDonald Ingraham William Austin Ingram Harry Innes James Iredell Joseph Eron
Irenas Dora L. Irizarry J. Lawrence Irving Thomas Irwin Anthony W. Ishii
George Whitfield Jack Janis Graham Jack Carol E. Jackson Howell Edmunds Jackson
John Jay Jackson John George Jackson Raymond Alvin Jackson Robert Houghwout
Jackson Thomas Penfield Jackson Dennis G. Jacobs Fred Clinton Jacobs Charles
Pinckney James Robert Gillespie James William P. James William James Jameson
John Alfred Jarvey James Howard II Jarvis John Jay Bruce Sterling Jenkins James
Graham Jenkins Martin J. Jenkins Ralph E. Jenney Delwen Lowell Jensen Gilbert
H. Jertberg Harvey M. Johnsen Alan Bond Johnson Albert Williams Johnson
Alexander Smith Johnson Benjamin Johnson Charles Fletcher Johnson Frank Minis
Johnson George E. Q. Johnson Inge Prytz Johnson Joseph Travis Johnson Norma
Holloway Johnson Samuel D. Johnson Sterling Johnson Thomas Johnson Tillman
Davis Johnson William Johnson William Paul Johnson Thomas E. Johnston Edward
Huggins Johnstone Charles Wycliffe Joiner E. Grady Jolly Barbara S. Jones C.
Darnell II Jones Charles Alvin Jones Edith Hollan Jones James McHall Jones
James Parker Jones John E. Jones John Bailey Jones Lake Jones Napoleon A.
Jones Nathaniel Raphael Jones Okla II Jones Paul J. Jones Richard A. Jones
Robert Cle Jones Robert Edward Jones Shirley Brannock Jones Thomas Goode Jones
Warren Leroy Jones William Giles Jones William Blakely Jones Woodrow Wilson
Jones Robert James Jonker Adalberto Jose Jordan Daniel Porter Jordan Kent A.
Jordan Robert Leon Jordan Cindy K. Jorgenson Matthew M. Joyce J. Curtis Joyner
Orrin Grimmell Judd Andrew Thompson Judson William George Juergens Anthony
Julian Robert A. Junell William Wayne Justice Frederick William Kaess Lawrence
E. Kahn Girard Edward Kalbfleisch Harry Ellis Kalodner Edward S. Kampf John L.
Kane John Kintzing Kane Yvette Kane Michael Stephen Kanne Frederick J. Kapala
Lewis A. Kaplan Kenneth M. Karas Lawrence K. Karlton Shiro Kashiwa David A.
Katz Marvin Katz Robert A. Katzmann Bruce William Kauffman Frank Albert Kaufman
Irving Robert Kaufman Samuel Hamilton Kaufman Brett M. Kavanaugh Alan Cooke Kay
David Gregory Kays George P. Kazen William Colbert Keady Amalya Lyle Kearse
Richmond Bowling Keech Irene Patricia Murphy Keeley Walter Angus Keeling John
Fontaine Keenan Judith Nelsen Keep Robert Ernest Keeton James W. Kehoe Damon
Jerome Keith Richard Boykin Kellam Robert Joseph Kelleher Benjamin Franklin
Keller William Duffy Keller Walter DeKalb Kelley James McGirr Kelly John David
Kelly Patrick F. Kelly Paul Joseph Kelly Robert F. Kelly [Elton] Joe Kendall
Virginia Mary Kendall Charles Brents Kennamer Franklin Elmore Kennamer Anthony
McLeod Kennedy Cornelia Groefsema Kennedy Harold Maurice Kennedy Henry Harold
Kennedy Thomas Blake Kennedy Matthew F. Kennelly Thomas Martin Kennerly Samuel
B. Kent W. Wallace Kent David Vreeland Kenyon William Squire Kenyon Terence C.
Kern Otto Kerner Otto Kerner Ewing Thomas Kerr Frank Henry Kerrigan Gladys
Kessler Winthrop Welles Ketcham Raymond M. Kethledge David McKendree Key Philip
Barton Key William Matthew Kidd Roger Joseph Kiley John Francis Kilkenny John
Milton Killits William Kilty Dale A. Kimball Alexander Campbell King Carolyn
Dineen King Garr M. King George H. King James Lawrence King Robert Bruce King
Samuel Pailthorpe King James E. Kinkeade Joseph Peter Kinneary Alfred Younges
Kirkland James Robert Kirkland Andrew Kirkpatrick William Huntington Kirkpatrick
Jackson L. Kiser John Joseph Kitchen Robert G. Klausner Andrew Jay Kleinfeld
Frank Le Blond Kloeb [Percy] Whitman Knapp Dennis Raymond Knapp Martin Augustine
Knapp Loyal Edwin Knappen John Knight Winfred George Knoch William Lee Knous
Hiram Knowles John Power Knowles John Clark Knox William W. Knox Charles Petros
Kocoras Montgomery Oler Koelsch John George Koeltl Christian Cecil Kohlsaat
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly Richard George Kopf Edward Robert Korman Charles B.
Kornmann Arthur A. Koscinski Edwin Michael Kosik Elizabeth Anne Kovachevich
Alex Kozinski C[harles] William Kraft Shirley Wohl Kram Phyllis A. Kravitch
Mark R. Kravitz Arnold Krekel Isaac Benjamin Krentzman Alvin I. Krenzler
Marcia S. Krieger Robert B. Krupansky Robert B. Kugler Fred Kunzel Richard
House Kyle George La Plata Walter J. LaBuy Frederick Bernard Lacey Emile Henry
Lacombe Hector Manuel Laffitte Ronald Rene Lagueux Simeon Timothy Lake Joseph
Rucker Lamar Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar William Wallace Lambdin Royce C.
Lamberth Thomas Demetrios Lambros Gary L. Lancaster Clay D. Land Kenesaw
Mountain Landis Arthur Stephen Lane George Washington Lane Orville Edwin Langley
William Mershon Lanning Joseph Normand Laplante Don Nelson Laramore David G.
Larimer John Davis Larkins Earl Richard Larson Stephen G. Larson Morris E.
Lasker Robert S. Lasnik James Levin Latchum Nanette Kay Laughrey John Laurance
Richard Law Alexander Atkinson Lawrence Philip Kissick Lawrence William T.
Lawrence Bolitha James Laws David M. Lawson Hugh Lawson Donald Pomery Lay
Caleb Rodney Layton Richard A. Lazzara Edward Lawrence Leahy Paul Conway Leahy
James Patrick Leamy Humphrey Howe Leavitt Charles Henry Leavy Edward Leavy
Alfred James Lechner Bernard Joseph Leddy Arthur F. Lederle Donald J. Lee Elmo
Pearce Lee Gerald Bruce Lee Thomas Lee Tom Stewart Lee William Charles Lee
Joan Humphrey Lefkow Benson Everett Legg Charles A. Legge Vincent L. Leibell
George Neves Leighton Ronald B. Leighton Harry Daniel Leinenweber Peter Keeton
Leisure an L. R. Lemelle Harry Jacob Lemley Dal Millington Lemmon Mary Ann Vial
Lemmon Joan A. Lenard Richard J. Leon Timothy D. Leonard Fred Dickinson Letts
Ira Lloyd Letts J[ohn] Spencer Letts Pierre Nelson Leval Harold Leventhal
Richard Harrington Levet David F. Levi Gerald Sanford Levin Theodore Levin
Ronald S. W. Lew David Thomas Lewis Oren Ritter Lewis Robert E. Lewis Timothy
K. Lewis William Lewis Joseph Patrick Lieb John C. Lifland Stephen Nathaniel
Limbaugh Stephen Nathaniel Limbaugh Jose L. Linares George Wakem Lindberg
William James Lindberg Walter C. Lindley Reginald C. Lindsay Sam A. Lindsay
David W. Ling Richard Linn Sara Elizabeth Lioi Kermit Victor Lipez Mary M. Lisi
F. A. Little Marcel Laudais Pierce Lely Debra Ann Lingston Henry Brockholst
Lingston William Lochren James William Locke Edward J. Lodge James Kenneth
Logan James B. Loken Augustus V. Long Joseph J. Longobardi Ronald Earl
Longstaff John Wesley Longyear John Whitaker Lord Joseph Simon Lord Miles
Welton Lord M. James Lorenz Harold Louderback Martin Francis Loughlin Alan
David Lourie James M. Love Charles C. Lovell Archibald Battle Lovett Mary
Johnson Lowe Francis Cabot Lowell James Arnold Lowell John Lowell John A.
Lowell Rodolfo Lozano Malcolm Millar Lucas Carlos F. Lucero Thomas Lamson
Ludington Alia M. Ludlum Edmund V. Ludwig Oscar Raymond Luhring Joseph Edward
Lumbard Alva Moore Lumpkin John Watson Lungstrum Alfred Leopold Luongo Horace
Harmon Lurton Claude Zeth Luse J. Michael Luttig Lawrence Tupper Lydick Charles
Francis Lynch Eugene F. Lynch Gerard E. Lynch Sandra Lea Lynch William Joseph
Lynch Barbara M. Lynn Seybourn Harris Lynne Arthur MacArthur Thomas Jamison
MacBride Thaddeus M. Machrowicz Julian William Mack John Ashton MacKenzie
George Edward MacKinnon Harry Hunter MacLaughlin Lloyd Francis MacMahon Thomas
M. Madden Charles Magill Frank J. Magill Paul Arthur Magnuson Andrew Gordon
Magrath Calvert Magruder James C. Mahan Eldon Brooks Mahon John Daniel Mahoney
John Christopher Mahoney James Earl Major Paul Lewis Maloney Robert B. Maloney
Samuel Mandelbaum Nora Margaret Manella Daniel Anthony Manion Blanche M. Manning
John Michael Manos Walter Roe Mansfield Carol Los Mansmann Martin Thomas Manton
Algenon L. Marbley Henry Marchant Stanley Marcus Albert Branson Maris Howard
Thomas Markey George Michael Marovich Abraham Lincoln Marovitz Alfredo Chavez
Marquez Kenneth A. Marra Victor Marrero Malcolm Francis Marsh Rabe Ferguson
Marsh Consuelo Bland Marshall James Markham Marshall John Marshall John
Augustine Marshall Prentice Henry Marshall Thurgood Marshall John Thomas Marten
Beverly B. Martin Boyce Ficklen Martin George Ewing Martin James Loren Martin
James Robert Martin John S. Martin John Donelson Martin John Ellis Martineau
Jose E. Martinez Philip Ray Martinez Ricardo S. Martinez William J. Martini
Frederick J. Martone William Marvin John Young Mason Thomas Ambrose Masterson
William Carey Mathes Clifton Mathews Paul Ramon Matia Richard Paul Matsch Kiyo
A. Matsumoto Marion Charles Matthes Burnita Shelton Matthews Stanley Matthews
Harry Sandlin Mattice A. Howard Matz Roslynn Renee Mauskopf Thomas Sheldon
Maxey Robert Earl Maxwell Haldane Robert Mayer Julius Marshuetz Mayer Samuel H.
Mays A. David Mazzone Matthew Hall McAllister Thomas Francis McAllister Steven
J. McAuliffe Thomas James McAvoy John H. McBryde Theodore Howard McCaleb John
Ethridge McCall Jon Phipps McCalla Wallace McCamant Wilson McCandless James
William McCarthy William T. McCarthy Henry Kent McCay George Warwick McClintic
William McClung James Focht McClure Claude Charles McColloch Louis Emory
McComas Michael W. McConnell Leon Clarence McCord Andrew Phelps McCormick Paul
John McCormick Walter Irving McCoy George Washington McCrary Wade Hampton
McCree Barron Patterson McCune Neal Peters McCurn Michael Patrick McCuskey Joe
Billy McDade George Thomas McDermott Alan Angus McDonald David McDonald
Gabrielle Anne Kirk McDonald Henry Clay McDowell John McDuffie Edward Matthew
McEntee Frank Hampton McFadden Frank James McGarr Joseph Charles McGarraghy
John Franklin McGee Joseph Leo McGlynn John F. X. McGohey Walter Thomas
McGovern Carl E. McGowan James Patrick McGranery Matthew Francis McGuire
William Douglas McHugh John Wilson McIlvaine McQueen McIntosh Monroe G. McKay
David William McKeague Theodore Alexander McKee Charles Louis McKeehan Roderick
R. McKelvie Joseph McKenna Lawrence M. McKenna William McKennan M. Margaret
McKeown Howard D. McKibben John McKinley Joseph H. McKinley John McKinney
Larry J. McKinney H[arold] Brent McKnight Richard Wellington McLaren Charles
Francis McLaughlin Gerald McLaughlin Joseph Michael McLaughlin Linda Hodge
McLaughlin Mary A. McLaughlin Sean J. McLaughlin Edward Cochrane McLean John
McLean Hugh Dean McLellan Colleen McMahon Edward Joseph McManus James Bryan
McMillan Robert Johnston McMillan Thomas Roberts McMillen Theodore McMillian
Phil McClellan McNagny John McNairy A. J. McNamara Charles Joseph McNamee
Stephen M. McNamee John Hugh McNary John Joseph McNaught Raymond Clyne McNichols
Robert James McNichols John Bayard McPherson Smith McPherson Richard B.
McQuade Robert Malcolm McRae William Allan McRae James Clark McReynolds
Terrence F. McVerry Nelson McVicar Robert Hugh McWilliams Thomas Francis Meaney
Henry Curtis Meanor Terry R. Means Edwin Leard Mechem Harold Raymond Medina
Edward Roscoe Meek Isaac Melson Meekins Pat Mehaffy William Osborne Mehrtens
Tucker L. Melancon Eric F. Melgren Arthur Johnson Mellott Michael Joseph Melloy
Howell Webster Melton Glenn Everell Mencer John A. Mendez Henry Alvan Mentz
Frederick Olen Mercer James Hargrove Meredith Ronald Edward Meredith Robert
Reynold Merhige William Matthew Merrick Charles Merton Merrill Gilbert Stroud
Merritt Steven Douglas Merryday Thomas Joseph Meskill Peter Jo Messitte Charles
Miller Metzner James Harry Michael M. Blane Michael Paul Redmond Michel Thomas
Johnson Michie George Theodore Mickelson Stephan P. Mickle David Lycurgus
Middlebrooks Donald M. Middlebrooks Michael Martin Mihm Abner Joseph Mikva
Herbert Theodore Milburn Wendell Alverson Miles Vicki Miles-LaGrange Andrew
Miller Andrew Galbraith Miller Brian Stacy Miller Gray Hampton Miller Jack
Richard Miller James Rogers Miller Jeffrey T. Miller John Elvis Miller John
Lester Miller Justin Miller Robert Lowell Miller Samuel Freeman Miller
Shackelford Miller Walker David Miller Wilbur Kingsbury Miller William Ernest
Miller Michael P. Mills Richard Henry Mills Patricia Head Minaldi Julius Howard
Miner Roger Jeffrey Miner Sherman Minton Jacob Mishler George John Mitchell
Lansing Leroy Mitchell Sidney Carr Mize Alfred Egidio Modarelli Edward Julien
Moinet Donald W. Molloy Susan Oki Mollway Joseph West Molyneaux Thomas Bell
Monroe Frank Montalvo Ann D. Montgomery Martin V. Montgomery James Tyne Moody
James S. Moody James Maxwell Moody William Henry Moody Norman K. Moon Alfred
Moore Ben Moore George Moore John Henry II Moore Karen Nelson Moore Kevin
Michael Moore Kimberly Ann Moore Leonard Page Moore William Theodore Moore
Charles Harwood Moorman James Byron Moran Norman A. Mordue Carlos R. Moreno
Federico A. Moreno Henry Coke Morgan Justin Colfax Morgan Lewis Render Morgan
Robert Dale Morgan Amos Morrill Mendon Morrill George Franklin Morris Hugh
Martin Morris James Ward Morris Joseph Wilson Morris Martin Ferdinand Morris
Page Morris Robert Morris Thomas John Morris Margaret M. Morrow William W.
Morrow James Sewall Morsell James Madison Morton Leland Clure Morton Grover M.
Moscowitz Barry Ted Moskowitz Michael W. Mosman Constance Baker Motley Diana
Jane Gribbon Motz J. Frederick Motz Charles Allen Moye Bernard Thomas Moynahan
Charles Andrew Muecke Malcolm Muir Michael B. Mukasey Graham Calder Mullen
William Hughes Mulligan Clarence H. Mullins Thomas Charles Munger William Henry
Munger James Martin Munley Howard G. Munson Carlos Murguia Mary H. Murguia
Francis Dominic Murnaghan Thomas Alexander Murphree Diana E. Murphy Edward
Preston Murphy Frank Murphy G. Patrick Murphy Harold Lloyd Murphy John William
Murphy Michael R. Murphy Stephen Joseph Murphy Thomas Francis Murphy Alfred
Paul Murrah Frank Jerome Murray Herbert Frazier Murray William Daniel Murray
John Garvan Murtha Francis Kerschner Myers John Francis Nangle Alexander J.
Napoli Edward Raymond Neaher William Joseph Nealon Colin Neblett Charles
Gelbert Neese Janet T. Neff Marshall Allen Neill Susan Bieke Neilson David
Aldrich Nelson David Sutherland Nelson Dorothy Wright Nelson Edwin L. Nelson
Rensselaer Russell Nelson Samuel Nelson Thomas G. Nelson Thomas Leverett Nelson
Lenore Carrero Nesbitt Jeremiah Neterer Alan Harris Nevas Philip Neville Robert
Reasoner Nevin Stewart Albert Newblatt Clarence Charles Newcomer Jon Ormond
Newman Pauline Newman William Truslow Newman Fred Joseph Nichol Philip Nichols
Eugene Hoffman Nickerson William M. Nickerson John Cochran Nicoll John Percy
Nields Leland Chris Nielsen William Fremming Nielsen Paul Victor Niemeyer Helen
Wilson Nies Henry Clay Niles Ralph Wilson Nimmons John Trice Nixon John
Thompson Nixon Walter Louis Nixon James Latane Noel James Ellsworth Noland
Gregory Francis Noonan John T. Noonan Frank Herbert Norcross John Albert
Nordberg Gunnar Hans Nordbye Charles Ronald Norgle Alan Eugene Norris William
Albert Norris Elliott Northcott Edward Skottowe Northrop David C. Norton Edward
Willis Nottingham James Robertson Nowlin Walter Chadwick Noyes Donald C. Nugent
Richard Lowell Nygaard Donald Eugene O'Brien Ernest Aloysius O'Brien Terrence
L. O'Brien John Joseph O'Connell Earl Eugene O'Connor James Francis Thaddeus
O'Connor Reed Charles O'Connor Sandra Day O'Connor Robert J. O'Conor Daniel
William O'Donoghue Liam O'Grady William Clark O'Kelley Kathleen M. O'Malley
John Corbett O'Meara Lawrence Joseph O'Neill Thomas Newman O'Neill Diarmuid
Fionntain O'Scannlain Clifford Patrick O'Sullan George A. O'Toole James Lowell
Oakes Louis Falk Oberdorfer Isaac Stockton Keith Ogier Abram Baldwin Olin John
Watkins Oler Solomon Oler Stephen Murray Orlofsky Charles Prentiss Orr William
Edwin Orr William Horsley Orrick William Lindsay Osteen William Lindsay
Osteen S. James Otero Merrill E. Otis William Ray Overton Priscilla Richman
Owen Richard Owen Wilbur Dawson Owens Halil Suleyman Ozerden William Paca
John R. Padova Richard A. Paez George True Page Elijah Paine James Carriger
Paine Rebecca R. Pallmeyer Edmund Louis Palmieri Charles A. Pannell Owen
Murphy Panner Don Albert Pardee Benjamin Parke Barrington Daniels Parker
Barrington Daniels Parker Fred I. Parker Isaac Charles Parker James Aubrey
Parker John Victor Parker John Johnston Parker Robert Manley Parker William
Lynn Parkinson Charles Parlange Albion Keith Parris James Benton Parsons John
Slater Partridge Marilyn Hall Patel William Paterson Robert Porter Patterson
Robert Porter Patterson Charles Ferguson Paul John Paul John Paul Maurice
Mitchell Paul William H. Pauley Harry Vearle Payne James H. Payne Robert E.
Payne Marsha J. Pechman James Hawkins Peck John Weld Peck John Weld II Peck
Robert Francis Peckham Rufus Wheeler Peckham Wilbur Frank Pell Martin Pence
Nathaniel Pendleton Philip Clayton Pendleton John Garrett Penn William Sanford
Pennington Isaac Samuels Pennybacker W. Allen Pepper Juan Manuel Perez-Gimenez
Catherine D. Perry Joseph Samuel Perry Matthew James Perry Hernan Gregorio
Pesquera John Andrew Peters Richard Peters Raymond James Pettine Mariana R.
Pfaelzer John Finis Philips Harry Phillips James Dickson Phillips Layn R.
Phillips Orie Leon Phillips Thomas W. Phillips Virginia A. Phillips Frank
Albert Picard Charles Willis Pickering John Pickering John Coleman Pickett
Jaime Pieras Lawrence Warren Pierce Lawrence L. Piersol David Andrew Pine Joel
A. Pisano John Pitman Mahlon Pitney Thomas Virgil Pittman S[heldon] Jay Plager
Casper Platt James Perry Platt Thomas Collier Platt Raymond Eugene Plummer
Paul Edward Plunkett Sam Clyde Pointer Nicholas H. Politan Henry Anthony Politz
Milton Pollack Louis Heilprin Pollak Robert Nelson Pollard John Calvin Pollock
Frank Joseph Polozola Dan A. Polster Michael Adrian Ponsor Cecil F. Poole
Rosemary S. Pooler Omer Poos Nathaniel Pope Walter Lyndon Pope William Hayes
Pope John Carbone Porfilio Edmund Port G. Thomas Porteous David Stewart Porter
Donald James Porter Robert William Porter Gaston Louis Noel Porterie Richard
Allen Posner Henry Potter John William Potter Robert Daniel Potter Charles
Lawrence Powell Lewis Franklin Powell Edward Charles Prado George Cheney Pratt
John Helm Pratt Philip Pratt Robert W. Pratt Gene E.K. Pratter Charles Nelson
Pray Dean D. Pregerson Harry Pregerson Samuel Prentiss Loretta A. Preska
Gregory A. Presnell Elijah Barrett Prettyman Lunsford Richardson Preyer Edward
Dean Price Henry Samuel Priest Jeter Connelly Pritchard Philip Martin Pro James
McPherson Proctor R. David Proctor Robert Bruce Propst Sharon Prost William
Holcombe Pryor Milton Dwight Purdy Thomas Richard Purnell Richard Johnson
Putnam William LeBaron Putnam Justin Lowe Quackenbush Joseph Very Quarles
William D. Quarles Gordon Jay Quist David Rabinovitz Randall Ray Rader Edward
Rafeedie Reena Raggi Heartsill Ragon John David Rainey Jed Saul Rakoff Sylvia
H. Rambo Raul Anthony Ramirez Norman Park Ramsey Rudolph Thomas Randa Archibald
Randall Arthur Raymond Randolph Peter Randolph Carl L. Rasch Johnnie B.
Rawlinson George Washington Ray Leo Frederick Rayfiel Fred Morton Raymond
William J. Rea Linda R. Reade Michael Joseph Reagan Manuel Lawrence Real
Stephen M. Reasoner Thomas Morrow Reavley John B. Rector James Anthony Redden
Edward Cornelius Reed Henry Thomas Reed James Hay Reed John Alton Reed Lowell
A. Reed Scott Elgin Reed Stanley Forman Reed Albert L. Reeves Danny C. Reeves
John Keating Regan George Scott Register William Hubbs Rehnquist Martin Karl
Reidinger Philip Godfrey Reinhard Stephen Roy Reinhardt John Rellstab Marjorie
O. Rendell Charles Byron Renfrew Robert George Renner George Hughes Revercomb
John W. Reynolds John Skylstead Rhoades Ben Herbert Rice Eugene Rice Walter
Herbert Rice Giles Sutherland Rich John Kelvey Richards Charles Robert Richey
Mary Anne Richey Augustus J. Ricks Walter Garrett Riddick Albert Alphonso Ridge
Simon Hirsch Rifkind Paul E. Riley William F. Riley William J. Riley John Alden
Riner Daniel Ringo Harlan Watson Rippey Kenneth Francis Ripple Halsted Lockwood
Ritter Willis William Ritter Alexander Res Richard Taylor Res Ross Rizley
James L. Robart Charles Henry Robb Roger Robb Floyd H. Roberts Jack Roberts
John Glover Roberts Owen Josephus Roberts Richard W. Roberts Ross Thompson
Roberts Victoria A. Roberts James Robertson Thomas Bolling Robertson Aubrey
Eugene Robinson Julie A. Robinson Mary Lou Robinson Richard Earl Robinson
Spottswood William Robinson Stephen C. Robinson Sue Lewis Robinson Eduardo C.
Robreno Edwin Albert Robson Michael Joseph Roche Margaret Catharine Rodgers
Richard Seymour Rodney Joseph H. Rodriguez Xavier Rodriguez Norman Charles
Roettger Henry Wade Rogers John M. Rogers John Henry Rogers Judith Ann Wilson
Rogers Richard Dean Rogers Waldo Henry Rogers John McCarthy Roll Paul Hitch
Roney John Carter Rose Thomas M. Rose Gerald Ellis Rosen James Rosen James
Michael Rosenbaum Louis Rosenberg Paul Gerhardt Rosenblatt Max Rosenn Lee Hyman
Rosenthal George Rosling Allyne R. Ross Donald Roe Ross Erskine Mayo Ross John
Rolly Ross John William Ross William Rossell Stanley Julian Roszkowski Jane
Richards Roth Stephen John Roth Barbara Jacobs Rothstein Ilana Kara Diamond
Rovner Elsijane Trimble Roy C. Ashley Royal Alvin Benjamin Rubin Carl Bernard
Rubin Frank H. Rudkin Cynthia M. Rufe William Nelson Runyon Dan Monroe Russell
David Lynn Russell Donald Stuart Russell Gordon James Russell Robert Lee
Russell Thomas B. Russell John Rutledge Wiley Blount Rutledge Harold Lyman Ryan
James Leo Ryan Sylvester J. Ryan Pamela Ann Rymer Kenneth L. Ryskamp Chauncey
Brewer Sabin George Myron Sabin Dana Makoto Sabraw Howard Frederic Sachs Robert
David Sack Dale Emerson Saffels George Read Sage David Sam Albert Morris Sames
Janis Lynn Sammartino Arthur Loomis Sanborn John Benjamin Sanborn Walter Henry
Sanborn Juan Ramon Sanchez Leonard Burke Sand Harold Barefoot Sanders Brian
Edward Sandoval W[illie] Louis Sands Edward Terry Sanford Edmund A. Sargus
Patti B. Saris H. Lee Sarokin John Elbert Sater Eugene Davis Saunders Royce H.
Savage Timothy J. Savage William Henry Sawtelle Lorenzo Sawyer F. Dennis
Saylor Ralph Francis Scalera Antonin Scalia Francis Muir Scarlett Alvin Anthony
Schall Albert Gerard Schatz Shira A. Scheindlin Richard A. Schell George P.
Schiavelli Berle M. Schiller Patrick Joseph Schiltz Harvey Erwin Schlesinger
Robert Howard Schnacke Elmer Jacob Schnackenberg Michael H. Schneider William
Schofield Frederic Palen Schoonmaker Karen E. Schreier Mary Murphy Schroeder
Thomas D. Schroeder Arthur J. Schwab Allen G. Schwartz Charles Schwartz Edward
Joseph Schwartz Milton Lewis Schwartz Murray Merle Schwartz William Schwarzer
Henry Albert Schweinhaut Lewis Baxter Schwellenbach Anthony Joseph Scirica
Charles Ray Scott George Cromwell Scott Jeanne E. Scott Nauman Steele Scott
Thomas Emerson Scott Mary Stenson Scren Frederick James Scullin J[ohn] Michael
Seabright Woodrow Bradley Seals William Henry Seaman Morey Leonard Sear Frank
Howell Seay John W. Sedwick Cathy Seibel Collins Jacques Seitz Patricia A.
Seitz James V. Selna Bruce Marshall Selya David Bryan Sentelle Lyonel Thomas
Senter Clarence W. Sessions William K. Sessions William Steele Sessions Oler
Seth Benjamin Hale Settle Thomas Settle Henry Franklin Severens David Sewall
Joanna Seybert Augustus Sherrill Seymour Margaret B. Seymour Stephanie Kulp
Seymour John C. Shabaz Milton Irving Shadur Thomas Michael Shanahan Clyde
Frederick Shannon Jack D. Shanstrom Norma Levy Shapiro Allen Sharp George
Kendall Sharp Morell Edward Sharp Gary L. Sharpe Charles Alexander Shaw Elwyn
Riley Shaw John Malach Shaw Robert Shaw Edward F. Shea Dennis W. Shedd Joseph
Warren Sheehy Roy Mahlon Shelbourne David Davie Shelby Terry Lee Shell Seth
Shepard Bobby E. Shepherd George Foster Shepley William Bostwick Sheppard John
Samuel Sherburne Michael Henry Sheridan Peter G. Sheridan Charles Taylor Sherman
William Bayard Shields Nathaniel Shipman William Davis Shipman George Shiras
Oler Perry Shiras Marvin Herman Shoob John William Showalter William B. Shubb
Samuel Hale Sibley Frederick Lincoln Siddons Charles Proctor Sifton Laurence
Hirsch Silberman Eugene Edward Siler Roslyn O. Silver Barry G. Silverman
Jerome B. Simandle Paul Allen Simmons Philip P. Simon Charles Casper Simons
Charles Earl Simons Charles Henry Simonton Charles Ralph Simpson John Milton
Bryan Simpson George Z. Singal James Keith Singleton John Virgil Singleton
Rodney W. Sippel Charles J. Siragusa John Joseph Sirica John Sitgreaves Byron
George Skelton Roger Skinner Walter Jay Skinner Otto Richard Skopil William M.
Skretny Gregory Moneta Sleet Thomas Whitten Slick Richard Elihu Sloan William
Boyd Sloan Joel Harvey Slomsky Dolores Korman Sloviter Frederic N. Smalkin
David Allen Smalley Caleb Blood Smith Charles Lynwood Smith D[avid] Brooks
Smith Edward Samuel Smith Fern M. Smith George Curtis Smith Henry Augustus
Middleton Smith Jeremiah Smith Jerry Edwin Smith John Joseph Smith John Lewis
Smith Lavenski R. Smith Milan Dale Smith N[orman] Randy Smith Orma Rinehart
Smith Ortrie D. Smith Randle Jasper Smith Rebecca Beach Smith Russell Evans
Smith Sidney Oslin Smith Talbot Smith Walter Scott Smith Walter Inglewood
Smith William E. Smith William Francis Smith William Robert Smith John Richard
Smoak Constantine Joseph Smyth Joseph Tyree Sneed Emory Marlin Sneeden G.
Murray Snow Christina A. Snyder Daniel John. Snyder Simon E. Sobeloff Abraham
David Sofaer Jorge Antonio Solis Gus Jerome Solomon Morris Ames Soper Herbert
Peter Sorg Sonia Sotomayor David Hackett Souter Leslie Southwick Sam Sparks
William Morris Sparks Daniel B. Sparr Arthur Donald Spatt Howard C. Speakman
Adrian Anthony Spears Emory Speer Eugene P. Spellman James Randolph Spencer S.
Arthur Spiegel Stanley Sporkin Peleg Sprague Robert Arthur Sprecher Theresa
Lazar Springmann John Emilio Sprizzo James Marshall Sprouse Dominic J. Squatrito
Amy J. St. Eve Adolphus Frederic St. Sure Joseph Peter Stadtmueller Wendell
Phillips Stafford William Henry Stafford Thomas E. Stagg David Henry Stahl
Norman H. Stahl Robert Jackson Staker Austin Leander Staley Frederick Pfarr
Stamp William Lloyd Standish Arthur Jehu Stanley Edwin Monroe Stanley Louis
Lee Stanton Walter King Stapleton Kenneth Winston Starr Raymond Wesley Starr
Keith Starrett Richard Gaylore Stearns William Elwood Steckler George Caram
Steeh Edwin DeHaven Steel John E. Steele William H. Steele William Merritt
Steger Sidney H. Stein Lawrence F. Stengel Albert Lee Stephens Albert Lee
Stephens Harold Montelle Stephens William Stephens Roy Laverne Stephenson Ross
N. Sterling Herbert Jay Stern John Paul Stevens Joseph Edward Stevens Brian
Theadore Stewart Carl E. Stewart Charles E. Stewart Potter Stewart William
Alvah Stewart William Donald Stiehl Donald J. Stohr John Stokes Harlan Fiske
Stone Kimbrough Stone Patrick Thomas Stone Joseph Story Richard W. Story
William Story Alicemarie Huber Stotler Roger Gordon Strand Chester J. Straub
Lyle Elmer Strom William Strong Louie Willard Strum William Corwin Stuart Glenn
T. Suddaby Sidney Sugarman Richard Fred Suhrheinrich Lonny R. Suko Emmet G.
Sullan George F. Sullan John Sullan Philip Leo Sullan Richard Joseph Sullan R
[ichard] Barclay Surrick George Sutherland Dorwin Wallace Suttle Jeffrey S.
Sutton Hardress Nathaniel Swaim Laura Taylor Swain Henry Harrison Swan Thomas
Walter Swan Charles Swayne Noah Haynes Swayne George Clinton Sweeney Robert
Workman Sweet William Thomas Sweigert Mac Swinford Philip Bergen Swing Carroll
O. Switzer Luther Merritt Swygert Diane S. Sykes John Foster Symes Deanell
Reece Tacha William Howard Taft Hilda G. Tagle Charles Tait Robert Mitsuhiro
Takasugi Matthias Burnett Tallmadge Richard C. Tallman Edward Allen Tamm Roger
Brooke Taney Thomas Tang Jack Edward Tanner Benjamin Tappan Arthur J. Tarnow
Atsushi Wallace Tashima Albert Tate David S. Tatel Joseph Louis Tauro Cyrus
Nils Tavares Robert Walker Tayler Anna Katherine Johnston Diggs Taylor Fredrick
Monroe Taylor Gary L. Taylor George Keith Taylor George Caldwell Taylor Robert
Love Taylor William McLaughlin Taylor Robert Emmet Tehan James A. Teilborg
Hubert Irving Teitelbaum Michael Anthony Telesca Henry George Templar Asa
Wentworth Tenney Charles Henry Tenney Dickran M. Tevrizian Thomas Day Thacher
Amul Roger Thapar Amos Madden Thayer Frank Gordon Theis Alfred Delavan Thomas
Clarence Thomas Daniel Holcombe Thomas Edward Beers Thomas Edwin Stark Thomas
Seth Thomas Sidney Runyan Thomas William Kernahan Thomas Robert Ewing Thomason
Albert Clifton Thompson Alvin W. Thompson Anne Elise Thompson Bruce Rutherford
Thompson David R. Thompson Gordon Thompson Joseph Whitaker Thompson Myron
Herbert Thompson Ralph Gordon Thompson Roby Calvin Thompson Smith Thompson
Roszel Cathcart Thomsen W. H. Seward Thomson William Homer Thornberry Lacy
Herman Thornburg Thomas Patrick Thornton Thomas W. Thrash Buckner Thruston
George Ernest Tidwell William Tilghman Norwood Carlton Tilley William Josiah
Tilson William Homer Timbers Robert J. Timlin George Bell Timmerman John
Daniel Tinder Roger W. Titus Gerald Bard Tjoflat James Dale Todd Thomas Todd
Jose Victor Toledo Ernest Allen Tolin Philip Willis Tone Ernest C. Torres Juan
R. Torruella Harry Theophilus Toulmin Sandra L. Townes William Kneeland Townsend
David G. Trager Ozell Miller Trask Aleta Arthur Trauger Anthony John Travia
William Byrd Traxler Walter Emanuel Treanor Samuel Treat Samuel Hubbel Treat
Anthony John Trenga Jacob Trieber Connally Findlay Trigg James Travis Trimble
Robert Trimble Thomas Clark Trimble Oscar A. Trippet Stephen S. Trott Robert
Troup E[manuel] Mac Troutman Petrese B. Tucker St. George Tucker John R.
Tunheim James Clinton Turk Ezekiel B. Turner Jerome Turner Howard Boyd
Turrentine Arthur J. Tuttle Elbert Parr Tuttle Harold R. Tyler John Tyler
Timothy M. Tymkovich Ralph E. Tyson Stefan R. Underhill Emory Marvin Underwood
John Curtiss Underwood Mell Gilbert Underwood Ursula Mancusi Ungaro Green Wix
Unthank Ricardo M. Urbina Warren Keith Urbom Franklin Stuart Van Antwerpen
Joseph S. Van Bokkelen Willis Van Devanter Francis Lund Van Dusen William Cary
Van Fleet Ellsworth Alfred Van Graafeiland William Peter Van Ness Martin Donald
Van Oosterhout Josiah Alexander Van Orsdel Robert Van Pelt Bruce Marion Van
Sickle Frederick L. Van Sickle Gregory Frederick Van Tatenhove Arba Seymour Van
Valkenburgh Donald West VanArtsdalen Thomas I. Vanaskie G[eorge] Thomas
VanBebber Robert Smith Vance Sarah S. Vance Thomas A. Varlan Robert Edward
Varner Edgar Sullins Vaught Martha Alicia Vazquez Van Vechten Veeder Filemon
Bartolome Vela Earl Ernest Veron Harold Duane Vietor Robert L. Vining Clyde
Roger Vinson Frederick Moore Vinson Eric Nicholas Vitaliano Charles Joseph Vogel
Richard W. Vollmer James Arnold von der Heydt Donald S. Voorhees Richard
Lesley Voorhees Kathryn Hoefer Vratil John P. Vukasin Edmund Waddill Clark
Waddoups Joseph Cornelius Waddy Martin Joseph Wade Morrison Remick Waite Neil
Vincent Wake Patricia McGowan Wald Jay Carl Waldman Leonard Eugene Wales
Nicholas Joseph Walinski John Mercer Walker Jonathan Hoge Walker Richard Wilde
Walker Thomas Glynn Walker Vaughn R. Walker John Clifford Wallace William James
Wallace William Robert Wallace Curtis Longino Waller William H. Walls James
Augustine Walsh Lawrence Edward Walsh Leonard Patrick Walsh Donald Ellsworth
Walter John F. Walter Reggie B. Walton Harris Kenneth Wangelin Oler Winston
Wanger George P. Wanty Henry Galbraith Ward Hiram Hamilton Ward Horace
Taliaferro Ward Robert Joseph Ward T. John Ward Kim McLane Wardlaw Ashur Ware
James Ware Julius Waties Waring Wilson Warlick Earl Warren Robert Willis Warren
David Dortch Warriner John Wesley Warrington Bushrod Washington George Thomas
Washington Sterry Robinson Waterman H[ugh] Franklin Waters Laughlin Edward
Waters Harry Evans Watkins Henry Hitt Watkins Robert Dorsey Watkins William
Keith Watkins John Charles Watrous Albert Leisenring Watson Michael H. Watson
Luther B. Way James Moore Wayne Edwin Yates Webb Nathan Webb Rodney Scott Webb
E. Richard Webber Gerald Joseph Weber Herman Jacob Weber Randolph Henry Weber
John Stanley Webster William Hedgcock Webster Paul Charles Weick Stanley
Alexander Weigel Jacob Weinberger Charles R. Weiner Edward Weinfeld Carl Andrew
Weinman Zita Leeson Weinshienk Jack Bertrand Weinstein Joseph Francis Weis
Martin Welker Olin Wellborn Harry Walker Wellford Lesley Brooks Wells Robert
William Wells George Austin Welsh Martin Ignatius Welsh Henry Frederick Werker
Ewing Werlein Richard C. Wesley DuVal West Elmer Gordon West Lee Roy West
Roger Blake West Samuel H. West David C. Westenhaver Harry Clay Westover
Leonard D. Wexler Robert H. Whaley Fred Louis Wham Alfred Adams Wheat Hoyt
Henry Wheeler Francis C. Whelan Thomas J. Whelan Dean Whipple Lawrence Aloysius
Whipple Albert Smith White Byron Raymond White Edward Douglass White George
Washington White Helene N. White Jeffrey Steven White Ronald A. White George
William Whitehurst Frank DeArmon Whitney Edward Whitson Charles Evans Whittaker
James D. Whittemore Ronald M. Whyte Veronica DiCarlo Wicker Hiram Emory Widener
Jacques Loeb Wiener Susan Davis Wigenton Charles Edward Wiggins Curtis Dwight
Wilbur Henry Rupert Wilhoit Claudia Ann Wilken James Herbert Wilkerson Malcolm
Richard Wilkey Robert Nugen Wilkin Philip Charles Wilkins Ross Wilkins William
Wilkins William Walter Wilkins James Harvie Wilkinson Hubert Louis Will
Charles Andrew Willard Alexander Williams Ann Claire Williams Archibald
Williams Ashton Hilliard Williams David Welford Williams Glen Morgan Williams
Jerre Stockton Williams John A. Williams Karen J. Williams Paul X. Williams
Richard Leroy Williams Robert Lee Williams Spencer Mortimer Williams Stephen
Fain Williams Hiram V. Willson Joseph Putnam Willson Charles R. Wilson Frank
Wiley Wilson James Wilson James Clifton Wilson Samuel Grayson Wilson Scott
Wilson Stephen Victor Wilson William Roy Wilson Joel C. C. Winch James
Winchester David Keith Winder Francis Joseph Wing Henry Travillion Wingate B.
Lynn Winmill Fred M. Winner Francis Asbury Winslow Harrison Lee Winter Ralph K.
Winter John Minor Wisdom Henry Seiler Wise Thomas Anderton Wiseman Solomon
Lewis Withey Charles B. Witmer Oler Wolcott Mark Lawrence Wolf Freda L. Wolfson
Alfred M. Wolin Charles Robert Wolle Albert Charles Wollenberg Roger Leland
Wollman Charles Edwin Wolverton Dick Yin Wong Diane Pamela Wood Harlington
Wood Harold Kenneth Wood John Howland Wood Kimba Maureen Wood Lisa Godbey Wood
Levi Woodbury Peter Woodbury John A. Woodcock Douglas Preston Woodlock Joseph
William Woodrough Lewis Bartholomew Woodruff Charles Albert Woods George E.
Woods Henry Woods William Allen Woods William Burnham Woods Charles Edgar
Woodward Halbert Owen Woodward Victor Baynard Woolley John Monroe Woolsey John
Simson Woolson Terry L. Wooten Reynier Jacob Wortendyke Caleb Merrill Wright
Daniel Thew Wright Eugene Allen Wright Francis Marion Wright James Skelly Wright
Otis D. II Wright Scott Olin Wright Susan Webber Wright George H. Wu Inzer
Bass Wyatt Charles Cecil Wyche Andrew Wylie Alfred Lee Wyman Charles Edward
Wyzanski Leon Rene Yankwich Earl Leroy Yeakel William Hendricks Yohn Frank A.
Youmans Don John Young George Cressler Young Gordon Elmo Young James Scott
Young Joseph H. Young Richard L. Young William G. Young Luther Wallace
Youngdahl James Block Zagel Jay C. Zainey Robert Carmine Zampano Frank R.
Zapata Lawrence Paul Zatkoff Joseph Carmine Zavatt Donald Emil Ziegler Thomas
Samuel Zilly Alfonso Joseph Zirpoli William J. Zloch Rya Weickert Zobel Jack
Zouhary

TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0 User Manual

2009-01-09T19:08:00.000-08:00

19. FOOL FOR A CLIENT

2009-01-09T15:45:00.001-08:00

Mark Whitney
Master Storyteller/Comedian
Production Office:
6640 Lusk Blvd. Suite A-205
San Diego, CA 92121
Toll Free 1.888.JOSHING
Homepage - Reviews
Email: mark@markwhitney.com

Are you on the entertainment committee for the next bar association convention, fundraiser or other special occasion anywhere in North America or the United Kingdom? Book a performance of "Fool For A Client" Mark's award-winning, 90-minute, one-man political-dramedy.

REVIEWS

THE WASHINGTON POST
"Two other polished solo performers, both appearing at the Goethe-Institut Mainstage on Seventh Street NW, deserve bright follow spots....Sharing the Goethe space is the terrific Mark Whitney, who is back with 'Fool for a Client' a new version of his one-man show from last summer. In 'Fool,' he turns an account of his legal and financial troubles with the government (resulting in a stint in federal prison) into a funny and moving -- and, yes, of course, one-sided -- testimonial to a special American brand of iconoclasm. Rawness is an essential part of his performance. The show is sharpest when Whitney's anger is infusing his observational humor -- much the same way that fury wells up in Daisey as he issues his own harsh verdict on the government in 'If You See Something, Say Something.' It goes to show that to do well, perhaps you have to be a little mad." ~"A FINELY TUNED FURY" Peter Marks, Chief Theatre Critic, Washington Post, 7.13.2008

D.C. THEATRE SCENE
"Who knew fraud was funny? For most people, it probably isn’t - especially not when it means facing 225 years in federal prison. But Mark Whitney saw his financial nightmare as an opportunity to fulfill a dream - to represent himself at trial. 'Fool for a Client' is Whitney’s one-man show about his life, beginning with his childhood in the ‘60s, when obesity was impossible because parents used fear and anxiety to help their kids burn calories, taking us through his trial and time served, and catching us up on his family since then. And it’s all hilarious. I’ll admit I was skeptical at first. Clad in a Vermont team’s football jersey, white jeans, and orange sneakers, the 40-something Whitney doesn’t look like a standup comedian. But his comedic timing is spot on, he responds well to the audience (and we, in turn, responded very well to him), and his delivery makes already funny jokes even funnier. No wonder he was able to make $50,000 his first year out of high school selling vacuum cleaners. Going door to door, he learned that you’re always some unknown number of 'No's away from a 'Yes.' Later came his other maxim: 'You never know what a judge is gonna do.' In Whitney’s case, the judge sentenced him to three years in federal prison after a bit of, er, bad luck, let’s say, with a small bank. He had been applying for a loan to build several Ben & Jerry’s franchises, and instead, 'they sent the ice-cream guy to the cooler.' Because prison is the best place to practice law (everyone has legal problems!), Whitney sets up shop in the prison’s law library and eventually learns even the most intricate details of constitutional law. Not only does he get himself out of jail; he gets the IRS to forgive his $1 million debt. Fittingly, freedom to Whitney once meant no rules and making a lot of money; now it means knowledge - or maybe it’s just about having 'non-guilty skin pigmentation.' If I were nearly as good a salesman as Whitney, you would have already bought tickets for his show. Here’s my final pitch: Go hear Whitney’s remarkable story yourself. It’s a vivid, never-boring combination of legal scholarship, humor, and moral insight." ~Janice Cane, Theatre Critic, D.C. Theatre Scene, 7.14.2008

MINNEAPOLIS CITY PAGES
"When Mark Whitney takes the stage and starts talking about his love of high-school civics and how he was the class smart-ass who married the valedictorian, for a moment you might experience a sensation akin to sitting down next to the wrong guy at a bar. Then you realize something about the guy: He's exuding the weird, almost unfamiliar fumes of a guy absolutely high on old-school American freedom. With a stand-up comic's wit, Whitney tells the story of his life: his rapacious tactics as a vacuum cleaner salesman, his forays into early Ben and Jerry's franchises, then his conviction for bank fraud and subsequent odyssey as a self-taught legal expert and federal prisoner. By the end, he pulls his themes into our present moment, complete with babies being scanned in airport X-ray machines in the name of safety. Raucous, hilarious, damn near revolutionary." ~Quinton Skinner, Theater Critic, Minneapolis City Pages, 8.6.2008

PIONEER PRESS
"'MUST SEE!' A good storyteller can suck up your attention like a high-end Electrolux with little in the way of props or scenery. But no one else has life experiences like Mark Whitney's. This San Diego-based standup comedian and online law librarian is a former convict who waged a landmark fight against the U.S. Department of Justice's sentencing guidelines that went all the way to the Supreme Court. But this is a far cry from legal wonkery. It's a hilarious and harrowing journey into the belly of the beast that is our criminal justice system, with a captivating raconteur as guide." ~Rob Hubbard. Theatre Critic, Pioneer Press/TwinCities.com, 8.3.2008

STAR TRIBUNE
"Critic's Pick!" ~Star Tribune/Vita.mn, 8.05.2008

VARIETY
"Potential breakout acts seen at the fest include....San Diego performer Mark Whitney's political dramedy 'Fool for a Client.'" ~Paul Harris, Theatre Critic, Variety, 8.15.2008

DENVER POST
Critic's Pick! ~John Moore, Denver Post Theater Critic, 8.22.2008

BOULDER DAILY CAMERA
"Whitney’s sharp commentary on our justice system, the society’s swing toward Orwellian governance and BS in general is based on his own wild story....Whitney has a keen eye for the truth of things, and he’s just a straight-up funny storyteller. His show provides a whole lot of laughs for your loot." ~Mark Collins, Theatre Critic, Daily Camera, 8.19.2008

LAVENDER MAGAZINE
"Prison was also central to the hilariously terrifying Fool For a Client written and performed by D.C. comedian Mark Whitney. It became a Festival Encore presentation as well. Drawing from the trauma and drama around his actual conviction for bank fraud, this riveting solo comedy piece hits hard in this time of government bailouts of big business and of private citizens being illegally surveilled and ruined. Whitney is also ballsy because, though a white heterosexual man, he dares to use the n-word and the term ‘cocksucker’. Not to shock or irritate, but to portray legitimately the reality of the gritty world he reflects and the insidious justice system he exposes. He’s rightly hard on Bush and the GOP but the Clinton administration and the Democrats don’t get off the hook either." ~John Townsend, Theater Critic, Lavender: Minnesota's GLBT Magazine, 8.23.2008

"FIVE STARS! - WHAT A STORY! WHAT A STORY TELLER! Entertaining from beginning to end. I learned a thing or two: NEVER invite a vacuum cleaner salesman into your bedroom. I used to do that all the time! If you ever need legal advice, call Mark! An hour of escapism, voyeurism, and adventure. Who could ask for more?" ~Pamela King, '08 Tour Patron Review, Theatermania.com, 7.13.2008

"Is Mark Whitney an ex-con? If not, he sure fooled me and the rest of the audience at a sold-out performance at the Goethe Institute Main Stage. With wit and pathos he told the fascinating story of his trial and punishment, and his ultimate triumph over The System. His troubles stemmed from misstatements he made on an application for a bank loan so he could set up a chain of Ben and Jerry’s stores in Vermont. He represented himself at trial and was convicted and sent to prison. And that’s when he learned law and used his knowledge – and his vacuum cleaner salesman tricks - to gain his freedom. Whitney keeps us laughing as his tale unfolds. His performance is polished, artless and insightful. It’s a great show, and I wasn’t alone in not wanting it to end. Be sure to reserve tickets in advance so you’re not turned away from a full house." ~Bob Morrison, 2008 D.C. Theatre Festival Staff Review

NEW YORK THEATRE CORPS
"A self-made millionaire whose American Dream went horribly wrong thanks to 'a saga of litigation,' Mark Whitney has good reason to be bitter. Instead, he's ironic. His fact-based monologue is rich with darkly funny, often cautionary, observational humor. There are so many sharp and succinct one-liners that I stopped trying to retain them all and just let them come and go. Most are derived from Whitney's bullseye-aim at some of the injustices and flat-out absurdities of our legal system. But, Whitney's eventual target is larger. It's a well-written piece, absorbing from start to finish, in which warm and conversational Whitney mines his real-life personal nightmare to warn against (among other things) blind faith in authority. That's a message that never gets old." ~Patrick Lee, New Theater Corps, An Insightful Look At What's Happening On The New York Stage, 2.28.2008

"Fool For A Client was indeed reminiscent of Lewis Black at his most pissed-off." ~Baron Dave Romm's Live Journal 7.31.2008

"Mark Whitney works the audience, not a few times channeling Rodney Dangerfield." ~Jill Yoblonski, Theatre Critic, The Rake, 7.31.2008

"Usually I’m happy to use this space to just sort of talk about my impressions, work through them, let people read and draw their own conclusions. Not so with this show. I want you to see this show. You, reading this? That’s right: go ahead, click on the link above, go to his show page, and schedule one of his performances. Yes, it’s funny. Yes, it’s smart. But beyond that, I think it captures something important: I think that it captures some important truths about humanity, and government, and all those kinds of things that I’m constantly struggling to find a way to communicate to people. When I complain about cheap, stupid, obvious political comedy? This is the antithesis of that. I could go on and on. But really. Schedule it now. Go." ~"Returning Champions", Phillip Low, 7.31.2008

The Toughest Ticket In Town! Our Favorite Non-Review!
"We tried for the 8:00 showing of FOOL FOR A CLIENT by Mark Whitney at Bryant-Lake Bowl. Sold out! As we come into the home stretch of this year’s festival, I’ve mapped out the final days pretty solidly; at this point, if I miss slots, I’m missing shows for good, and that makes kittens cry. This is an example. Last week I had all the time in the world to see Mark’s show…right now, it looks like I won’t see him at all." ~Kate Hoff, Theatre Critic, Daily Planet, 8.7.2008

"FIVE STARS! A superlative, superlative show - with some drop dead brilliant comic moments! Reflective, insightful, and damn good stand up! If you like comedy that doesn't rely on cheap jokes, or meanness, check out this quality entertainment. Mark has clearly done a lot of work to hone this piece, taking life experiences and making lemonade from lemons and the result is both intriguing, inspiring, and completely entertaining." ~Josh Medley, 8.19.2008, Patron Review

"FIVE STARS! The show was surprising, candid, hilarious, sad...full of the juice of life as its really lived. Also, Whitneys candor about his limitations and how he found the courage to become an advocate for himself is inspiring." ~Linda Stonerock, 8.21.2008, Patron Review

"FIVE STARS! Fabulous storyteller. Incredible story. How to take a lemon and turn it into the most delicious lemonade. Your odd view of this twisted world we live in is fabulously funny and your own brand of triumph over the insanity is inspiring. You prove that with the intention to survive and a pinch of creativity, there can be a silver lining to the most challenging things we must deal with. Thanks for a most enjoyable and engaging 80 minutes." ~Iris Burman, 8.21.2008, Patron Review

"FIVE STARS! You'd be a fool to miss this! The funniest ex-con to legal expert imaginable." ~Judith Martin, 8.3.2008, Patron Review

"FIVE STARS! Get there early! There are going to be a lot of disappointed theatre-goers this week. For the first show, half of the tickets had been sold ahead of time. And for good reason. His story is engaging, thought-provoking, and done with polished comedic timing. He had us lurching in our seats several times with gut-wrenching punchlines. No one is immune, the government, lawyers, his wife. She's stood by him for 25-plus years. You don't want to miss it. But, you will miss it unless you order online. I'd bet good money the rest of his shows will be sold out completely. And that's not by accident." ~Ari Ofsevit, 8.3.2008, Patron Review

"FIVE STARS! Hip lawyer story! Mark Whitney does a passionate, funny, and critical telling of his legal encounters, conviction, and imprisonment. He makes you laugh, get angry, and wonder how it all happened." ~Peter Erickson, 8.3.2008, Patron Review

"FIVE STARS! Stunning! I wish my son and daughter could have seen this. I wish I could have seen it with a roomful of college kids taking Philosophy 101 or American Government. But in a sense I did, because Mark took us all back there, back to the place where you say WTF is wrong with the system? And why didn't I notice before? Zero tolerance for zero tolerance indeed." ~Paula Nancarrow, 8.6.2008, Patron Review

"FIVE STARS! Can someone give this guy a ten?! This has got to be the best comedy and storytelling that I have seen at the festival. If everything in this story is true, for all the comedy it is damn scary, and it seems that at least the main theme is. This guy deserves a ten for just being able to stay focused and turn what he's gone through into a comedy story. He's brilliant, and the tale he tells speaks loudly of the times we are living.....Mark I hope you see this. I was sitting second row under your nose. It's guys like you that make the world a better place." ~Rose Roberta Pauling, 08.06.2008, Patron Review

"FIVE STARS! A comedy, a tragedy, a love story all in one!" ~Deb Ann, 8.3.2008, Patron Review

"FIVE STARS! Excellent! A treatise on our legal system. Extremely hilarious with too much truth." ~Richard Heise, 8.6.2008, Patron Review

"FIVE STARS! An amazing, incredible and riveting story told with wit and wisdom, passion and almost non-stop humor." ~James Morrison, 8.24.2008, Patron Review

"FIVE STARS! Great Show! Incredible solo piece from someone who knows his craft well, whether it's vacuum sales, fleecing the IRS, challenging the law, or delivering brilliant comedy." ~Celeste Black, 8.3.2008, Patron Review

"FIVE STARS! Lets hear it for love and redemption...good job Mark! You are a great American!" ~Michael, 08.25.2008

"FIVE STARS! Five times funnier than Lewis Black and Tim Allen combined! Mark should have his own HBO special within the year! Unfortunately, he'll never sign the contract." ~Chris Critic, Patron/Review, 2007 Boulder International Theatre Festival

"WHAT IS STORYTELLING AND WHO IS A STORYTELLER?"
As I finally begin my mad dash to see as many shows as humanly possible I find myself sitting in Bryant Lake Bowl actually laughing out loud at Mark Whitney’s show 'Fool For A Client.' As I’m walking out the door I happen to overhear two people complaining that the show isn't storytelling, it's stand-up comedy. This person’s companion huffed in agreement and went on to say that it wasn’t 'even theater.' So I ponder. You see, I am a performer. I use humor to tell my stories. Often, the more painful the story, the darker and broader the humor. Not every story needs to be of the traditional variety. Story can be personal narrative (visit the Moth web site and you’ll know what that genre is all about), it can be ancient folk tale, it can have a clearly defined plot, or moral. It can be told completely scripted or significantly improved. It can be read with fairly minimal physicality or completely “acted”. From my point of view, a storyteller is someone who speaks from the stage directly to the audience as opposed to someone or a group of someones who uses the stage as a private world and allows the audience to watch the action more or less as a voyeur. So what the hell is my point? 'Fool For A Client' is a most compelling personal narrative told to a participating audience in an extremely humerous manner. Sometimes using sex or other no-no’s to allow people to groan, hiss, laugh, etc. Mark Whitney is most definitely a storyteller, and if that title bothers you because you have a narrow definition of what a storyteller is, then life for you is full of too many shoulds and should nots, which makes me laugh because in many ways, that was pretty much the main point of Mark’s story. The show is outstanding and selling out, so if you still plan to go, reserve, reserve, reserve." ~Howard Lieberman, Jaded Optimist Coloring Book, 8.6.2008 -

NYTHEATRE.COM
"What do you do with a door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman? Imagine you're at home, relaxing, settling into a book, a movie, a slice of cheesecake, a telephone conversation. The doorbell rings. You put down whatever you're doing and open the door, only to be greeted by a nice, smiling young man trying to sell you a vacuum cleaner, an item you probably don't want and definitely cannot afford. Look at the smile: you know it's fake and you definitely know it wants something. That smile asks how you're doing. His teeth ask if he can take a moment of your time. Your book, movie, cheesecake, phone are waiting. You don't want to be rude. He is only doing his job. He's persistent. Asks all kinds of questions. Answers your questions follow-up questions of his own. He throws some dirt on the floor and gives you a demonstration of his product. It's good. In fact, it sucks up the dirt nicely. And it does make the carpet cleaner. Whether or not you need the thing, he's a charmer. He's kind, friendly, gracious and understanding. You break down and buy the vacuum cleaner. You've just been had. Or have you? 'Fool for a Client', Mark Whitney's entertaining one-man show, is not about vacuum cleaners. It's an autobiographical tale covering the roughly 30 years of Whitney's professional life, which begins after high school as a vacuum cleaner salesman and ends with him successfully defending himself three times against the United States Department of Justice; the first and only high school educated pro-se defendant in history to defeat the Department of Justice on three occasions in the United States Court of Appeals. During this time, he marries the woman of his dreams, starts and maintains a successful marketing agency, buys several pieces of property, opens a chain of Ben & Jerry's Homemade Ice Cream franchises in Vermont, fails to pay his taxes, spends some time in a maximum security federal penitentiary, and becomes, in my opinion, the foremost amateur attorney in the history of the United States. It's a fascinating tale, full of unexpected twists, some of them hilarious, some of them hard to believe. (Full disclosure: while I suspect some of them have been embellished for dramatic purposes, I am unbelievably gullible and believed every last one of them.) He tells this tale simply, with three costume changes, minimal props (watch out for the lawn darts), an amiable tone and the timing of a comic. The simplicity is deceptive, though, and for that we come back to our friendly neighborhood vacuum cleaner salesman. There are certain techniques a salesman employs to create a need for the product he's selling—fear, negotiation and compassion among them. As a salesman, Whitney is able to use these needs to achieve his ends: money, a house, a means to support the woman he loves and the family they've created. But as a citizen he is able to use these techniques to take on the system....His script is intelligent, his behavior fiendishly clever. His story perfectly illustrates that one person, using his ingenuity and intelligence, can go up against a monolith and emerge victorious. In a society which asks very little of its citizenry or leaves the majority of its people feeling powerless, this is no small achievement." ~Robert Weinstein, NYTheatre.com, 2.27.2008

BOULDER DAILY CAMERA
“Mark Whitney went from selling vacuum cleaners to opening Ben & Jerry’s franchises to 700 days in the federal penitentiary for fraud. Now he’s turning his travails into comedy. With a keen eye for shadiness – and an involuntary reflex to cut right through it in humorous, politically incorrect fashion – Whitney takes aim at several deserving targets. Among them are Government agencies that have long since departed ways with common sense, a justice system sometimes at odds with the truth, and child-coddling baby boomers, including himself. (In a funny bit that makes a point about ‘back in the day,’ Whitney pulls out a pair of Jarts, in retrospect, the wildly dangerous lawn dart toy from the 1970s). At its best, ‘Fool For A Client’ is subversive. It may even make some squirm from all the honesty.” ~Mark Collins, Theatre Critic, Boulder Daily Camera, 8.24.2007

“A sketchy bank loan, an ice cream franchise and (gulp!) a near-million-dollar debt to IRS….A compelling story even without the reliable jokes….Whitney lands punch lines with confidence.” ~Nelson Pressley, Theatre Critic, Washington Post, 7.28.2007

"Mark Whitney gave an invigorating one-man performance about a regular guy who fails to pay his income tax for a measly 1 million dollars. It was a fascinating piece. The audience is faced with a guy who could be the all American next door hero who commits asocial acts. There was lots of warm comedy that got fine audience responses." ~Robert Anthony, AllArtsReview4u.com-"The Best of The Best", 7.29.2007

“Holy shit, was I ever in the audience for this show. He starts out with a few enjoyable rifts on government-speak, including “tolerance” and “zero-tolerance,” and I find myself thinking that I enjoyed it, and agreed with the basic point, but wished there was more of a spirit of anger informing it. Wow, did I speak too soon! Bleak, bitter, and funny as hell, this show works precisely because it recognizes that there’s nothing funny about the ideas it’s ridiculing. It tells the story of a man trapped between banks, law firms, the IRS, the Supreme Court, and the weight of the US government — and his frenzied attempts to beat the legal system at its own game, to win back his liberty and his family....I want people to see this show, not just because I’m in passionate agreement with its message, but because it’s good satire, dark, mean, smart, and hilarious. Mark wrestles with ideas that almost nobody else is onstage right now, so please, please, please make an effort to see this show.” ~Phillip Low, Theatre Critic, Iowa & Minnesota Theatre Festivals, 7.23.2007

"Master litigator." ~United States Attorney, April 1993

"A saga of litigation." ~Senior United States District Judge Shane Devine, April, 1993

"FIVE STARS! On Saturday evening at 9:30, I had one ticket left. I couldn’t decide whether to catch another show or just go home. I was in the mood for something light and funny. I got 'funny,' but it was hardly light. Mark Whitney is an irreverent, Libertarian comedian who will offend both liberals and conservatives or anyone who still believes that our cherished rights are not being compromised daily by oligarchs who manipulate the rules to suit their agendas. He has one show left. If you like Lewis Black’s outrageous comedy, you’ll like Mark Whitney as he takes you on his personal journey from successful entrepreneur to convicted felon to successful entrepreneur and now comedian." ~Richard, Patron/Review, 2007 Iowa Theatre Festival

“FIVE STARS! Edge of my seat, wide awake, never knew what was coming next, brilliant script and energetic performance. Great.+" ~Ina Robbins, Patron/Review, 2007 Tour

“FIVE STARS! By far, the BEST theatre performance I've seen in years! A funny, scary, alarming and touching one man show about his true life-altering experience with the U.S. Justice System. You must see this show if you see any!" ~Mary Belochi, Patron/Review, 2007 Tour

"FIVE STARS! Excellent! He told a fascinating story with some spot-on social commentary as well. There were several hilarious moments that had our group near tears. We saw the last show here in Minneapolis. We will watch for this guy next year." ~Kristi Lawless, Patron/Review, 2007 Tour

“FIVE STARS! Fantastic! A super talent. We were kept laughing until the tears flowed. You don't know what you missed!" ~by James Holmen, Patron Review, 2007 Tour

"FIVE STARS! I laughed out loud throughout and left feeling good. The story is a classic American struggle of individualism and risk versus bureaucracy and control. I loved the free-wheeling spirit." ~Alan Davis, Patron/Review, 2007 Tour

"FIVE STARS! Not what I expected and that is what made it so interesting in addition to being funny. The piece provided great insight with a lovable quirkiness. The performer was brilliant and has a great niche. I am an attorney and loved his spearing of my profession. Don't miss it!" ~Scott R., Patron/Review, 2007 Tour

"FIVE STARS! Stand Up Truth! Mark does a wonderful job of telling his own strange history and relating it to our own lives in this country. I found him funny and sincere. While skewering our twisted economic, judicial and criminal systems, Mark helps us empathize with his experience and sympathize with those who do not have the 'skills' he has who are caught in the system. Loved it!" ~Mark Long, Patron/Review, 2007 Tour

"FIVE STARS! Captivating Storyteller! This was a great 'rags to riches to prison to riches' story." ~Michael Heise, Patron/Review, 2007 Tour

“FIVE STARS! Funny funny funny man!" ~Lee McLaughlin, Patron/Review, 2007 Tour

"FIVE STARS! Mark Twain meets Lewis Black! Run, don't walk, to this show!" ~Chris Davis, Patron/Review, 2007 Tour

“FIVE STARS! Amazing story-inspiring. I assume his story is true-if so he is one survivor." ~Allegra, Patron/Review, 2007 Tour

“FIVE STARS! Leaves you laughing and very sad at the same time since his story is true and a sad commentary on our country's political and legal system. A must see! Excellent!" ~Barbara K., Patron/Review, 2007 Tour

"FIVE STARS! It was devastating! The story had to be told. It would have been too difficult if it had not been done with humor. It was definitely also a suspense drama. I was clutching my bag nearly the whole time." ~Michelle Hastings, Patron/Review, 2007 Tour

"FIVE STARS for the spangled, at times tangled banner that breezes behind the heroic tales that is Mark Whitney! Whitney may not realize what a great comic he is. He is partially blinded by his storyteller gift. His jokes, the condensed material, sit like hovering 'T' balls and every time he's up to bat we're screaming in the bleechers, 'HOME RUN!' I have ZERO TOLERANCE for ZERO TOLERANCE and I'm not going to take it anymore!!!" ~Snap Shot Sneak Peek, Patron/Review, 2007 Tour

"FIVE STARS! This was a total knockout and hysterically funny. Mark is truly irrepressable in every sense of the word. One of the best of a great festival!" ~Cary M., Patron/Review, 2007 Tour

14. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

2009-01-09T14:22:00.001-08:00

Coming soon!

11. DUAL COLUMN PRINTING

2009-01-09T14:21:00.000-08:00

TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0 includes automatic dual column printing at no extra charge. In fact, you can view, cut, copy, paste, download, save to your heart's and never incur an outside the plan surcharge! Opinions are saved and printed in two columns by default. However, there is an option for one column if you prefer. You also the option of saving/printing with search terms highlighted and bolded, or not. Print formats include *.doc, *.pdf and *.rtf. Opinions included official and parellal citations and internal pagination throughout. Click here to view an opinion automatically saved from the database in PDF.

12. CITATION GUIDE

2009-01-09T14:18:00.001-08:00

Click here for a detailed citation guide. If you don't know the proper format of a citation for any publication we probably have it here. TheLaw.net's Citation Guide is exhaustive!

13. LINKBAR MENU SYSTEM

2009-01-09T14:17:00.001-08:00

TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0 deeplinks to more than 80,000 web-based documents and database maintained primarily by Federal, state and local governmental instrumtalties. Use our menus to find statutes, rules, regulations, judicial and administrative forms, executive agency and legislative materials, news and reference desk resources and much more. Click here for more detailed information.

10. VALIDATE YOUR RESEARCH

2009-01-09T14:16:00.001-08:00

'Validation' is the process of determining whether your case is good law. An opinion is citable as long as it has not been overruled for your point of law. Validation begins with a book and page citation. For the purposes of this tutorial we're going to validate Lyndonville Savings Bank v. Lussier, 211 F.3d 697 (2nd Cir. 1999). Thereafter, we're going to work with a U.S. Supreme Court case and solve for the most significant information management issue in all of legal research.

'Validation' is not the process of finding every document in the universe that has ever cited your case. Here at TheLaw.net Corporation, we call that 'Discretionary Insight' which stands in stark contrast to 'Validation' a.k.a. 'Mandatory Insight.'

Nor is 'Validation' the process of checking for flags and going to lunch. We call that 'Malpractice.' As did every law professor you ever had.

MISSION CRITICAL DISCUSSION

Resist the urge to jump ahead. We know you're a smart lawyer. But, we've thought this subject matter through in ways that you have not. Trust us. This post will:

>Save you hours and hours at the computer, as it has for our legions of subscribers.
>Save you tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal research costs over the course of your career: costs which, for West and Lexis subscribers, are increasingly difficult to recover.
>This post guarantees you will be the most informed lawyer in the room when it comes to the points of law you care about most.

At oral argument you'll be able to rattle off like so: "Your Honor, my opponent cites Smith v. Jones, which has been cited 12 times generally, but only once — in footnote seven — for his point of law. By contrast, your Honor, we rely on Jones v. Smith, which has been cited 29 times generally — 27 times for our point of law — making it the most cited, most relevant opinion in this jurisdiction for our point of law."

Thereafter, you get to watch as opposing counsel and the court rubberneck, implicitly acknowledging your Godlike knowledge as to the point of law at bar.

THE THREE PRONGS OF VALIDATION

Validation implicates three metrics: jurisdiction, point of law, and recency. Nirvana is when you know how to find any opinion citing your opinion, from the court(s) you specify, for the point of law — or fine point of law — you specify in one mouseclick. By the end of this post, you will know how to do this. How cool is that?

More than half of all American judicial opinions have never been cited. Another huge slice has been cited fewer than five times. Appellate opinions typically resolve three to five questions of law. Red and yellow flags provide you with the optical illusion of actual knowledge, when all they really do is provide you with anecdotal information that on a given day, a given, unknown human being in a cube far away, determined that a given opinion had been distinguished, overruled or rendered moot, to some extent, for some given point of law. This is why, should you care to compare, you will learn — as we have — that the Lexis Flagplanters frequently disagree with West Flagplanters and vice versa.

All of which underscores the threshold point of this post: that you and only you have the ability to determine the precedential value that should be assigned to a given opinion, because you and only you understand the totality of circumstances surrounding your case or controversy.

MASS CUSTOMIZED VALIDATION v. INDIVIDUALIZED VALIDATION

West has KeyCite. Lexis has Shepards. We have CiteTrak. To the extent that these tools link you to cases citing your case, they represent a mass customized approach to Validation. They are generic in the sense that they do not tell you if your case has been reversed or distinguished for your point of law, to say nothing of any fine points.

The familiar red and yellow flags invite you to check flagged opinions for the bad news. But many researchers see a red flag and start over, never checking to see if the flag has been planted for their point of law. It is a statistical fact that more often than not a red flag has been planted for a point of law that is irrelevant to your search, because appellate opinions typically resolve three to five questions of law.

It is also a fact that the entire flag system places one at risk of missing bad news whenever a flag should have been planted but was not, due to human error and subjective judgment.

AVOID INFORMATION OVERLOAD

What about information overload? Take KeyCite. These days it doesn't seem to matter what citation you KeyCite, they seem to always tell you it's been cited hundreds and hundreds of times. It's like the programmers are running the asylum.

You troll through your results only to learn that your case has been cited 500 times in briefs and memos written by other lawyers. West grabs these e-filed documents and churns them in their database. All you want to know is whether your case is good law and they keep hammering you. "Want fries with that? Wouldn't you like to purchase this brief written by Attorney Jones from North Fork, Idaho? Are you sure? Nag, nag, nag..."

Then you have the dozens of secondary resources and all the unpublished opinions that cannot be cited as law. Finally, you get down to the eight opinions that cite your case. Five of them are in your primary jurisdiction, i.e. the court you care about. Three cite your case for your point of law.

But, it took you a long time and potentially a lot of money to get there. Make no mistake. KeyCite is not about good law anymore. It's about the cash register.

STEER CLEAR OF POOBAHS

The gatekeepers of legal research — i.e. law librarians and West Trainers, love to say: "You never know where you'll find the answer!"

They constantly promote this 'Lost in the Wilderness' approach to legal research. The insulting, disingenuous implication is that you know nothing about the precedent that drives your practice area, and that without these poobahs to guide you, you'd be lost in the wilderness, missing cases and being sued for malpractice. They want you managing to the risk. We want you managing to the reward.

These people are not elite researchers, most have never directly represented a client, and even fewer have ever met a payroll. For these and other reasons, they are to be ignored.

Our subscribers are elite researchers. As our subscriber you do not perform Computer Assisted Legal Research. It's just legal research. That it's done on a computer is a given. It's nothing new. People have been doing it since 1975. So, let stop being enamored with the technology.

Understand this. No one knows how to do what we're going to show you how to do in this post. The entire legal research cartel has an enormous economic incentive to ensure that you remain lost in the wilderness performing stumble-over research, dependant on strategies that simply do not represent a best practices approach to problem solving.

Our incentive is to streamline, simplify and educate, resulting in more insight faster. As our subscriber, you are an elite researcher, per se. Or, you will be in a few minutes!

ANCHOR + FILTER = 'HOT LIST'

We want you to know how to find the handful of opinions, from the courts you care about, that cite your case for the point, or fine point, of law you're focused on. We call this your 'Hot List."

Let's ask Equalizer to produce a list of cases citing your case. To do this, select the two or three courts that have the power to render your case 'bad law.' We use Lyndonville Savings Bank v. Lussier, 211 F.3d 697 (2nd Cir. 1999) in this teaching example. The only courts that have the ability to undo any holdings in this opinion is the Second Circuit En Banc and the United States Supreme Court. Check these two databases. If you don't know how to activate databases by jurisdiction, click here.

Then enter: "211 F.3d 697" and click SEARCH. It's important to include the quotation marks. This turns your book and page cite into a search term. This is citation driven search. You've been doing them your entire career using KeyCite and Shepards. Again, this is nothing new.

We receive 13 hits, all from the Second Circuit. It would take less than five minutes to check them all. But, let's pivot. Let's individualize the validation of this citation. We like this case for what it says about 18 U.S.C. 3663(h)(2) (restitution).

Our query remains anchored by the citation. But, let's filter on the word 'restitution.' Our query looks like this: "211 F.3d 697" & restitution

We receive one hit and it's our case, meaning our case is good law. It has to be since no subsequent opinion in the Second Circuit has cited our case for our point of law.

If we go back to our search screen and click 'Select All' a national search reveals 15 opinions that have cited our case for our point of law. If you desire this additional 'Discretionary Insight' this is your new 'Hot List'.

If you want to be more specific you could enter: "211 F.3d 697" & 3663

This query finds opinions that expressly cite your opinion and your statute. There are seven; six if you exclude our case. If you re-sort your results by clicking 'Decision Date' you will instantly see that Huml v. Vlazny, 716 N.W.2d 807 (Wis. 2006) is the most recent case nationally to cite our opinion for our point of law.

It takes less than three minutes to look at these six Hot Listed opinions. And now you know everything there is to know about how your case has been treated for your point of law.

KeyCite tells us that our case has been cited in 343 documents. 'Documents' is a West term of art that includes all the things West wants to sell you (secondary materials, briefs, memos and other court documents prepared by counsel) together with judicial opinions nationally. That's the default.

We did an end-run around this nonsense by simply asking Equalizer to produce a Hot List of the opinions, from the selected jurisdictions, that have cited our case for our point of law.

Congratulations! This is Advanced Boolean Logic. This is best practices. You are officially an elite researcher. ('Advanced' doesn't mean difficult. It means no one does it.) If there's anything you don't understand, call us and we'll schedule an individualized web conference for some free training!

Beyond that, if you have access to Westlaw's ALLCASES Database, enter our query in the box you use to perform keyword search and you will receive the identical seven judicial opinions.

VALIDATING THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

It doesn't matter what research service you use, opinions issued by the United States Supreme Court present a horrible information management issue. This specialized tutorial shows you how to quickly tame this issue.

U.S. Supreme Court opinions are unique in that they typically treat a single question of law, with nine justices weighing in to the tune of 50,000 words. Thereafter, the opinion is cited thousands of times nationally. This is no problem for Equalizer.

We again stay focused on jurisdiction, point of law and recency. We're going to bring the Supremes down to street level in a click or two.

For this tutorial let's find the most cited opinion in America for a fine point of law. Check All Jurisdictions, enter 42 /5 1983 & "excessive force" & police

This query, anchored by the Federal civil rights statute (the most cited law in America), asks Equalizer to produce a list of opinions where the section number of the statute appears within five words of the title number and the terms 'excessive force' and 'police' appear on at least one occasion anywhere in the opinion.

The most cited opinion is Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981).

Now, from the Jurisdiction Drop Down Menu (upper left of the page) select your primary Federal circuit to reveal the subset of Parratt cites relevant to your world. We selected the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which had cited Parratt 331 times as of the date of this post. Hopkins v. Andaya, 958 F.2d 881 (9th Cir. 1992) appears to be most relevant based on citation and search term frequency. (cf: Relevance Percentages with Citation Frequency)

How many opinions expressly cite Parratt in the context of our original query?

All we have to do to find out is add our book and page citation as an additional query filter: "451 U.S. 527" & 42 /5 1983 & "excessive force" & police

Fourteen opinions match this search. The upshot is that in just a couple of minutes, we are able to take a national case locally for precisely the reasons we care about. At every stage, we are guided by highly unique search terms: case and statutory citations. We do not guess words.

'Cherry Picking' works so much better than 'Stumble Over.' We drop from more than 3,000 citations, to just over 300 citations, to a 'Hot List' of 14 citations in our primary jurisdiction that cite our case for the precise, informed reasons we specify.

Assuming you even have an all-state, all-Federal plan with West (which runs about $10K annually for a single attorney) try replicating this process with KeyCite. Let us know how that goes for you!

NAVIGATE YOUR HOTLIST

Once you have your 'Hot List' click 'Decision Date'. This may well be the end of your inquiry. If you are satisfied that the most recent case to cite your case in your primary jurisdiction follows your case, you may decide to stop there.

It's worth remembering that courts typically follow. When they reverse it makes news.

In the alternative, you may decide you want to spend a few seconds with each Hot Listed case to see if any warrant reading in full. After all, this is your Hot List!

To do this, click the first Hot Listed case. On the resulting screen, note that the entire Hot List has been carried forward and is displayed in the frame to the left of the frame displaying the full text of your opinion.

Now, look at the Highlight Drop Down Menu (upper center page) and note that 'All Search Terms' is displayed by default. Pop open this drop down menu and select the page number of the citation you are validating. After the page refreshes click the link captioned 'Next Term'. This jumps you right to your citation in the case so you can see what the court has to say about your case. This way you don't have to read the case unless it's warranted. When you're done click the next hit on your results list and repeat.

If you don't want to use the built-in utility, you can click the FIND BUTTON in Equalizer's Button Bar (far upper left) or select FIND from the EDIT MENU (way far upper left) or hold CTRL-F. Thereafter, you can enter the full citation or just the page number to jump to your citation in each opinion on your Hot List. (The last thing we want is lawyers reading opinions!)

Whichever method you choose, it takes only a few seconds per opinion to develop a Godlike knowledge of how your case has been treated in your primary jurisdiction.

SUMMARY

a) Validation implicates jurisdiction, point of law, and recency.

b) Anchor + Filter = Hot List

c) Results are sortable by search term frequency (Relevance), recency (Decision Date) and citation frequency (CiteTrak Entire Database).

d) Navigation to your citation in the text of opinions citing your case provides Mandatory and/or Discretionary Insight.

09. INTRODUCING CITETRAK

2009-01-09T14:15:00.006-08:00

Click here for a detailed, easy to understand tutorial regarding Citetrak Technology. Citetrak assigns a numeric hyperlink to each hit in your search results. On the original search screen that appears each time you open TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0, configure Citetrak to reveal the number of citations to each hit only from the jurisdictions you search, from the entire database of both. By default, Citetrak is configured to link to all opinions in the database citing your opinion.

With Citetrak you'll begin to get a sense of just how many judicial opinions have never been cited. Citetrak also allows you to sort your results by citation frequency. Meaning, in one mouse click you can find the most cited opinion to cite your opinion, or, for example, the most cited opinion that contains your search term(s).

You can literally do a national search on any topic - "collateral estoppel" - and in one mouse click see the most cited opinion nationally containing that phrase. For trivia lovers that opinion is Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 25 L.Ed.2d 469, 90 S.Ct. 1189 (1970). The most cited state opinion containing this phrase is Ryan v. New York Telephone Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494, 478 N.Y.S.2d 823 (N.Y., 1984). That took another couple of seconds. TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0 is the best caselaw search engine ever because it's designed for computer users!

08. CITATION LOOKUP

2009-01-09T14:15:00.005-08:00

Click here for a page that shows you how to lookup a known opinion using a book and page citation. You can even lookup multiple opinions siultaneously!

07. FIND UNKNOWN OPINIONS

2009-01-09T14:15:00.003-08:00

Every search is driven by one of two items of information. The item of information driving your search is either codified or non-codified. Codified items of information include statutes, rules, regulations and case citations. See, A Murder In North Dakota: A Tutorial.

Non-codified items of information include law and fact related concepts. Best practices dictates that whenever possible your search query should include the number(s) assigned to codified item(s) of information that is driving your search. 404(b), for example, is a superior search term to prejudicial.

If on the first pass you find too many opinions, winnow your results by adding a term from the statute, rule or regulation itself or a term related to the facts surrounding the matter at hand.

The best part about TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0, is that when you are dealing with an odd set of facts, in one mouseclick you can Go National to find opinions that will aid your thinking and writing, even if you don't cite them.

Click here for more information on finding unknown opinions.

06. SEARCH METHODS & SYNTAX

2009-01-09T14:15:00.001-08:00

Read also: Advanced Search By Statute and A Murder In North Dakota.

(a) Search For Opinions With Inclusive Terms
• malpractice AND prozac
• malpractice & prozac
• malpractice prozac
Any of these queries find opinions containing at least one instance of the terms malpractice and Prozac. Either version find opinions containing.

(b) Search For Opinions With Analogous Terms
• landlord OR lessor

(c) Search For Opinions Excluding Specific Terms
• "chemical waste" NOT management

(d) Search For Opinions Including At Least One Of Several Alternative Terms
• assignment and (security OR pledge)

(e) Search For Opinions Included Truncated Search Terms
• employ!
Finds employ, employed, employee, employment

(f) Search For Opinions Including A Specific Phrase
• "medical malpractice"

(g) Search For Opinions Where One Term Is A Specified Distance From Another Term
• search /2 seizure • search w/2 seizure
Either of these queries find opinions where the term "seizure" appears within two words of the term "search".
(h) Build A Complex Query
• "income tax" AND death NOT penalty
Finds opinions including the phrase "income tax" and the term death, while excluding opinions containing the term "penalty"

(i) Search For Opinions Citing Your Statute, Rule or Regulation
• 18 w/5 1344
Finds opinions where the section number appears within five words of the title number. Use the within connector as a substitute for "U.S.C.". It saves typing and ensures your find all of the opinions. This is the Federal bank fraud statute. Use this query instead of "bank fraud". This eliminated diffuse results and ensures you find all of the opinions in the selected jurisdictions that cite the codified item of information driving your search. This search strategy also works well with rules and regulations. You have a choice. You can enter "prejudicial" or you can enter "404(b)." Which will return results related to the item of information driving your search? Simply enter the number assigned to the codified item of information driving your search and you will find all of the opinions citing that item.

(j) Search For Opinions Citing Your Statute, Rule or Reg For A Specified Reason
• 18 w/5 1344 and "false loan application"
• 18 /5 1344 and "material ommission"
To avoid reading opinions that cite your statute for irrelevant factual or legal reasons, add additional search terms to winnow your results.

(k) Search For Opinions Including Multiple Phrases
• "collateral estoppel" and "res judicata" and "subject matter jurisdiction"

Click here for more examples.

05. REVIEW THE OPINION

2009-01-09T14:14:00.004-08:00

Click here and here to see a full screen shot of TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0's opinion screen. Opinions include official and parallel citations and internal pagination throughout. Opinions are searchable, scannable, citable, checkable and automatically print in two columns with search terms highlighted and bolded or not. Your results list and hit list navigation utilities are retained in the left frame. Full text is displayed in the central frame. The top frame includes your search term navigation, print/save, next case/previous case, and most relevant paragraph utilities. It's the best case law navigation interface on the market!

04. ANALYZE YOUR RESULTS

2009-01-09T14:14:00.003-08:00

Click here for a more detailed, full screen image.

(a) Search Trail A gray strip appears at the top of your results analysis screen that includes a link to the original search screen. Clicking Search returns you to original search interface. (b) Search Query Reminder Your search query, as originally entered, also appears as part of the search trail in the gray strip at the top of the screen. (c) Hit Navigation Utility The Hit Navigation Utility tells you at a glance how many total hits you received and the numbered hits received on the page. Single Forward and Back Arrows navigate you through each results page. Double Forward and Back Arrows jump to the first or last page of results, respectively. (d) Sort Results By Jurisdiction A jurisdiction specific drop down menu is embedded into the upper left corner of the results analysis screen. This utility is extremely helpful whenever you metasearch multiple jurisdictions. At a glance you can see the subset of jurisdictions that return hits. Select a single jurisdiction from the drop down menu to instantly produce a results list comprised of that subset of opinions from your original results originating from the jurisdiction specified. (e) Sort Results By Relevance By default, TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0 is configured to sort results by relevancy. A relevancy percentage is assigned to each hit based on the frequency and position of search terms in the opinion. When you consider Relevance and Citation Frequency in combination, you can easily identify which opinions are being cited most for the reasons you care about. (f) Sort Results By Case Name All results columns are sortable. To sort in numeric or alphabetical order, click the hyperlinked title assigned to each column. Click Case Name to sort in ascending alphabetical order. Click it again to sort in reverse alphabetical order. This utility is most helpful for identifying opinions containing identical party names from within a generic list of results. (g) Sort Results By Decision Date Click Decision Date to sort results by date. This function allows you to quickly identify the most recent judicial opinion containing your search terms. (h) Sort Results By Citation Frequency By default Thelaw.net Equalizer 7.0, is configured to Citetrak the Entire Database. Meaning, each hit is provided a numeric hyperlink telling you at a glance whether the corresponding hit has been cited and if so, how frequently. Click the numeric link assigned to each opinion to generate a results list of opinions citing that opinion. Click Entire Database to sort by citation frequency. This simple function surfaces the most cited opinion(s) on any topic. Finally, in analyzing your results, look for opinions where the relevance percentage and citation frequency are both high in comparison to other opinions on your list. High relevance and high citation frequency means your opinion is being cited often for the reason(s) you care about! (i) Most Relevant Paragraph We pin the most relevant paragraph from each opinion directly under the hyperlinked case caption.

03. BUILD YOUR SEARCH

2009-01-09T14:14:00.001-08:00

Click here for a full screen image with all menus fully expanded. FEDERAL APPELLATE (1 U.S. 1 To Date; 1 F.2d 1 To Date, and More) By default TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0 is configured to search all Federal and state jurisdictions. To search all Federal appellate jurisdictions, deselect "Select All" by clicking the "Select All Checkbox." Then, click the checkbox captioned "All Federal Appellate." To isolate one or more Federal appellate jurisdictions click the plus symbol just to left of the "All Federal Appellate Checkbox." This expands the menu as pictured in the graphic below. Click the checkbox(es) that corrspond with the jurisdictions you want to search.

02. OVERVIEW & COVERAGE

2009-01-09T14:09:00.003-08:00

All subscribers to TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.o enjoy unfettered access to everything we have to offer. This includes Federal and state judicial opinions from the 50 states, D.C., the 13 Federal circuits, the 97 Federal districts and the United States Supreme Court. You get: 1 U.S. 1 to date, 1 F.2d to date, 1 B.R. to date, miscellaneous Federal courts. State opinions are from 1950 forward.

Judicial opinions are enhanced with official and parallel citations and internal page numbers. Cases cited within cases are hyperlinked to you can jump right to them wherever they are in the country. Equalizer includes an automatic dual column printing utility. Serach terms are highlighted and bolded. When you save/print you have the option of doing so with search terms highlighted and bolded, or not. You can save/print in .doc, pdf, .rtf or .txt. You can attach opinions to an email or copy and paste the text into an email message.

We offer Boolean, natural language and citation lookup all from a single search box. Our smart search box can tell what you're doing. If you have an opinion to lookup, you just enter the book and page. You do not need to know what jurisdiction it is from. To look up multiple citations separate them with a comma and click search.

You can search any combination of jurisdictions at the same time. You have, for example, try primary search capability. If you are in New York, for example, you can metasearch all New York State opinions, together with any of the Federal districts, bankruptcy courts, the Second Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Below is a list of the jurisdictions we index. Opinions typically appear in the database on a next business day basis. Click here for state-by-state coverage of all items.

STATE COURTS (1950 To Date)
Alabama Supreme Court
Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
Arizona Supreme Court
Arizona Court of Appeals
Arkansas Supreme Court
Arkansas Court of Appeals
California Supreme Court
California Court of Appeals
Colorado Supreme Court
Colorado Court of Appeals
Connecticut Supreme Court
Connecticut Appellate Court
D.C. Court of Appeals
Delaware Supreme Court
Florida Supreme Court
Florida District Court of Appeals
Georgia Supreme Court
Georgia Court of Appeals
Hawaii Supreme Court
Hawaii Intermediate Ct. of Appeals
Idaho Supreme Court
Idaho Court of Appeals
Illinois Supreme Court
Illinois Appellate Court
Indiana Supreme Court
Indiana Court of Appeals
Iowa Supreme Court
Iowa Court of Appeals
Kansas Supreme Court
Kansas Court of Appeals
Kentucky Supreme Court
Kentucky Court of Appeals
Louisiana Supreme Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of Special Appeals
Mass. Supreme Judicial Court
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Michigan Supreme Court
Michigan Court of Appeals
Minnesota Supreme Court
Minnesota Court of Appeals
Mississippi Supreme Court
Mississippi Court of Appeals
Missouri Supreme Court
Missouri Court of Appeals
Montana Supreme Court
Nebraska Supreme Court
Nebraska Court of Appeals
Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
New Hampshire Supreme Court
New Jersey Supreme Court
N.J. Superior Court, App. Div.
New Mexico Supreme Court
New Mexico Court of Appeals
New York Court of Appeals
N.Y. Supreme Court, App. Term
New York Supreme Court, App. Div.
North Carolina Supreme Court
North Carolina Court of Appeals
North Dakota Supreme Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Ohio Court of Appeals
Ohio Supreme Court
Ohio Court of Criminal Appeals
Ohio Court of Civil Appeals
Oregon Supreme Court
Oregon Court of Appeals
Pennsylvania Superior Court
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
Rhode Island Supreme Court
South Carolina Supreme Court
South Carolina Court Appeals
South Dakota Supreme Court
Tennessee Supreme Court
Tennessee Court of Appeals
Tennessee Ct. of Criminal Appeals
Texas Supreme Court
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Texas Court of Appeals
Utah Supreme Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Vermont Supreme Court
Virginia Supreme Court
Virginia Court of Appeals
Washington Supreme Court
Washington Court of Appeals
W. Virginia Supreme Ct. of Appeals
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Wyoming Supreme Court

FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS
U.S. Supreme Court (1 U.S. To Date)
D.C. U.S. Court of Appeals (1 F.2d To Date)
1st Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals
1st Cir. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
2nd Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals
2nd Cir. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
3rd Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals
4th Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals
5th Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals
6th Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals
6th Cir. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
7th Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals
8th Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals
8th Cir. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
9th Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals
9th Cir. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
10th Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals
10th Cir. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
11th Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals
Federal Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals

MISCELLANEOUS FEDERAL COURTS
U.S. Court of Claims
U.S. Court of International Trade
U.S. Customs Court
U.S. Tax Court
Board of Immigration Appeals
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation
Special Court, Reg. Rail Reorg. Act

BANKRUPTCY COURTS (1 B.R. 1 to Date)
Alabama Middle Bankruptcy Court
Alabama Northern Bankruptcy Court
Alabama Southern Bankruptcy Court
Alaska Bankruptcy Court
Arizona Bankruptcy Court
Arkansas Eastern Bankruptcy Court
Arkansas Western Bankruptcy Court
California Central Bankruptcy Court
California Eastern Bankruptcy Court
California Northern Bankruptcy Court
California Southern Bankruptcy Court
Colorado Bankruptcy Court
Connecticut Bankruptcy Court
DC Bankruptcy Court
Delaware Bankruptcy Court
Florida Middle Bankruptcy Court
Florida Northern Bankruptcy Court
Florida Southern Bankruptcy Court
Georgia Middle Bankruptcy Court
Georgia Northern Bankruptcy Court
Georgia Southern Bankruptcy Court
Guam Bankruptcy Court
Hawaii Bankruptcy Court
Idaho Bankruptcy Court
Illinois Central Bankruptcy Court
Illinois Northern Bankruptcy Court
Illinois Southern Bankruptcy Court
Indiana Northern Bankruptcy Court
Indiana Southern Bankruptcy Court
Iowa Northern Bankruptcy Court
Iowa Southern Bankruptcy Court
Kansas Bankruptcy Court
Kentucky Eastern Bankruptcy Court
Kentucky Western Bankruptcy Court
Louisiana Eastern Bankruptcy Court
Louisiana Middle Bankruptcy Court
Louisiana Western Bankruptcy Court
Maine Bankruptcy Court
Maryland Bankruptcy Court
Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court
Michigan Eastern Bankruptcy Court
Michigan Western Bankruptcy Court
Minnesota Bankruptcy Court
Mississippi Northern Bankruptcy Court
Mississippi Southern Bankruptcy Court
Missouri Eastern Bankruptcy Court
Missouri Western Bankruptcy Court
Montana Bankruptcy Court
Nebraska Bankruptcy Court
Nevada Bankruptcy Court
New Hampshire Bankruptcy Court
New Jersey Bankruptcy Court
New Mexico Bankruptcy Court
New York Eastern Bankruptcy Court
New York Northern Bankruptcy Court
New York Southern Bankruptcy Court
New York Western Bankruptcy Court
N. Carolina Eastern Bankruptcy Court
N. Carolina Middle Bankruptcy Court
N. Carolina Western Bankruptcy Court
N. Dakota Bankruptcy Court
N. Mariana Islands Bankruptcy Court
Ohio Northern Bankruptcy Court
Ohio Southern Bankruptcy Court
Oklahoma Eastern Bankruptcy Court
Oklahoma Northern Bankruptcy Court
Oklahoma Western Bankruptcy Court
Oregon Bankruptcy Court
PA Eastern Bankruptcy Court
PA Middle Bankruptcy Court
PA Western Bankruptcy Court
Puerto Rico Bankruptcy Court
Rhode Island Bankruptcy Court
South Carolina Bankruptcy Court
South Dakota Bankruptcy Court
Tennessee Eastern Bankruptcy Court
Tennessee Middle Bankruptcy Court
Tennessee Western Bankruptcy Court
Texas Eastern Bankruptcy Court
Texas Northern Bankruptcy Court
Texas Southern Bankruptcy Court
Texas Western Bankruptcy Court
Utah Bankruptcy Court
Vermont Bankruptcy Court
Virgin Islands Bankruptcy Court
Virginia Eastern Bankruptcy Court
Virginia Western Bankruptcy Court
Washington Eastern Bankruptcy Court
Washington Western Bankruptcy Court
W. Virginia Northern Bankruptcy Court
W. Virginia Southern Bankruptcy Court
Wisconsin Eastern Bankruptcy Court
Wisconsin Western Bankruptcy Court
Wyoming Bankruptcy Court

FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS (1 F.Supp. 1 To Date)
Alabama Middle District Court
Alabama Northern District Court
Alabama Southern District Court
Alaska District Court
Arizona District Court
Arkansas Eastern District Court
Arkansas Western District Court
California Central District Court
California Eastern District Court
California Northern District Court
California Southern District Court
Canal Zone District Court
Colorado District Court
Connecticut District Court
DC District Court
Delaware District Court
Florida Middle District Court
Florida Northern District Court
Florida Southern District Court
Georgia Middle District Court
Georgia Northern District Court
Georgia Southern District Court
Guam District Court
Hawaii District Court
Idaho District Court
Illinois Central District Court
Illinois Northern District Court
Illinois Southern District Court
Indiana Northern District Court
Indiana Southern District Court
Iowa Northern District Court
Iowa Southern District Court
Kansas District Court
Kentucky Eastern District Court
Kentucky Western District Court
Louisiana Eastern District Court
Louisiana Middle District Court
Louisiana Western District Court
Maine District Court
Maryland District Court
Massachusetts District Court
Michigan Eastern District Court
Michigan Western District Court
Minnesota District Court
Mississippi Northern District Court
Mississippi Southern District Court
Missouri Eastern District Court
Missouri Western District Court
Montana District Court
Nebraska District Court
Nevada District Court
New Hampshire District Court
New Jersey District Court
New Mexico District Court
New York Eastern District Court
New York Northern District Court
New York Southern District Court
New York Western District Court
N.C. Eastern District Court
N.C. Middle District Court
N.C. Western District Court
N. Dakota District Court
No. Mariana Islands District Court
Ohio Northern District Court
Ohio Southern District Court
Oklahoma Eastern District Court
Oklahoma Northern District Court
Oklahoma Western District Court
Oregon District Court
PA Eastern District Court
PA Middle District Court
PA Western District Court
Puerto Rico District Court
Rhode Island District Court
South Carolina District Court
South Dakota District Court
Tennessee Eastern District Court
Tennessee Middle District Court
Tennessee Western District Court
Texas Eastern District Court
Texas Northern District Court
Texas Southern District Court
Texas Western District Court
Utah District Court
Vermont District Court
Virgin Islands District Court
Virginia Eastern District Court
Virginia Western District Court
Washington Eastern District Court
Washington Western District Court
W. Virginia Northern District Court
W. Virginia Southern District Court
Wisconsin Eastern District Court
Wisconsin Western District Court
Wyoming District Court

18. CONTACT US

2009-01-09T14:09:00.001-08:00

TheLaw.net Corporation Mark Whitney, President mwhitney@thelaw.net Headquarters & FedEx/UPS: 6640 Lusk Blvd. Suite A205 San Diego, CA 92121 U.S. Mail: P.O. Box 928106 San Diego, CA 92192 Toll Free 1.877.4.LAWNET Corporate Homepage Any Matter: postmaster@thelaw.net

17. SUBSCRIPTIONS

2009-01-09T14:08:00.002-08:00

(a) NEW SUBSCRIPTIONS Secure online subscription fulfillment is managed here. All new subscriptions come with an unconditional 30-day money back guarantee. For every attorney on the license you get one non-lawyer at no extra charge. You may install at work, at home and on your laptop. In less than five minutes from now you will be up and running. For more information visit: Homepage About Case Law Software References (b) RENEW YOUR SUBSCRIPTION ONLINE Secure online subscription renewal is begins here. Renewing subscribers will need their 16 character activation code/license number. This code is retained in your copy of TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0. To obtain your code, open TheLaw.net. Then select SUBSCRIPTION from the PREFERENCES MENU. In the alternative, send an email to postmaster@thelaw.net. If you would like to renew offline call toll free 1.877.4.LAWNET. (c) COMPUTER CRASHED/LOST SOFTWARE Download the latest version of TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0 here at no additional charge. Be sure to follow all three steps on the above page. A lot of folks only follow Steps One and Two, then call for support. You should know that if you fail to follow Step Three and call us for support, we will talk about you behind your back. You will need your activation code/license number to complete the reinstall. If you don't have it, request it by sending an email to postmaster@thelaw.net.

16. TROUBLESHOOTING

2009-01-09T14:08:00.001-08:00

(a) SESSION TIMEOUT ERROR Click the HOME BUTTON and the case law database will load. This is the page you will see everytime you open TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0. (b) I CANNOT ACTIVATE Q: I enter the activation code/license number and click OK and nothing happens. A: You probably committed a typo when you entered the 16 character code. Try again! (c) THELAW.NET DOESN'T RECEIVE UPDATE (Windows Vista/7 Users) 1. Right click TheLaw.net Icon and select PROPERTIES 2. Click the COMPATIBILITY TAB 3. Look down slightly and click the checkbox captioned RUN THIS PROGRAM AS AN ADMINISTRATOR. 4. OK out of everything. 5. Now when you launch TheLaw.net it will receive updates! (d) THELAW.NET DOESN'T RECEIVE UPDATE (Windows XP Users) Typically this is related to your internet security/firewall software. Try disabling your security or firewall software then run TheLaw.net. If that doesn't work contact us. We can do a web conference and access your computer remotely to see what's going on. Note: Updates apply only to the Linkbar Menu File, which we refresh once a week. Case law is updated daily in the background and does not implicate the end-user.

15. THELAW.NET VIRTUAL ASSISTANT

2009-01-09T14:06:00.000-08:00

If you can't find something, no matter what it is, we'll do our utmost to find it for you and email it to you for free! If you need something that's not directly available to you, we will try to locate it using the Internet or one of our expansive subscriptions. We'll do everything we can to keep you moving forward!

Click here and complete the simple form.

We guarantee results overnight next business day. If that is not soon enough, let us know and we will put you at the top of the list. Again, there is no additional charge for this free service to active subscribers to TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0!

01. DOWNLOAD AND INSTALL

2009-01-09T14:04:00.001-08:00

It's very easy to download, install and configure TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0. For instructions click here and be sure to follow all three steps. Some subscribers follow only Steps 1 and 2. If you do this and then call for support, we will talk about you behind your back!

COVERAGE INCLUDES ALL 315 FEDERAL AND STATE JURISDICTIONS
•U.S. Supreme Court 1754-Now
•All 13 Federal Circuits 1. F.2d-Now
•All 94 Federal Districts 1 F.Supp.-Now
•All 94 Federal Bankruptcy Courts 1 B.R.-Now
•All 50 States/D.C. 1950 (or earlier)-Now
•U.S. Tax Court 1924-Now
•Court of Claims 1929-1971
•Customs Court 1938-1980
•Court of International Trade 1980-2001
•Reg. Rail Reorg. Act 1974-2001
•Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
•Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation
•Click here for available resources sorted by state.

POWER TOOLS
•PAGE NUMBERS: Official internal pagination included throughout!

•DUAL COLUMN PRINTING: Automatically print in two columns in doc/pdf/rtf.

•NATURAL LANGUAGE SEARCHING: Now when you need some fuzzy logic to wrap your head around some esoteric concept it will be there.

•CITATION LOOKUP: One click single or multiple Bluebook Citation extraction and lookup.

•FIVE PRONG AT-A-GLANCE RESULT VIEW: (1) Implicated Jurisdictions At-A-Glance; (2) Whether/How Often/Most Cited; (3) Hit Count; (4) Most Recent Query; (5) Date Cited

•INTRODUCING CITETRAK: Learn how to validate your research! Click here.

•INTERNAL HYPERLINKS: Opinions cited within an opinion are hyperlinked, placing them just a click away.

•ALL NEW, UNPARALLED SEARCH FLEXIBILITY AND EFFICIENCY!
10 ways to build your search! In a single mouse click:

1. Metasearch All 315 Jurisdictions
2. Metasearch All Feds
3. Metasearch All States
4. Metasearch Any State
5. Metasearch F.2d/3d
6. Metasearch F.Supp./F.Supp.2d
7. Metasearch B.R.
8. Metasearch Mandatory Jurisdictions
9. Metasearch Any Combination
10. Search Primary Jurisdiction

We also provide world-class research, reference and technical support. We will do everything possible to ensure your success, even if we have to find something for you!

TheLaw.net Corporation
Justice starts here.
All Matters: postmaster@thelaw.net

BOOK RESEARCH v. BOOLEAN LOGIC

2009-01-08T14:18:00.000-08:00

Caller: Do you have annotated statutes?
Mark: Statutes, rules and regs are black letter law. Why?
Caller: My master - ah - my attorney says we need annotations.
Mark: And, how does said attorney get along with his computer?
Caller: Oh my Gawd! How did you know?!

According to Westlaw®, "more than half of all federal and state court actions involve interpreting statutes."

Accordingly, this tutorial teaches you how to find: (a) all opinions in any database that cite any statute in your primary jurisdiction, (b) the subset of opinions that cite your statute only for the reason(s) you specify, and (c) any and all opinions nationally that cite your statute for the reason(s) you specify.

For this tutorial, we begin with a Federal law - 18 U.S.C. § 1344 - the criminal bank fraud statute. Like most statutes, this one is broadly worded to cover a wide array of conduct. Our client is charged with making a false loan application. (That's right. Back to a time when lenders solicited applications, not just signatures.)

If you're like me, you're anal. Meaning, you don't need me to tell you that different judicial opinions cite the same statute differently. Some may cite as 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Others, 18 U.S.C. sec. 1344. Others, 18 U.S.C. section 1344. Others, may have a typo - 18 U.S.C § 1344. Or, your statute may be cited in a string of related statutes, i.e. 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001, 1014, 1344.

Our primary jurisdiction for this tutorial is the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, where we're guaranteed to find some excellent bank fraud!

Remember. Our first goal is to find every opinion in our primary jurisdiction that cites our controlling statute in a single click. This is best practices. We do this because most statutes have not been cited that many times. Many have never been cited. More often than not, you're going want to check whatever opinions you find. When we find too many opinions, we narrow our search based on the facts of our case and/or by adding nomenclature that we copy directly from the text of our controlling statute.

To ensure we find all potentially relevant opinions in the database we use the "within" connector as a generic substitute for any possible citation format variations that may exist from opinion to opinion. We could enter, for example: "18 U.S.C. § 1344" or "18 U.S.C. sec. 1344" or "18 U.S.C. section 1344" or "18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001, 1014, 1344".

Why do all of that typing when all we have to do is enter: 18 w/5 1344?

18 w/5 1344 asks for any opinions where the section number appears within five words of the title number. Because the codified item of information driving our search is a statute, we use the title and section numbers assigned to that statute to find all of the opinions. We do not use the phrase "bank fraud" because we want to avoid diffuse results.

On this day, the Second Circuit lists 197 opinions containing the phrase "bank fraud." But, we only want opinions citing the item of information driving our search. We don't care about opinions involving, for example, a defrocked bank president, convicted of bank fraud, now embroiled in civil litigation with his former bank employer. We want opinions that cite to the law.

Remember, our client is charged with submitting a false loan application. We don't want to read opinions about embezzlement. Not in this search. So, we refine our search to reflect the relevant law and facts.

18 w/5 1344 and "false loan application"

On this day, our results drop from approximately 100 Second Circuit opinions to 4. Using Westlaw, you would have slogged through a lot of headnotes, annotations and key numbers to isolate the four judicial opinions that mention your controlling statute in the context of a false loan application prosecution.

Want to be more specific? Let's say your guy is involved in real estate. With TheLaw.net you can go national. Two clicks adds all Federal appellate and all Federal districts. Then add "real estate" to your query.

18 w/5 1344 and "false loan application" and "real estate" finds the four opinions nationally that match our search criteria. One from the Second Circuit, two from the Eighth Circuit and one from the Eleventh Circuit. These are the only citable opinions on the planet that include at least one reference to the phrase "false loan application" and at least one reference to the phrase "real estate" and at least one citation to the Federal bank fraud statute.

It is well settled that all research starts with the black letter law. In this case, the black letter law is the Federal bank fraud statute. From there, instead of plowing through headnotes, annotations and key numbers, we make a specific request for exactly what we need based on the unique facts and circumstances of our client's situation. This is the new Gold Standard for caselaw research! If you still think Westlaw is the greatest (and you never want that swimming pool) use what you've learned here to save yourself some time and consider this.

As a Westlaw subscriber you pop up the statute and beneath the statute you're presented with a set of headnotes. I happen to know a lot about the Federal bank fraud statute. Enough to know that I can't individualize my research browsing West headnote. Moreover, I have other thing to do.

I pulled the headnotes for this statute. 30 categories/160 headnotes/12,000 headnote words. All posted for your convenience here on my server. Can you say, "Information overload?"

What they don't have (surprise) is the category I want. I want opinions treating the statute in the context of a false loan application. They don't have a category for that. They have seven headnotes under a generic Misrepresentations Category. There's an ATM card case and a bogus check case. The term "loan" does not appear anywhere in these seven headnotes under Misrepresentation. Nor is there another category even begins to approach what I'm looking for.

This is a problem because I know 18 opinions nationally construe this statute for the reason I care about. I know this because I retrieved them use TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0. The summary of the results are republished here on my server.

This is the difference between a manmade index and a computer generated index. For you, it's the difference between spinning your wheels and pulling up just what you want in one mouseclick.

Here's the other problem. The Federal bank fraud statute has been construed nearly 1,500 times in published opinions by Federal courts. Yet, Westlaw only gives me 164 headnotes. Where are my other 1,200 headnotes? And, who's making these decisions?!

In many states, the statutory citation format is a lot more straightforward. Florida is one of several states that follows a chapter number.section number format. Let's say you want to check for opinions discussing the recovery of costs from the losing party.

Florida has more than 500 judicial opinions containing the phrase "losing party". Only 200 cite the controlling statute - 57.041. The other 300 reference losing parties in some other context. "Sarah Palin represented the losing party." Using Westlaw, pop up the text of 57.041. You'll see tons of headnotes. Knock yourself out!

The text of the 57.041 says: "The party recovering judgment shall recover all his or her legal costs and charges which shall be included in the judgment; but this section does not apply to executors or administrators in actions when they are not liable for costs."

How many opinions reference the statute number, but also make an explicit reference to the circumstances under which you are entitled to recover your costs?

57.041 and "shall recover" reduces your results to 70 opinions. Using TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0, results are sortable. It only takes one mouse click to learn that the most recent opinion to match our search criteria is Port-a-Weld, Inc. v. Padula & Wadsworth Construction, Inc., 984 So.2d 564 (Fla. App., 2008) dated May 21, 2008. Another mouse click tells us that the most cited opinion to match our search criteria is Roberts v. Askew, 260 So.2d 492 (Fla., 1972).

Today's Homework. Using West headnotes, key numbers and annotations see how long it takes you to get to Port-A-Weld. Then see how long it takes you to determine that Roberts is the most cited of the 70 most relevant opinions.

What's that? You don't have access to Florida cases. As a Westlaw user you only have your state. With TheLaw.net you get all 50 states and D.C..

What's that? The human editors at Westlaw don't have a headnote section captioned "shall recover?" Shocking.

What's that? West search results don't include a sortable citation frequency column? Hmmm.

What's that? West search results don't include a sortable date column? Hmmm.

Maybe a Westlaw reference attorney can help. Make sure he doesn't lead you outside The Plan!

Incidentally, it took us less than 10 seconds to surface the most recent and most cited opinions using TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0. I'm jus' sayin'.

If you want to give TheLaw.net a whirl, you can subscribe online with the security of a 30-day unconditional money back guarantee. It's $48 a month annualized for unlimited, coast-to-coast access. Install at work, at home and on your desktop. Every lawyer on the license books their paralegal at no extra charge. Print, cut, copy, paste, view, download. (Like you, we don't do free trials.)

You'll be up and running in less than five minutes.

BROWSE IS NOT "SEARCH"

2009-01-07T12:07:00.000-08:00

Book research came with a time consuming and backbreaking set of best practices that all but ensured everyone would find the same opinions. Nearly 140 years ago, John West developed the Key Number System. Around the same time, Frank Shepard launched the cryptic Shepard’s Citations. Then came annotated statutes, rules and regulations. Legal encyclopedias like American Jurisprudence and Corpus Juris Secundum popped up. In the absence of these mission critical casefinders, the only way to find the two or three opinions you cared about was to read all the cases in the library.

Today, when you query a database, you are reading all the cases in the library. This blog reveals the secrets to finding exactly what you want (and nothing you don't want) in one or two mouseclicks. It also reveals the opinions West attorney-editors fail to include in the annotations to statutes and the key number index.

Book research included a set of simple search paths that took you to cases. It didn’t matter whether you went to Harvard or night school. You all learned the same two or three paths. If you missed a relevant opinion, the opposition did, too. You all used the same tools, the same way.

It’s not like that anymore. Today, legal research is conducted on the computer and there are no best practices. People use computers differently and badly. Most lawyers I talk to have completely failed to bond with their computer. Many hire people to run the computer for them.

Book researchers knew how to resolve any legal research question to "yes" or "no." It took time and a lot of heavy lifting. But, there was a process. For most compusearchers, each new research project starts at ground zero. In the absence of best practices, success or lack thereof, feels like happenstance.

Today's lawyers and paralegals are pushing buttons and they don’t know why. I can’t tell you how many phone conversations I’ve had where the attorney on the other end exhales, “I’m getting results!”

The question isn’t whether you’re getting results. The question is whether you’re finding everything you need and nothing you don’t, in one or two mouseclicks, while bypassing the headnotes, key numbers and annotations that West uses to lard up your data.

If you’re browsing headnotes, key numbers and annotations you are wasting time. Ask a recent law school graduate. It doesn’t matter what the question is, the answer is Westlaw or Lexis. Nearly ninety percent of the legal research marketplace continues to rely on these two databases. And because most legal researchers are relatively inept on the computer, they sacrifice content and coverage on the altar of little buttons that take them to a series of headnotes that will hopefully lead to some cases that are helpful.

Westlaw has you using a computer to conduct book research. This blog will teach you how to perform advanced legal research using the computer - regardless of the database you subscribe to. You’ll learn how to bypass headnotes, annotations and key numbers to find everything you need in one or two mouse clicks. I'll even teach you how to bypass Keycite, to find every opinion construing your opinion, but only for the reason(s) you specify. Have no fear. "Advanced" doesn't mean difficult. It just means no one's doing it. It's easy once you know how.

Every search you perform is driven by either a codified or uncodified item of information. Codified items of information include statutes, rules, regulations and case citations. Yes. Case citations. Citations are codified items of information. Legal researchers are not trained to think of them as such. But, that is what they are. Non-codified items of information include concepts (words, phrases) and principles of constitutional law.

You perform a citation driven search whenever you use Keycite or Shepards. The citation is your search term. Keycite and Shepards generate crude, mass-customized results that give you a lot of information and very little in the way of knowledge that is individualized to the totality of circumstances surrounding your case or controversy. You beat the citation into the little box and a lot of hits appear. You've been taught to believe that this is the Gold Standard. I’m telling you, that in the 21st century it is not.

Here’s a question. Regardless of the database you use, do you know how to find all the opinions that cite your opinion only for the reason you specify (and none of the opinions that don’t) in one click? What might that query look like?

Regardless of the database you use, do you know how to find every opinion citing your statute, only for the reason(s) you care about, from the court(s) you specify and within a particular time frame? What would that query look like?

If you follow this blog you will learn how to go beyond outmoded, time-wasting, headnotes, annotations, and key numbers. Headnotes were the best we could do in the days of books. The problem with headnotes is that published judicial opinions (with the exception of the U.S. Supreme Court) typically construe three to five points of law. Accordingly, if your death penalty case also treats Rule 404(b), you’re slogging through headnotes that are off point. To avoid reading all of the opinions in the library, this is a price the book researcher happily paid. The computer researcher should be loathe to read even a single headnote that’s off point, to say nothing of a entire judicial opinion.

I have four goals for you. First, I don’t want you even scanning (to say nothing of reading) opinions that are off point. Second, I want you working only with opinions that are on point. Third, I want you to find everything you need and nothing you don’t in just one or two mouse clicks. Finally, I want you to stop asking whether a case is still “good law.”

With your ability to custom tailor a search query to find exactly what you need and nothing you don't, the question is no longer whether your case is "still good law." The question is whether you’ve found and read every opinion that construes the item of information driving your search for the reason you care about. In almost every instance, at most, we’re talking about only a handful of opinions. Most opinions have never been cited. Another enormous slice have been cited only a handful of times.

Checking for Red Flags and going to lunch is malpractice. A Red Flag is information. It is not knowledge. It merely tells you that your opinion is "no longer good law for at least one of the points of law it contains." You still have to check the opinion to see: (a) if the Red Flag is connected to your point of law, (b) whether the Red Flag originates from the one or two courts that actually have the power to overrule your case and (c) whether or how the Red Flagged opinion has since been construed.

The worst part about Red Flags, is the deference researchers pay to the opinion of an unknown human editor who knows nothing about the facts and circumstances surrounding your case. Red Flags are not the end if the inquiry. Not even close.

I want you to be the most efficient researcher possible. I want to save you time and money. I want you to be the smartest, most informed lawyer on the phone conference, in the deposition and in the courtroom. I want you to know all the good news (not just the bad news) about the points of law that drive your search. Most of all, I want you to be confident that no stone has been left unturned, that you’ve found everything, missed nothing and that you’ve done so in just a couple of mouseclicks. Then I want you to be my customer!