You are receiving this email from The Beckham Publications Group Inc because you purchased a product/service or subscribed on our website. To ensure that you continue to receive emails from us, add barry@beckhamhouse.com to your address book today. If you haven't done so already, click to confirm your interest in receiving email campaigns from us.
 
You may unsubscribe if you no longer wish to receive our emails.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Better English 54
Timely Communications Tips
January18, 2011
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE MEN AND WOMEN IN ROBES
-- ALL THE LAW IS SEMANTICS
-- PARK ON A DRIVEWAY

Can we learn from those stodgy folks in robes--the judges? Maybe their decisions are really essays that can help us write better. Let's see.

ALL THE LAW IS SEMANTICS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 An enterprising student at Harvard Law School, reflecting on the professor's statement, declared, "But sir, that's just a matter of semantics."

"My boy," responded the lecturer, "all the law is semantics."

Having read today that an Illinois appellate court ruled that Rahm Emanuel cannot run for Chicago mayor because he had not met Chicago's one-year residency requirement, I thought I'd see if there are any tips for my readers.

One intriguing fact: two judges voted that he was not eligible to run and one thought he could. One dissenter of the three? And a woman?

How did she fashion her argument? How do you disagree with the majority and make a compelling argument--or not?

Of the 42-page decision, Judge Bertina Lampkin took only 17 to make her points. Hint: it's good to be short-winded when you are outnumbered.

Her first paragraph has only three sentences, and the first is "I dissent." Can you outline your major points of a 17-page argument in two sentences?

Can you make it clear what this is all about? What is the issue? Why are we here? What's the deal, anyway? In two sentences? She does.

First Lampkin says that she affirms the circuit court decision that declared Emanual eligible to run.

In the next sentence, she states that he is both a qualified elector and has resided in Chicago at least one year next preceding the election.

With her central thematic positions clear, she must now do what all we essayists must do--support our assertions with facts, examples, definitions and more.

If Emanuel did not abandon his residence in Chicago while he worked in Washington, DC, then what declarations and facts can she bring to our attention to support this assertion?

  • Before leaving, he leased his home in Chicago for safety reasons
  • He left 100 boxes of valuable possessions in a storage area in the Chicago home
  • The lease terms of the houses in Chicago and DC coincided with the academic year to cut disruption of the children's schooling
  • He returned to Chicago for appointments with doctors, for home repairs, and for piano tuning
  • He never voted in DC
  • He never had a DC driver's license or a DC car registration
  • He never demonstrated interest in selling his Chicago home
  • He never conducted personal banking in DC
The good essayist--or good jurist--looks for that which could be ignored if not cited. You may recall the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City when black athletes raised their fisted black power salute.

It was journalist Harry Edwards who revealed that perhaps the true revolutionary of that event was Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. According to Edwards, the athletes had met months earlier to determine how they would protest. Originally, they all agreed to boycott the 1968 Olympics. When push came to shove, only Kareem stayed home.

For the swipe file crowd, here are some phrases Judge Lampkin uses that may help you deflate your opponent:
  • This is pure flight of fancy
  • The majority's analysis goes further astray...
  • not relevant to the resolution of this case,
  • The majority distorts this principle
  • compels the conclusion
  • the majority promulgates a new and undefined standard
  • The majority's attempt to maneuver around...is futile
  • to the contrary,
  • The majority imagines that...
  • It is patently clear...
Finally, it's a good idea to have what we now call a sound bite. But the essayists call it a repeat of your theme, a pull-out of what your central idea is. Here is Judge Lampkin's soundbite:

"Instead, Pope confirms the well-established legal premise that once a residence has been established, a person, by temporary removal of himself and his family into another State with the intention to return, will not thereby lose his residence in this State provided he does no act from which the acquisition of a new residence may be inferred."

PARK ON A DRIVEWAY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Why do we park on a driveway and drive on a parkway?

Yours sincerely,
Barry Beckham


Quick Links...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  • Newsletter
  • Beckham Publications


    • Contact Information
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~