Here.
Order here
.
Supreme Court
Update in Baby Veronica
From SCOTUSblog.
An excerpt:
The adoption of the little girl known in a child custody saga as “Baby Veronica” has been approved by a family court in Charleston, South Carolina, the child’s biological father notified the Supreme Court on Thursday. Attorneys for Dusten Brown, a member of the Cherokee Nation, disclosed the family court’s action in the final filing in the Court in his attempt to postpone the child’s adoption by anyone other than him or his family.The action by the state court, giving full legal custody to the child to Matt and Melanie Capobianco, a non-Indian couple living near Charleston, came yesterday at a closed hearing. All of the materials of that proceeding, including the final adoption and custody order, are under seal, by state law. The family court also approved a “transition plan,” the details of which are also secret, that will mean the child — living with her father in Oklahoma for about nineteen months — will not be transferred immediately to her new home. A counseling arrangement apparently is part of the transition plan. “Baby Veronica” will be four years old next month.
***
All of the legal filings that appear to be reaching the Court in this round of the dispute have now been logged in, including a brief opposing the father’s efforts, by a South Carolina woman, Jo M. Prowell, who was appointed by the family court as the guardian of “Baby Veronica” during the legal proceedings — including the review of the case by the Supreme Court, leading to a decision against the father’s adoption prospects on June 25.
Adoptive Couple Response to Birth Father
Briefs in Opposition to Nebraska v. Elise M. Cert Petition
SCT Calls for Response from Adoptive Couple by Friday
From SCOTUS Blog:
UPDATED Monday 11:30 a.m. The Chief Justice has called for a response to the application; it is to be filed by 2 p.m. on Friday of this week.
The application is here.
Tribal Interests Win-Loss Rates in the 21st Century — Trend Downward for Tribal Interests?
Ok, so I used the westlaw search function and dug up all the cases from the federal courts of appeal (published and whatever unpublished opinions show up) that included the words “Indians” or “tribe.” That got me well over 3600 cases for 2000-present, so I used westlaw’s relevance function to make them most relevant for me. The first 850 or cases usually included what I call “tribal interests” — then the drop-off was steep so I stopped looking at 1000. [I should note that the Tohono O’odham case that went to the Supreme Court didn’t show up until 990s, so there’s that.] I counted wins and losses, excluded cases where tribes went against tribes, Indians went against tribes (except in criminal cases — a few ICRA habeas cases, in other words), and most criminal cases involving Indian defendants (except where Indian country/reservation boundaries had play, and Duro fix-style cases). I split them up by 2000-2009, and 2010-present.
2000-2009
Tribal interest wins — 233
Tribal interest losses — 179
Winning percentage — 56.6 percent
2010-present
Tribal interest wins — 55
Tribal interest losses — 77
Winning percentage — 41.7 percent
So we’re one-third or so through the 2010s, and things aren’t looking so great for tribal interests. Is this significant, statistically or otherwise? Make your own judgments.
A few more comments on methodology. Yeah, I know “wins” and “losses” are subjective, but they’re not really. A tribe is an appellant, the appellate court reverses. That’s a win. Also, what is a “tribal interest”? That’s a little more in the eye of the beholder. And since I am the beholder, I call it as I see it.
With a few thousand RA hours at my disposal, I could do this going back forever, set it out by appellate court, whether there was a dissenter, results in published versus unpublished opinions, what the majority of the panels’ political affiliations were, and how often the Supreme Court granted cert and reversed, etc. Not going to happen this year, but it will happen.
That reminds me. Nineteen times the Supreme Court granted cert off of tribal interest wins below (no idea out of how many cert petitions). Twice the Supreme Court granted cert off of tribal interest losses below (Patchak and Chickasaw, both cases in which the OSG sought or acquiesced in the petition, and both affirmed).
Certiorari off of Tribal Interest Wins in COAs
288 wins
19 grants
6.6 percent of wins end up at the Supreme Court
Certiorari off Tribal Interest Losses in COAs
256 losses
2 grants
0.8 percent of losses end up at the Supreme Court
Outstanding New Paper on Federal Trust Land Acquisitions by Frank Pommersheim
Frank Pommersheim has published an important new paper titled “Land Into Trust: An Inquiry into Law, Policy, and History” in the Idaho Law Review. A PDF is here:
Here is the introduction:
The land-into-trust policy of the Indian Reorganization Act (“IRA”) is an express legislative attempt to undo, or at least ameliorate, the massive loss of Indian land that resulted from the federal government’s allotment policy of the late nineteenth *520 and early twentieth centuries. The allotment policy occasioned a severe reduction in the national Indian land estate without any benefit to the affected Indians and tribes including the vaunted goals of assimilation and the reduction of poverty in Indian country. The extensive loss of land produced much economic hardship, cultural strain, and erosion of tribal governing authority.
The subsequent attempt of IRA law and policy to reverse this process of severe land loss raises significant questions about the ability of law, and Indian policy in particular, to repair history without creating new conflict that reprises, even deepens, old animosities. This article will survey and analyze this process from both a policy and empirical point of view. In addition, this piece will review the nitty-gritty administrative procedures for putting land into trust, the various procedural challenges to this process, as well as substantive legal challenges to the validity of the land-into-trust portions of the IRA, especially in the state of South Dakota. Finally, the article will tally the empirical results to date, and conclude by examining non-litigation strategies and solutions with an eye on their ability to meet the needs of all concerned.
HIGHLY recommended.
Text of Comments Prepared by NICWA, NCAI, and NARF in Baby Veronica Press Conference
Comments as prepared for delivery for press teleconference regarding:
National Native Organizations Announce Pursuit of Civil Rights Lawsuit for Baby Veronica
National Native Organizations Announce Pursuit of Civil Rights Lawsuit for Baby Veronica
– Jacqueline Pata, Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians
– Terry Cross, Executive Director of National Indian Child Welfare Association
– John Echohawk, Executive Director of the Native American Rights Fund
Jacqueline Pata – Executive Director, National Congress of American Indians
Good afternoon and good morning to you all. Thank you for joining us. My name is Jacqueline Pata, as Thom said I’m the executive director of the National Congress of American Indians. I’m a member of the Raven/Sockeye Clan of the Tlingit Tribe and a member of the Central Council of the Tlingit-Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
Before I begin with our announcement today, I’d like to open with some context to our announcement.
Within the United States, there are 566 sovereign tribal nations, which are recognized as having an official nation-to-nation relationship with the United States federal government. There are many more tribes with relationships with state governments. To date, there are well over 5.2 million individuals who identify alone or in combination with another race as American Indian or Alaska Native.
The National Congress of American Indians has served as the unified voice advocating for the rights of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments and citizens since 1944.
As tribal nations we have a historic, political relationship with the United States as evidenced through numerous treaties, agreements, specific sections within the U.S. Constitution, as well as statutes which consider the unique needs and circumstances surrounding America’s first peoples. Additionally, Indian tribes have their own laws and governance structures which are inherent in nature, but also which the US has had a strong history of supporting and nurturing through legislation like the Indian Child Welfare Act, the Self-Determination Act, and more recently, Title 9 of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. As a result, the governments and citizens of our nations occupy a unique place within the United States, as nations operating within a nation. Also, tribes work daily with our counterparts in the federal, state, and local governments to ensure our laws are carried out in a manner that both furthers tribal self-governance, but is also grounded in strong working relationships established between tribal, federal and state governments to serve the best interests of our citizens of all our nations.
In essence, our citizens are both citizens of our tribal nations, and citizens of the United States. As such, individual Indians are afforded all of the same rights that every citizen within this union are afforded, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – and equally as important and significant in this matter, the right to due process, as outlined in the United States’ Constitution.
Which brings me to our announcement.
It is in the context of the rights of Americans and Native Americans that I announce today, along with our colleagues at the Native American Rights Fund and the National Indian Child Welfare Association, our intention to pursue a lawsuit related to any violations of Baby Veronica’s civil rights in this case.
Late Wednesday of last week the South Carolina Supreme Court issued a controversial order to the state’s family court calling for an expedited transfer of custody to the South Carolina-based adoptive couple without a hearing of best interest for Veronica.
When it comes to adoption proceedings, every court in this country has a legal obligation to put the best interests of a child first – every time, no matter the race of the child. This did not happen here. The South Carolina Court’s order represents a perilous prospect for not only Veronica, but any child involved in a custody proceeding in this country.
In a rush to judgment, the South Carolina Supreme Court ordered Veronica to be removed from her biological father without any consideration for her best interests. The decision contributes to the long and sordid history of Native American children being removed from their families without any consideration of their best interests. The National Congress of American Indians refuses to stand by as the rights of this child are violated.
Every American should be shocked by this decision – and in fact many Americans were, including those in the legal community, regardless of their previous opinions or stance on the case. This decision was also counter to the expectations outlined in the U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments and decision to remand the case to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
We are talking about the rights of a nearly 4-year old child – during an extremely sensitive period in her life. Her rights to a determination of best interest hearing in the South Carolina court system in all steps leading to this decision were anticipated and were guaranteed by all parties and the laws of the United States – in fact in all previous proceedings in South Carolina Veronica’s best interest was accounted for as evidenced in two previous hearings going back as far as two years ago.
In those hearings, it was determined that the child’s father in fact was the best person for Veronica to reside with. And those findings were appropriate; he has raised her for the past 19 months providing a loving home while also connecting her with her Native heritage. She is also a citizen of the Cherokee Nation. These circumstances should be evaluated in a venue that affords them their true value, such as a family court hearing to examine the best interests of the child – post the Supreme Court’s holding in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl.
We believe if her rights continue to be violated, this will represent the forced removal of a Native child from her Native family and community.
We are committed to fully examining these circumstances with all of our legal capabilities and will be calling on our allies in the civil rights and children’s rights communities to join us in standing for Veronica. Additionally, we have begun a process to notify the appropriate federal agencies of the process we have begun, including the Department of Justice.
I now turn today’s call over to Terry Cross of the National Indian Child Welfare Association for his statement. NICWA is a national voice for American Indian children and families, and the organization has been monitoring this case since Mr. Brown sought custody of his daughter.
Terry Cross – Executive Director, National Indian Child Welfare Association
Thank you Jackie, the National Indian Child Welfare Association also joins with NCAI and NARF to announce our intentions today to pursue legal actions and protect the rights of Veronica Brown as a child, as an American, and as an American Indian.
In a rush to judgment, the South Carolina Supreme Court ordered Veronica to be removed from her biological father without any consideration of her best interests. This is an alarming failure of the judicial system, and it represents a grave threat to the interests of all children in adoption proceedings, but most notably Native American children.
Moving forward we’re calling on all involved – the courts, the media, and the families – to proceed with extreme caution and care during this important time for Veronica.
Her rights are paramount and caution must be exercised for her rights to be upheld. This also could set an unsettling precedent for future children’s rights.
Veronica who is now almost four-years old, is a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, and more importantly she is also afforded the rights of every child involved in a custody transfer within the courts of the United States – this means she should also be afforded a hearing of best interest in any pending transfer of custody proceedings.
Veronica’s rights, like any other child’s rights in this situation, are the same rights that every child has access to and should not be superseded for any reason.
Two years ago, both the South Carolina Supreme Court and Family Courts held best interest hearings and determined that it was in Veronica’s best interest to be with her father and that he was fit parent. As a result the South Carolina Supreme Court transferred custody to Mr. Brown. The legal system worked then, but it is being ignored now. It is unconscionable that no best interest hearing has been held in conjunction with the latest transfer order. Every child deserves to have his or her best interests considered – that is a fundamental right, and one that should not be denied any child.
The previous ruling by the South Carolina Supreme Court, ruled in favor of the father establishing that putting Veronica in Brown’s care was in best interest. No best interest has ever been established for a transfer to the adoptive couple during the entire time of the case.
In the South Carolina Supreme Court decision, these were the court’s words (see original decision):
“The family court found persuasive the testimony that Father was a good father who enjoyed a close relationship with his other daughter…” (p.22)
“We can only conclude from the evidence presented at trial that Father desires to be a parent to Baby Girl, and that he and his family have created a safe, loving, and appropriate home for her….” (p.23)
“Likewise, we cannot say that Baby Girl’s best interests are not served by the grant of custody to Father, as Appellants have not presented evidence that Baby Girl would not be safe, loved, and cared for if raised by Father and his family.” (p.26)
And if the Court points to the fact that two provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act no longer applies, the court should consider their own words in the original decision;
‘South Carolina courts have a long history of determining custody disputes based on the “best interests of the child.”…This important history is not replaced by the ICWA’s mandate.” (p.24)
To understand that all parties involved called for these rights to be upheld, you only need to look to the comments delivered to the U.S. Supreme Court in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl as heard by the Justices months ago.
As the official representative for the child in the U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments, Paul Clement the attorney for the Guardian Ad Litem, made it very clear in his statements that if remanded back to the South Carolina Court there was every expectation that a hearing of best interest for Veronica must be held in order to uphold her rights.
His statements read as follows,
“I’m here representing the guardian who represents the best interest of the child. From the child’s perspective, the child really doesn’t care whose fault it was when they were brought in one custodial situation or another. They just want a determination that focuses on at the relevant time, that time, what’s in their best interest. And so in the same way that we think if you rule in our favor and you remand to the lower court that there has to be a best interest determination that takes into account the current situation,” (p.24)
There is even more information offered in the arguments made by Mr. Clement that point to the expectation that a best interest would be held, as well as in the Guardian’s Amicus to the U.S. Supreme Court. We will supply you those documents if you do not have them, as well as the audio clips of those oral arguments. (Click here to access the full transcript (p.24) and audio of this exchange between Clement and Justices.)
Our organizations are committed to supporting NARF as they look toward potential litigation to ensure Veronica’s rights will be protected.
The National Indian Child Welfare Association is concerned every time the rights of a child are violated, particularly when that child is a citizen of an Indian nation. We have long stood for Veronica and we will not stand idly by as her rights are overridden.
I now turn to John Echohawk, executive director of the Native American Rights Fund, the nation’s pre-eminent nonprofit law firm dedicated to asserting and defending the rights of Indian tribes, organizations and individuals nationwide.
John Echohawk – Executive Director, Native American Rights Fund
The Native American Rights Fund –NARF – joins with the National Congress of American Indians, the National Indian Child Welfare Association today, and with many others inside and outside of Indian country, in support of Dusten Brown, his family and the Cherokee Nation.
As you know, the Supreme Court of South Carolina issued its order last Wednesday, and gave Dusten and the Cherokee Nation five (5) days to file their petitions for rehearing. Those petitions will be filed today.
When, as anticipated, the Supreme Court of South Carolina denies those petitions for rehearing, its order will become final and this case will be remanded to the State Family Court [quote] “for the prompt entry of an order approving and finalizing Adoptive Couple’s adoption of Baby Girl” [end quote]. As reflected in the order, the courts of the State of South Carolina can summarily terminate Dusten’s rights as a father and—without any hearing on what is in the best interests of this Indian child—and without any regard for due process of law to protect her civil rights—can remove Baby Veronica from her Indian father, her Indian family, and her Indian tribe with whom she has been living with for the past 18 months.
This injustice cannot stand! As it has since it was established in 1970—NARF will stand firm for justice.
As Executive Director of NARF, I have instructed my legal staff to work with local counsel in South Carolina and Oklahoma to determine our best legal recourse through the federal courts to protect the rights of Baby Veronica. In this case, we strongly believe that federal civil rights laws are being violated, that other applicable provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act are being ignored by the state courts, and that the principles underlying treaty and international law protecting the rights of indigenous peoples are being undermined.
Thank you.
#END#
National Organizations Issue Press Release in Baby Veronica Matter
National Native Organizations Announce Pursuit of
Civil Rights Lawsuit for Baby Veronica
Civil Rights Lawsuit for Baby Veronica
Lack of hearing to determine best interest driving concerns of child’s rights violations
Washington, DC – Three of the nation’s leading tribal organizations announced today they are in the early stages of pursuing litigation to protect the civil rights of Veronica Brown, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation who has been denied due process in the South Carolina courts.
Late Wednesday of last week the South Carolina Supreme Court issued a controversial order to the state’s family court calling for an expedited transfer of custody to the South Carolina-based adoptive couple without a hearing of best interest for Veronica. It is standard procedure that adoption proceedings require a hearing to determine the best interest of the child in advance of any transfer proceedings, an essential step the South Carolina Supreme Court failed to take, thus denying Veronica the right to have her best interests considered.
Leaders of the Native American Rights Fund (NARF), National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), and National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) said they were compelled to begin a process to represent the rights of Veronica in the situation, based on the Court’s order.
“When it comes to adoption proceedings, every court in this country has a legal obligation to put the best interests of a child first – every time, no matter the race of the child. This did not happen here. The South Carolina Court’s order represents a perilous prospect for not only Veronica, but any child involved in a custody proceeding in this country,” said Jacqueline Pata, Executive Director of NCAI. “In a rush to judgment, the South Carolina Supreme Court ordered Veronica to be removed from her biological father without any consideration for her best interests. The decision contributes to the long and sordid history of Native American children being removed from their families without any consideration of their best interests. The National Congress of American Indians refuses to stand by as the rights of this child are violated.”
Terry Cross, Executive Director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association outlined the history of best interest determinations within the case and how they run contrary to the order issued by the court last Wednesday:
“Two years ago, both the South Carolina Supreme Court and Family Courts held best interest hearings and determined that it was in Veronica’s best interest to be with her father and that he was fit parent,” said Cross. “As a result the South Carolina Supreme Court transferred custody to Mr. Brown. The legal system worked then, but it is being ignored now. It is unconscionable that no best interest hearing has been held in conjunction with the latest transfer order. Every child deserves to have his or her best interests considered – that is a fundamental right, and one that should not be denied any child.”
The previous ruling by the South Carolina Supreme Court, ruled in favor of the father establishing that putting Veronica in Brown’s care was in best interest. No best interest has ever been established for a transfer to the adoptive couple during the entire time of the case. The organization’s pointed to the court’s findings to favor Brown, thus leading to the placement (see original decision):
“The family court found persuasive the testimony that Father was a good father who enjoyed a close relationship with his other daughter…” (p.22)
“We can only conclude from the evidence presented at trial that Father desires to be a parent to Baby Girl, and that he and his family have created a safe, loving, and appropriate home for her….” (p.23)
“Likewise, we cannot say that Baby Girl’s best interests are not served by the grant of custody to Father, as Appellants have not presented evidence that Baby Girl would not be safe, loved, and cared for if raised by Father and his family.” (p.26)
Additionally, the presenters addressed the issue that certain provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act no longer applied. Cross identified that in the court’s own decision in the original case it was stated that;
‘South Carolina courts have a long history of determining custody disputes based on the “best interests of the child.”…This important history is not replaced by the ICWA’s mandate.” (p.24)
The organization’s also highlighted the comments of Paul Clement the official representative for the child in the U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments, and the lawyer arguing for attorney for the Guardian Ad Litem, stating that if remanded back to the South Carolina Court there was every expectation that a hearing of best interest for Veronica must be held in order to uphold her rights;
“I’m here representing the guardian who represents the best interest of the child. From the child’s perspective, the child really doesn’t care whose fault it was when they were brought in one custodial situation or another. They just want a determination that focuses on at the relevant time, that time, what’s in their best interest. And so in the same way that we think if you rule in our favor and you remand to the lower court that there has to be a best interest determination that takes into account the current situation,” (p.24)
Click here to access the full transcript (p.24) and audio of this exchange between Clement and Justices.
John Echohawk, Executive Director of NARF, the nation’s leading non-profit law firm which has represented the interests of Indians and Indian tribes in federal and state courts since 1970 outlined the next steps to be taken by the organizations:
As you know, the Supreme Court of South Carolina issued its order last Wednesday, and gave Dusten and the Cherokee Nation five (5) days to file their petitions for rehearing. Those petitions will be filed today.
When, as anticipated, the Supreme Court of South Carolina denies those petitions for rehearing, its order will become final and this case will be remanded to the State Family Court [quote] “for the prompt entry of an order approving and finalizing Adoptive Couple’s adoption of Baby Girl” [end quote]. As reflected in the order, the courts of the State of South Carolina can summarily terminate Dusten’s rights as a father and—without any hearing on what is in the best interests of this Indian child—and without any regard for due process of law to protect her civil rights—can remove Baby Veronica from her Indian father, her Indian family, and her Indian tribe with whom she has been living with for the past 18 months.
As Executive Director of NARF, I have instructed my legal staff to work with local counsel in South Carolina and Oklahoma to determine our best legal recourse through the federal courts to protect the rights of Baby Veronica. In this case, we strongly believe that federal civil rights laws are being violated, that other applicable provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act are being ignored by the state courts, and that the principles underlying treaty and international law protecting the rights of indigenous peoples are being undermined.
Justice Harlan’s Multicultural Theory of the Commerce Clause?
Law scholars have recently published the text of Justice John Marshall Harlan’s lectures on constitutional law.
An excerpt, of course related to Indians:
Our relations with the Indians in this country are of a peculiar character. Here is the power given to Congress to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes. The Indian tribes are a peculiar people, and our relations with them are peculiar. We sometimes have made treaties with the Indians, but our making treaties with them does not stand exactly upon the footing of our treaties with foreign nations. We have been in the habit, since the foundation of the government, of making treaties with the Indians, and then when we wanted another treaty, compelled them to make another. If we want a treaty modified, why the chiefs are brought here, and broadcloth clothes put on them, and they are shown all the sights around Washington, and we get out of them such a treaty as we want. They are the wards of the nation, not citizens of the United States. They are dependent upon us. They are mere wards, but the men who framed the Constitution knew what infinite trouble there would be if the subject of our relations with the Indians were not put in Congress, but left with the states.
Therefore, the Congress of the United States may say exactly what may go to the Indians, and what may not. Congress may say that no spirituous liquors may be carried into the Indian nations. Congress may prescribe the rule by which you are to be governed in your trading with them. Congress may say, you shall not trade with this tribe at all, or if you do trade with it, it shall be under certain circumstances, and it was necessary to put it there because no state had exclusive interests or control over the Indians. They were scattered throughout the country, and it would never have done at all, as bad as has been the conduct of the United States towards that dying race, to have left it to the states. The states would have dealt with them in a way that might have shocked humanity, as some of them did, and although they have been fairly well treated in their general control by the United States, it is a race that is disappearing, and probably within the lifetime of some that are now hearing me there will be very few in this country. In a hundred years, you will probably not find one anywhere, so that clause of the Constitution about regulating commerce with the Indian tribes will amount to nothing.
A very robust defense of Congressional plenary power over Indian affairs, along the lines the Court was going in United States v. Kagama. But the next paragraph is interesting:
That is not the only race that is disappearing. I may digress this far, and I only do so for the purpose of indicating the immense reach of this commerce power after awhile. To my mind, to my apprehension, it is as certain as fate that in the course of time there will be nobody on this North American continent but Anglo-Saxons. All other races are steadily going to the wall. They are diminishing every year, and when this country comes to have, as it will before a great many years, two or three hundred million of people, when states that are now sparsely populated become thickly populated, we will then appreciate, or the country will then appreciate more than it does now, the immense importance of the common government of the whole country having power to protect trade between the states and with foreign nations, beyond the power of any state for its selfish purposes to harass it.
Pages 132-33.
Hmmm. So if the non-whites will all die off, then the 300 million people of the United States (virtually all white) will really need the commerce clause and the national power that comes with it. Ok, so what does that say about a nation of 300 million where whites are soon going to be in the minority? Would Justice Harlan say national power is more or less necessary to govern in that circumstance? It seems to me that the national power to regulate Indian affairs remains viable and important so long as there are Indian nations. It turned out that Justice Harlan was wrong, as so many were in the 19th and early 20th centuries, that the vanishing race would vanish.
Interestingly, Justice Harlan appears to regret his dissent in Elk v. Wilkins (or maybe just saying that as a dissenter, he was inherently wrong by virtue of the vote):
Judge, does that include Indians?
No. The case of Elk against Wilkins—I wish I knew the volume—they were considered an exception.488 You will find a very learned opinion there by the majority of the Court. It was the case of an Indian who had left his tribe and came into the state of Nebraska, intending to become a part of that people, and the majority of the Court thought that he could not become a citizen of the United States. That case was apart from this Amendment. They were wards of the nation, and they thought he could not become a citizen of the United States. I had the misfortune to differ from the Court upon that question, and of course I was wrong.
Pages 266-67.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.