Attorneys Blog

Blog

University of Oklahoma Law Center Commencement Address – Division of Legal Assistant Education Graduation

“We cannot direct the wind, but we can adjust the sails.”
-Unknown

The beauty of the law is that it is dynamic – it changes as society changes. The law adapts to technological developments, to shifts in social values, and to the problems of modern society. The key to succeeding in this dynamic legal environment is that we too must learn to adapt-to adjust our sails.

As I look at all of you today, I cannot help but see myself ten years ago, a new graduate of this highly respected program. Back in 1993, I was working part-time in a law office while teaching nursing full time, with a few weekends of hospital work thrown in the mix to keep in touch with the “real world.” The rest of my “free time” was spent with studying and attending classes here. In anticipation of graduation, and a move out of state to Texas…I sent resumes to quite a few law firms looking for the perfect place to begin my new career. I interviewed with several. The first firm I spoke with kept their paralegals in a quansit hut near the back parking lot, isolating them from the main activity of the firm, I did not feel that would be a good place to work, and learn…so I continued interviewing and searching. One firm stood out in my job search. This firm was over 100 years old, and had attorneys with very different backgrounds and experiences. The combined experience of these five attorneys spanned nearly 75 years practicing law. Often the partners and their secretaries would share stores of their challenges, clients and, and even failures. Although I did not realize it at the time, working for this firm would be a life-changing and career developing experience for me.

I worked with five different attorneys, each with his own style and personality. Very early I learned that part of my job was to adapt to their differing approaches and preferences. I was often “adjusting my sails” to accommodate them. I was asked to work in areas of law that were unfamiliar to me. I had to learn to listen, to ask questions, to think creatively, to accept criticism, and to adjust my sails.

Some of the most important lessons I have learned over the years were not ones from a textbook. And today I will share them with you. Among these “real world” lessons were:

Most law offices are not like the ones depicted on shows like The Practice or Ally McBeal, and most attorneys are not going to look or act like Dylan McDermott or Calista Flockhart.

Do not assume, always verify the facts.

Pay attention to detail. No one ever lost a case by knowing the facts too well.

If you don’t know the answer, know the resources you can use to find it. Knowing the resource is half the battle.

Proofread all work. One mistake can compromise your case. Even though I didn’t like it, I learned this lesson-sometimes the hard way-but I learned it.

Respect your attorney and their client by meeting or exceeding deadlines. No one has ever been fired for finishing a project early.

Networking is invaluable. You can never know too many knowledgeable people.

Treat legal secretaries with respect. You will find that they actually know more about some things than you do.

Listen and learn. Everyone has something to offer. You can learn from the most experienced of veterans and the most inexperienced “greenhorns.” Great ideas sometimes come from the most unexpected sources.

Document, document, document…each task completed, each client communication, each conference with an attorney and all deadlines.

Do not participate in office gossip, in the end it serves no purpose and is a distraction from your assigned tasks.

Do not lose sight of who you are really working for: the client. You may have twenty files On your desk, but to each client, their file is the only one that is important to them.

Join and participate in local, state and national professional organizations, and take advantage of continuing education programs offered to their members. Through these activities you can exchange ideas, learn new resources, and develop a valuable network of peers.

I believe all of these “real world” lessons are important, but the most important lesson I have learned is that success can only be achieved on your terms. Everyone has his or her own idea of what a successful career is. Ultimately, true success is how each of us chooses to define it. When I started this program, my friends and family asked me why? I had an education, and a career, was I crazy? When I left a 10-year career in nursing education to work for attorneys, my nursing colleagues thought I was crazy. When I changed careers again to be an independent medical legal consultant, they again said I was crazy. But I am not crazy. I am happy. I am successful on my own terms. Don’t let someone else decide what your success should be. If your success is not on your own terms-if it looks good to the world but does not feel good in your heart-it is not success at all.

The wind changed many times in my life and each time I adjusted my sails. My career has been an incredible journey. Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined in 1993 that I would be standing here ten years later, before a graduation class of my peers, and telling of my experiences and life lessons, much less giving career advice.

Each class, each job, each life experience along the journey was a foundation for the next step. Today you take a step toward your careers as a paralegal. Learn from each case you assist with. Learn from each attorney you work with. Let each of these lessons be a foundation for your next experience. And, most importantly, when the wind changes adjust your sails. An incredible journey awaits you.

Blog / Injury Law

Why Injuries Occur in Minor Vehicle Damage Collisions

Abstract
The reasons why injuries can occur in collisions with little or no damage have been examined. Analysis of the underlying math and physics reveals that reliance on vehicle damage alone to determine the severity of a collision is invalid. Discounting injuries based on lack of vehicle damage is not supported by either the laws of physics or the empirical data available. Additionally, the use of a threshold for injuries has been refuted by the principles of biomechanics and the empirical data.

Introduction
The reconstruction of many traffic collisions is significantly complicated by the absence of hard data. It is not uncommon for the accident either to be not investigated, or investigated only superficially. This is especially true in collisions where the property damage is minor. Compounding the problem is that many of these collisions appear to be noninjury crashes until a few hours after the police have left 1. Often, the only information available is the damage to the vehicles, the statements of the parties involved and the medical data. A thorough analysis of both the speeds involved and the injury potential of the collision requires the inclusion of all three of these items. However, there is not a quantitative link between the speeds involved and the injuries received. As such, speed determination and injury potential can be discussed separately.

PART1: Speed Determination in Minor Vehicle Damage Collisions

Speed determination of vehicles can be both qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative is usually subjective, and involves personal observations of witnesses or participants. Examples of this include statements about relative speed, “I was traveling at 20 m.p.h. and the other car was moving at the same speed”, or statements about absolute speed; “The car was going about 55 m.p.h.”

Quantitative determination of the speeds in traffic collisions involves the determination of a precise number or range of numbers and can be accomplished in two ways. The first is direct measurement. This includes the use of items such as RADAR guns and lasers. However, it is rare that direct measurement of speed exists in actual collisions.

The second quantitative method in speed determination is the application of the laws of physics to the physical evidence at the scene. This can include damage to the vehicles, preimpact evidence and post impact movement of the vehicles.

The quantitative method has significant limitations in minor vehicle damage collisions. Often there is minimal physical data on preimpact action or post-impact movements. For this reason, it is often necessary to combine quantitative physical evidence and the qualitative observations of the participants regarding actions and movement.

The most common qualitative attempt made is to look at the damage to the vehicle and attempt to divine an impact speed. From this, changes in velocity (delta-V) can be inferred 2. Determining an impact speed from damage in collisions where there is little or no damage has severe limitations. If a collision results in no visible damage, and the impact is bumper-tobumper, it is probable that the impact speed was over 10 m.p.h. This is based on hundreds of crash tests that have been run throughout the United States, Canada, Europe and Japan i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, viii. As an example, Figure 1 shows the rear bumper of a Ford Festiva that was just hit from behind at approximately 11 m.p.h. This vehicle had no damage despite the fact it had been involved in a frontal impact at approximately 7 m.p.h. previously that day.

The qualitative method is also limited when the reconstructionist has only pictures of a vehicle, often taken in such a way that damage is not visible. Figure 2 shows a Dodge Intrepid that was just impacted at over 20 m.p.h.

Even with repair estimates it is difficult to ascertain anything less than a minimum impact speed. If damage is visible, a reasonable minimum is a 10 m.p.h. impact speed. If damage extends beyond the bumper, 15 m.p.h. is a reasonable minimum impact speed. It is rare to have an impact speed as high as 20 m.p.h. with no damage. However, the absence of visible damage in a poor photograph is not the same as there being no damage.

Another source of information that can be used, and is often overlooked, is frame or unibody damage. This is often the first damage that is visible in a rear impact and is captured in the repair estimates only a fraction of the time. It can be inferred through physical inspection of the vehicle and proven with inexpensive laser measurements. It is usually not visible in photographs taken by insurance companies. Figure 3 shows a vehicle with significant unibody distortion that required physical inspection to identify it. Figure 4 is a printout showing the unibody damage. This vehicle had distortion of 17 millimeters that was not visible in the photographs.

The common error in determining speed based on damage where there is little or no damage is to make an invalid comparison to a non vehicle-to-vehicle crash tests. The most widespread of these is comparison to tests run by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Almost as widespread, is the comparison to bumper standards. Finally, comparison to other non-IIHS crash tests is common.

IIHS Crash Tests
Every year the IIHS, an insurance industry funded group, runs numerous crash tests of vehicles into barriers at low speed. The IIHS then publishes the results as an indication of how much damage a vehicle will incur in a low speed collision. Usually these tests are run at 5 m.p.h. into walls or poles. Many times a reconstructionist will attempt to compare the damage in a vehicle-to-vehicle collision with the damage in an IIHS test. Based upon the principle of conservation of energy, this will grossly underestimate the actual collision speed (see the discussion of barrier impacts below). As an example, the Dodge Intrepid, (See figure 2) has a bumper rating of “marginal” from the IIHS, just above the lowest rating of poor.

Most midsize small Honda vehicles receive a bumper rating of “acceptable”. Figure 5 shows the Honda Prelude that struck the rear of the Intrepid in Figure 2. The impact was initially bumper-to-bumper. While the IIHS did not provide a specific rating on the Honda Prelude bumper, based on barrier test, the damage should be reversed.

IIHS barrier test data does not reflect the performance of actual bumpers in vehicle-tovehicle collisions. The data only provides information on how bumpers will perform when running into walls.

It is worth noting that the IIHS implies that the reason they run barrier tests is to ascertain the performance of bumpers in vehicle-to-vehicle collision. Their web site ix has the following statement;

Bumpers should protect car bodies from damage in low-speed collisions, the kind that frequently occur in congested urban traffic. But many don’t. The Institute assesses performance using the costs of repairing vehicle damage in a series of four crash tests at 5 mph — front- and rear-into-flat-barrier, front-into-anglebarrier, and rear-into-pole.

IIHS does not test bumpers under conditions that match their implied goal. Their data does not establish the actual performance of bumpers in vehicle-to-vehicle collisions. The data collected by the IIHS has no relevance in determining the impact speed in a vehicle-to-vehicle collision, although it is commonly used in litigation in support of the insurance companies that fund the IIHS 3.

Bumper Standards
A misconception often propagated is that if a vehicle has a 2.5 m.p.h. bumper and the bumper is not damaged, the impact speed was under 2.5 m.p.h. This is a misapplication of the bumper standards x. The standard establishes the conditions under which bumpers cannot be damaged. It does not establish the standard under which a bumper must be damaged. Empirical evidence reveals that in vehicle to vehicle collisions xi, the bumpers will not be damaged until bumper standard speed has been exceeded by a factor of 2 to 8 times.

It is worth noting that the design of modern bumpers often prevents the direct observation of bumper damage without physical removal of the bumper.

Non vehicle-to-vehicle impacts
The most common of these are barrier impacts of the type described in the section on IIHS. A vehicle 4 is run into a barrier of some kind and the damage is compared to the actual collision. However, the physics of the collision does not support this. In a barrier impact, virtually all of the energy goes into damaging the vehicle since it cannot go anywhere else. In vehicle-to-vehicle collisions, most of the energy goes into moving the vehicle. Therefore, a car that is damaged in a 5 m.p.h. barrier test, may not be damaged in a 15 m.p.h. vehicle to vehicle collision xii.

Table 1 Damage comparison between VTB and VTV collisions.

Table 1 is a comparison of four Honda Accords from tests run by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The first vehicle impacted a barrier. The other three vehicles were involved in vehicle-to-vehicle (VTV) collisions at significantly higher speeds. Even when the car-to-car collision had three times the energy of the vehicle to barrier collision (VTB), the damage was less. The percentage listed is relative to a barrier impact.

Computer Programs
Solving for the speed of a vehicle in an automobile accident often involves solving up to six simultaneous equations with over a dozen variables. For this reason, even when fewer equations and variables are involved, computers have been employed to help solve the equations.

Among the earliest attempts to solve this problem was the Simulation Model of Automobile Collisions, (SMAC) developed by Calspan under DOT contract. In this program, the initial conditions, such as speed, type of vehicle and directions were entered into the computer and the system would determine where the vehicles should end up. The investigator could then look at the results and alter the initial conditions until the solution matched the final results of the actual collision being investigated. The problem with this approach was the large amount of computer time required to run a single simulation 5. For this reason, a preprocessor was written in an attempt to get a starting point that was “close”.

The preprocessor was the Calspan Reconstruction of Accident Speeds on the Highway (CRASH) xiii. This program used several approaches in an attempt to approximate a collision. One method used the post impact movement of the vehicles, another used the damage to the vehicles while a third used both. This program was thought to be accurate to within 10% in collisions with a change in velocity of under 15 m.p.h. However, full scale testing revealed that in this range, the program isn’t reliably accurate to within 100% xiv and can actually return impossible answers.

Despite these shortcoming in the program, and the fact it was designed to be a first step in a reconstruction, the equations developed were copied and propagated throughout the accident reconstructioncommunity. Over time, the equations took many forms and became increasingly accepted as scientifically valid. Even when full-scale tests showed the equations to be invalid they weren’t abandoned, they were modified and adjusted. This occurred in spite of the fact that the basic underlying assumptions were not valid for anything more than a first order approximation 6.

In an attempt to validate the approach, there was a full-scale study done in 1978 called RICSAC xv. The study consisted of 12 staged collisions of various speeds and crash geometry. These crashes were used to determine the validity of the CRASH program and its successors. An attempt was made to define the error of the estimate independent of impact speed. The problem with this approach is that the impact speed is in error if it deviates from the measured data from the RICSAC tests. Table 2 is a graphical representation of the RICSAC results 7. The table shows that for all cases, the calculated values are different from the measured values. In one case, the program overstated the actual velocity of the vehicle (measured at 31.5 MPH) by over 20 MPH and in another instance shows the vehicle going backwards at 6 MPH when in reality the vehicle was not moving. Another case showed the calculated vehicle speed (measured at 31.5 MPH again) was understated by 11 MPH.

Numerous other tests have been run in an attempt to validate the model and all have shown unacceptable errors. In fact, the User’s manual from CRASH3 actually warns that the results may have no significance for any single collision. The problem this generates is that there is no mechanism for knowing when the program has given a correct answer.

Numerous other programs exist, some based on the CRASH3 model and some based on attempting to determine the energy involved in damaging the vehicle. The latter usually involves the determination of very low energy values for the damage. The problem with this is that thousands of ft-lbs of energy can be absorbed by the vehicles with no visible damage. This is complicated by the fact that energy absorption in collisions with no visible damage does not follow an identified pattern.

Other Errors
Other errors that are often seen but will not be extensively discussed include the use of bumper isolators and photographs to determine speeds and ignoring foam core bumper damage. Isolators are often used to assert a maximum impact speed. However, they only have some applicability in determining minimum impact speeds.

Photographs:
Photographs will also only provide reasonable minimum speeds. Figure 6 shows a typical low quality photograph often used to determine impact speed. The difficulty with this approach is that it is often hard to actually observe the damage.

This is informative because frequently the reconstructionist is only provided poor photographs from the insurance company. In “A Guide for Risk Managers and Claims Personnel 8”, the following statement appears.
“The most common mistake for an accident investigator is to just take a couple of overall shots of the vehicle, at some unknown and oblique angle.”
However, this is the most common type of photograph provided by insurance companies.

Foam core bumpers:

Foam core bumpers often show no visible damage even when the steel beam in the center is damage. In order to see this damage, it is common that the bumper must be removed. Figures 8 shows a foam core bumper with no visible damage. Figure 9 shows the damaged bumper of the vehicle in figure 8.

Part 2: Injury Potential in Minor Vehicle Damage Collisions

  • Location of applied forces
  • Magnitude of applied forces
  • Daily Activities
  • Injury Databases versus Injury Thresholds
  • Injury Study Data
  • Aggravating Factors

John Smith is the president of Raymond P. Smith and Associates. He has published and lectured extensively in the area of accident reconstruction and biomechanics. Mr. Smith was the supervising engineer for the low speed crash test depicted in the video “Four Speeds”.

The delay of symptom onset has been well documented in other articles. The Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine has reported that over 50% of injuries are not identified for 6 hours. Full scale testing has also revealed this delay.

Speeds can be calculated using the law of conservation of momentum and the coefficient of restitution.

Due to the principle of conservation of energy, strengthening bumpers actually results in increased injury potential in lower speed collisions, opposite of IIHS’s implied goals.

Occasionally vehicles are modified from manufacture’s specifications before the tests are run, altering the damage pattern.

The program was written before the days of desktop computers when everything ran on a main frame.

The derivation of the equations in the program required the use of numerous simplifying assumptions. However, when running the program, these assumptions are violated, invalidating the equations and any results.

Analysis showed that R squared was .5752. Statistically this means the calculated results from the program are meaningless. CRASH3 was a later version of CRASH.

“A Guide for Risk Managers and Claims Personnel” A Publication of Ruhl & Associates

“Investigation of the Kinematics of Whiplash”, Mertz, Patrick, SAE Paper 670919, 1967

Human Occupant Kinematic Response to Low-Speed Rear End Impacts, Szabo, Welcher, SAE 1994

An Investigation into Vehicle and Occupant Response Subjected to Low Speed Rear Impacts, Navin, Romilly, Proceedings of the Multidisciplinary Road Safety Conference VI, June 1989

Human Subject Kinematics and Electromyographic Activity During Low Speed Rear Impacts, Szabo, Welcher, SAE 1996

Engineering Report on Impact Tests, Smith, July 1997

Characteristics of Specific Automobile Bumpers in Low Velocity Impacts, SAE 940916

Analysis of Human Test Subjects Kinematic Responses to Low Velocity Rear End Impacts, McConnell, Howard, Guzman, Bomar, Raddin, Benedict, Smith, Hatsell, SAE 1993

Head/Neck Kinematic Response of Human Subjects in Low-Speed Rear-End Collisions, Siegmund, et al, SAE 1997

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 215

ibid

“Damage Only, It Doesn’t Work; Minor Vehicle Damage Doesn’t Mean No Injury”, John J. Smith, Alan J. Mencin

“User’s Manual for the CRASH Computer Program”, McHenry, R.R; February 1976, NTIS #PB 252115

“Further Validation of EDCRASH Using the RICSAC Staged Collisions”, Day, T.D., and Hargens, R.L., SAE Paper No. 890740.

ibid

Medical Records

On the Record: Scott Turow

Scott Turow is considered by some as the father of the modern legal thriller. He achieved literary fame in 1977 with the publication of “One L: An Inside Account of Life in the First Year at Harvard Law School”. Before attending Harvard, he earned a master’s degree in creative writing at Stanford University.

In 1987 Turow burst onto the literary scene with “Presumed Innocent”, which became an international bestseller and is often credited with creating popular demand for legal thrillers. Later this book was made into a hit movie starring Harrison Ford as the prosecutor Rusty Sabich. Turow has followed this breakout success with a string of best sellers.

Turow served as an assistant U.S. Attorney in Chicago in the 1980’s when the FBI and Justice Department conducted Operation Greylord. This operation was a massive undercover investigation into judicial corruption in Chicago’s Cook County. Fifteen local judges, and 49 lawyers were convicted. Turow prosecuted one of the most notorious judges, who received an 18-year prison sentence. After service in the Attorney General’s office, he entered private practice with the Chicago law firm of Sonnenschein, Nath, and Rosenthal.

The action in Turow’s most recent project, “Ordinary Heroes”, moves from the courtroom to the battlefields of World War II. When retired newspaperman Stewart Dubinsky (last seen in 1987’s Presumed Innocent) discovers letters his deceased father wrote during his tour of duty in WWII , a host of family secrets come to light. The characters and situations portrayed in Turow’s newest suspense novel are inspired in part by stories and letters shared by his father, who was an army physician.

Recently, Mr. Turow took time to visit about his career, and his thoughts on the modern judicial process.

Please tell us about your law practice and how you divide your time between the law firm and writing.
Turow: These days I am more writer than lawyer. I have practiced part time since roughly 1990, but I spend only about 300 hours a year now in legal work. Most days I write in the mornings, and as that peters out, turn my attention to the phone, or email, or else go into the office downtown. My practice is divided between criminal representation and my work as chair of the Illinois Executive Ethics Commission, A quasi-judicial agency involved with regulation and discipline of state executive branch employees.

Please tell us about your background and when you first realized you wanted to write, and practice law.
Turow: I realized I wanted to write and practice law when I realized I wasn’t going to support myself as a writer. In 1974 I had the choice of teaching, going to Hollywood for a studio staff job, going into advertising, or going to law school, with the promise that I’d find some way to continue to write. I chose the latter path.

You do pro bono work, and have had fund raising book events; what types of charitable activities are you involved in, and what is your philosophy?
Turow: I’m involved in a variety of charitable activities. I’m a trustee at Amherst College, a member of the Council of the Author’s Guild, and active with several local charities, including Literacy Chicago.

As a “baby boomer” born in 1949, how do you feel the events of the 60’s may have shaped you, and possibly the “boomer” generation?
Turow: The 60’s were basically a statement that our parent’s world would not do and that there had to be fundamental changes. I am one of those who thinks those years changed our way of life so much that for those who come later it’s impossible to even understand it. There was, to use a term that came much later, a paradigm shift.

Please tell us about some of your favorite characters, and if you have a favorite among your books.
Turow: No favorite book B it is like naming a favorite child, truly impossible – but I’m especially attached to Sandy Stern and Sonny Klonsky.

Your latest book, Ordinary Heroes, is a novel about a man’s decisions and actions during World War II. Please tell us a little about researching and writing material for the military versus civilian life and systems.
Turow: “Ordinary Heroes” was a gigantic research project that began with my father’s letters home from the European front and went in a zillion different directions; histories of the OSS , of Negro troops, or the JAG department, to reading the 1943 Edition of the Rules of Court-Martials and literally hundreds of narratives of the war, ranging from Robert Kotlowitz’s “Before Their Time” to many internet postings.

Can you explain how you achieve the balance of thoughtfulness and mystery to achieve the compelling scenarios?
Turow: There’s no formula. I love the plot, so forward movement is essential, but reflection is also indispensable in creating a believable world, at least one that’s believable to me.

How do you organize your writing, from beginning to end, or in certain segments, and approximately how long does it take to craft each one of your manuscripts?
Turow: Each novel since “Presumed Innocent” has been published three years after its predecessor, but that time has not always been spent the same way. For example, I finished a non-fiction book about the death penalty, “Ultimate Punishment”, in the interval between “Ordinary Heroes” and “Reversible Errors”. But I always start by just letting myself go and writing something different each morning. I’ll write “all over the book” as I put it, at first snatches of dialogue, a scene I like, a character’s background. Nothing organized. Eventually it becomes more whole in my mind. I do a “draft” which involves inserting blocks of the previously written material in some order. Then I write a continuous draft.

Have you ever actually tried a big case? What did you like the most about such trials? What did you like the least?
Turow: There’s a question that makes me laugh, since there was a time when I was a relatively prominent trial lawyer in this city. As an Assistant U. S. Attorney, I tried dozens of jury cases, the best known probably being the prosecution of a Reginald Holzer, a sitting judge, and former candidate for the Illinois Supreme Court, who was convicted of extortion and bribery. I was also the Junior Prosecutor on the trial of William J. Scott, then the Attorney General of Illinois.

Trial is the most consuming activity I have ever been involved in, which is what’s so great and what’s so awful about it. Life has few moments, aside from a birth, that are more dramatic than the instant before the jury renders a verdict in a major case; history is about to be made.

What did you do to prepare your self mentally for the trial of the case?
Turow: I haven’t tired a case in five years now, but I was by my own admission a maniac. I tried to imagine every conceivable permutation of events that might occur at trial and then be ready for it.

What role do paralegals play in your practice of law?
Turow: Large. I’ve worked with some great ones. Carolyn Dixon at the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Mary Kramer and Lynette Johnson at Sonnenschein. I – and several thousand documents – would have been lost without those great professionals.

What do you think of the jury system in America, if you could make any changes, what would you think would make for a better jury system?
Turow: I’m mildly skeptical about juries, but I’m not really sure that judges are any better. It might be interesting to try the system in Vermont, a Judge and two jurors to decide a case.

What role should redemption play in applying a death sentence?
Turow: The defendant’s capacity for redemption has traditionally been recognized as a prime consideration in determining whether a death sentence is warranted.

Do you think there is a constitutional right for the government to spy on US citizens without court oversight?
Turow: I had thought it was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 that the Government could not eavesdrop on private conversations within the United States without a warrant. Then again, I also thought that the Government could not take an American citizen into custody on our soil and hold him incommunicado, including without counsel – until I heard about Jose Padilla.

Perhaps I am wrong about the Constitution, but I doubt it. I think this will be remembered as a shameful period, in which we allowed Osama Bin Laden to diminish our freedoms, a victory he never deserved.

GetLegal

Foley