It’s so obvious that we’re embarrassed to point it out. 

The Supreme Judicial Court should not be endorsing or funding groups of lawyers that appear before it or any other court in the state. 

And yet that is exactly what they do with the "poverty lawyers." 

Suppose you’re a judge on the Superior Court in Hampden County and a lawyer for Western Massachusetts Legal Services appears before you to ask for a class action suit in favor of over 5,000 welfare recipients who have been taken off the rolls. You know that this is opposed by the Governor and that these lawyers are funded and supported by your bosses at the SJC. Would it enter your mind that these lawyers who are appearing before you are friends of your boss? 

Suppose you’re a judge on the Probate Court in Norfolk County and a lawyer for Greater Boston Legal Services appears for a poor woman who is getting a divorce. Would it enter your mind that these lawyers get $3.7 million from your bosses and that they "screen their clients very carefully" so that they represent only those who truly need help? And that they keep track of the judges who are "good" and those who are "bad?" 

How can this incest be taking place with no one questioning it? 

The real answer is that we should not have a statewide system of legal aid for the poor. It should be done at the local level. It should not start in Washington and funnel down through Beacon Hill in a giant labyrinth. It should start, and end, in each county. 

But at the very least, if we are going to have a federal and statewide system, it should not be parceled out by the very judges who hear the cases. That should be obvious to everyone. 

But think of the power they would lose if they did not control these millions of dollars. Even though their conflict is obvious to anyone, they will not easily let go of that money. 

The hiring of more "poverty lawyers" will not solve the problems that we see in our society. 

We have witnessed the number of lawyers jump from 15,000 in 1970 to 38,000 in Massachusetts today – even though our population has stayed about the same at approximately 6 million people. 

Does anyone really believe that adding more lawyers will improve our society? 

A lawyer is a "hired gun" who will go to war for the first person who hires him. There is nothing wrong with that any more than there is for a person to be a policeman or a soldier. The independent lawyers are our last bulwark against a totalitarian government. 

But we must realize that when we hire a lawyer, we’re going to war. No one will win the battle. Even the "winner" will find that the ordeal and trauma were not worth it. 

It’s amazing how many "peace" and "love" people are the first ones to say, "Sue the bastard." 

All of us who attended law school in the 1950’s were taught that a successful society lives by its mores, i.e., its unwritten rules. If you hold a door for a person behind you, it is not because it is the "law." If you give your bus seat to an old woman, it is not because it is the "law." 

You do these things because this is gracious and a part of civilized living. We cannot write a "law" about every gracious act. It would destroy society to attempt to do so. The vast majority of citizens are very happy to follow the mores of their society. 

In the law schools of today, they apparently teach just the opposite, i.e., every "slight" should be outlawed. And everyone must sue for every "slight." 

This has led us to a very litigious society that wants to sue for every problem. And they want to make a federal case out of everything. 

Even our Supreme Judicial Court does not seem to recognize that. They really believe that suing everyone with more and more poverty lawyers will solve the problems of society. They will not. Everyone used to know that. 

Are you a "body with a mind" or a "mind with a body?" 

That’s a very simple decision – everyone has made it but doesn’t realize it. It will govern your entire life on earth. 

Let’s suppose you’ve decided you are a "body with a mind." Then at four-years-of-age you will have demanded ice cream and cake for breakfast, lunch and dinner, even though such a diet will destroy you. 

As an adult you will do similar things because your body "demands it." Whether it is sex or drugs that your body demands, it will always be in control. This will mean that "you", whoever and whatever that elusive "you" is, will always be a slave to your body. 

On the other hand, if you decide you are a "mind with a body," you will see your body as a very expensive vehicle you use to explore the earth. You will realize that the electric circuitry that transverses your body is by itself a miracle that no man will ever be able to duplicate. You will take care of that vehicle as though it were a new Porsche because it is infinitely more complex and precious. 

The first category of people includes the humanists because they believe that the mind is merely an extension of the body. It all came from slime. And when the body dies, the mind goes with it. 

The second category includes those Christians and Jews who believe we have a soul that came to earth and was given a body. We will return to Heaven when our earthly trip is over. Our body is given to us by God for our use. It should not control our lives anymore than any other vehicle would do. We wouldn’t plan our lives around a Porsche. 

This simple decision affects your life. 

Over 200 people gathered at Smith College on a Monday evening last month to hear lies about the jury verdict in the tragic shooting death of the unfortunate Bronx resident Amadou Diallos, according to a story in the Hampshire Gazette. 

"As an African American woman born in Brooklyn, New York … I am absolutely appalled by this racist, white verdict," said Nicole Junior, who is a junior at the college. She continued, "We should not and cannot be content with this verdict." 

The only problem with Junior’s racist remark is that four members of the 12-person jury were black, including the forewoman of the jury. This can hardly be called a "white verdict" as she proclaimed. 

The Hampshire Gazette added to the unfortunate incident by reporting to its readers many of the facts of the shooting and the trial of the police officers, but not mentioning the composition of the jury. Didn’t reporter Molly S. Delano bother to research this fact or did she withhold it from her readers on purpose? 

We have enough problems in our society without this type of conduct. We will never be able to solve any of those problems as long as our preeminent colleges continue to disregard the truth and say whatever happens to agitate a crowd. 

A trio of students was brave enough to appear at the rally with an American flag and placards that read, "You weren’t there, the jury was." The Gazette wrote: "Their presence angered some attendees, who, through the microphone, asked the small group to leave. After debating with some students, they left without protest." 

Left without protest? There were 200 people demanding that they leave. Was the trio threatened? 

One of them, Christina Johnson, tells Massachusetts News that they were very concerned about their safety and that is precisely why they left. She also indicates that the president of the college, Ruth J. Simmons, was present but did nothing to protect them. 

So much for truth at Smith College in the year 2000. 

Some of us can still remember when the purpose of Smith College was to discover the truth. 

"Cleansing" our public schools of all religious expression…inevitably results in the "establishment" of disbelief–atheism–as the State’s religion. Since the Constitution requires neutrality, it cannot be the case that government may prefer disbelief over religion. –U. S. Court of Appeals. Eleventh Circuit, Chandler v. James, July 13, 1999. 

We need "separation of church and state" because the schools in Massachusetts are run by members of the Humanist religion. The Christian and Jewish religions are excluded by the Humanists. The Unitarian Church, which is headquartered in Boston, is the chief proponent of this religion.   

Copyright ©1999 Massachusetts News, Inc. Photocopying and data processing storage of all or any part of this issue may not be made without prior written consent.