A Review Series of Anonymous Tip, by Michael Farris<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n Pp. 456-459<\/em><\/p>\n We\u2019re still at the Supreme Court. Peter goes on, this time talking about the tampering\u00a0allegations. At the end of his time he almost forgets the standard final words and starts to walk back to his seat, but remembers just in time.<\/p>\n There was a brief titter among the lawyers section for his rookie error at the very end. But every knowledgeable person in the courtroom was deeply impressed with all other aspects of the maiden voyage of Peter Barron, Esq., before the Supreme Court bar.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I don\u2019t usually read a lot of fiction (I don\u2019t have the time), but I\u2019ve picked up a new detective series that I absolutely love this year. And frankly, reading her writing\u2014good<\/em> writing\u2014has made the shortcomings\u00a0in Farris\u2019 writing only more clear. Now, Farris is somewhat of an amateur at fiction. He\u2019s a lawyer. He runs HSLDA. He\u2019s not a novelist as a career. That makes it feel somewhat unfair to judge his writing too harshly. But sometimes drawing attention to issues in Farris\u2019 writing is relevant, because it contributes to larger critiques.<\/p>\n The author of the detective series I\u2019m reading would never\u00a0tell her readers outright that \u201cevery knowledgeable person in the courtroom was deeply impressed\u201d the way Farris does here. True enough, the books are written in first person. Farris does head-hopping, writing in third person but hopping from perspective to perspective. He blurs the line, in a way. Even Farris\u2019s use of the term \u201cknowledgeable person\u201d raises questions\u2014what does he mean by that? All lawyers, with training?\u00a0It\u2019s unclear in a way that almost sounds elitist.<\/p>\n Perhaps the underlying problem here is that Farris engages in a lot of \u201ctell, don\u2019t show,\u201d which isn\u2019t generally considered good writing. He could have said the younger lawyers tittered at Farris\u2019s mistake, but several of the more established lawyers made a note to look up and reread the cases Farris had mentioned, or something like that that would indicate that they were taking him seriously. The \u201ctell, don\u2019t show\u201d bit is compounded further by Farris\u2019s constantly having everyone fawn over Peter. It feels very Mary Sue<\/a>:<\/p>\n A\u00a0Mary Sue<\/b>\u00a0is an idealized and seemingly perfect\u00a0fictional character<\/a>, a young or low-rank person who saves the day through unrealistic abilities. Often this character is recognized as an\u00a0author insert<\/a>\u00a0or wish-fulfillment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Anyway, back to the Supreme Court, where it\u2019s Gail\u2019s turn:<\/p>\n Gail Willet\u2019s performance was technically perfect. She was smooth. Her answers demonstrated thought, preparation, and knowledge of the relevant precedents.<\/p>\n But Justice Rose went after her in a relentless fashion that frightened Stephen Stockton to his core. It was obvious that his boss was going to be writing the opinion which attacked the constitutionality of his girlfriend\u2019s actions. The only question was whether his opinion would be the majority or the dissent.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This bit from Gail\u2019s closing remarks caught my eye:<\/p>\n \u201cIf we make child-abuse workers the target of every fee-hungry lawyer in America, we will have timid child-abuse workers and more of the battered and broken and lifeless bodies that are the real statistics of child abuse.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I am absolutely a proponent of accountability for every law enforcement or related official (including social workers employed by the state), but what Gail says here is in fact true<\/em>. I know it\u2019s true because I\u2019ve seen it happen with homeschooling, specifically.<\/p>\n When a\u00a0school district brings educational neglect actions\u00a0\u00a0against a homeschool family that is members of HSLDA, that family goes to HSLDA and HSLDA writes a letter to the school district. The same thing with social workers\u2014HSLDA immediately gets on the phone when a social worker visits an HSLDA-member\u2019s family. There is a chilling effect. School districts don\u2019t have the money for long and costly legal battles. Social workers have too many calls to attend to as it is. Several fellow\u00a0homeschool graduates\u00a0I\u2019ve spoken with have recounted reporting their parents\u2019 abuse or educational neglect of their younger siblings to the authorities\u00a0only to have their\u00a0parents have\u00a0HSDLA scare social workers and\/or the school district off the\u00a0case.<\/p>\n Yes, having access to lawyers is important. We desperately need to fund our public defender system more adequately. But\u00a0when we\u2019re talking about child abuse, we\u2019re not just talking about the parent\u2019s rights, we\u2019re talking about the children\u2019s rights as well. In Farris\u2019s world, the children don\u2019t have access to a lawyer, the parents<\/em> do. We need limits and safeguards, yes, and I am absolutely<\/em> against social workers (or law enforcement) falsifying records or going after individuals they know are innocent. But this isn\u2019t at all\u00a0as simple as Farris\u00a0wants to make it.<\/p>\n \u201cBe careful in your rebuttal,\u201d French whispered. \u201cShe was pure emotion. It will gain her a little, but the law wins votes.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is how Farris talks about children\u2019s rights advocates too, as though they\u2019re all emotion, all zealots, all focusing on fluff and not fact. But child abuse is very real. And yes, it\u2019s something people get emotional about. If Farris doesn\u2019t want social workers to be able to enter families\u2019 homes, is he proffering a solution? It\u2019s all well and fine to argue that X thing social workers do goes too far, but too often both Peter and Farris\u2019s solutions still focus on the parent rather than the child. Protecting the parent is logic, facts, rights. Protecting the child is emotion, fluff.<\/p>\n Farris\u2019 parental rights organization\u2019s website, as you may remember, bears this byline<\/a>: \u201cProtecting Children by Empowering Parents.\u201d That\u2019s all well and good if we\u2019re talking about parents\u2019 \u00a0education, job training, and employment; or affordable housing options; or parents\u2019 involvement in their children\u2019s education. But how does empowering parents protect children from child abuse, exactly? Sure, it might protect children from being separated from their parents over false child abuse allegations. But child abuse is a very real thing that actually does happen in too many families. What protects children then<\/em>, exactly?<\/p>\n We\u2019re now to Peter\u2019s rebuttal, and the Chief Justice (whom Farris does not name here) wrecks Peter\u2019s planned rebuttal by asking this question:<\/p>\n \u201cToday you argue that you should be allowed to sue for the document tampering because it occurred after the state child-abuse suit had been completely concluded. Why didn\u2019t you raise that issue in the lower courts?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Uh oh.<\/p>\n \u201cTwo quick parts of an answer. First, we alleged the facts including the timing of the tampering. We advanced a theory that Gwen Landis should be allowed to sue for that act of fraud. It is our position that we raised the issue. The other side certainly had notice of the issue. But did we raise the argument as precisely as we did in this Court? No, Your Honor I<\/em> did not. And the only reason I didn\u2019t is that I simply didn\u2019t recognize the argument until someone with more experience pointed it out to me. I guess that\u2019s why I practice law\u2014I practice because I am far from perfect.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I feel like you don\u2019t say something like that in front of the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n Peter\u2019s spirit was rejoicing in his honest answer. But his lawyer\u2019s mind told him that he had just admitted his incompetence and it would cost him the case.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And here\u2019s the problem\u2014Peter isn\u2019t just responsible to his rigid (but sometimes weirdly flexible) personal ethics system, he\u2019s also responsible to Gwen. How would you feel if you hired a\u00a0lawyer, and he or she essentially threw your case? Look, I\u2019m all for people being ethical. But if he was going to be this rigidly ethical, Peter should probably have dropped his appeal as soon as he realized he\u2019d messed up by not raising this issue before\u2014or he should have refrained from raising this issue in his Supreme Court briefs.<\/p>\n If you decide you\u2019re going to go to the Supreme Court making a new argument, when that is not allowed, you\u2019ve already decided that you\u2019re going to argue that it\u2019s not a new argument. To go to the Supreme Court and make a new argument, and then admit that it\u2019s a new argument when asked, is just weird<\/em>.<\/p>\n \u201cHurry!\u201d Professor French said. \u201cPack your things and let\u2019s go out the side. The Chief will call the next case in seconds and will get mad if we dawdle.\u201d<\/p>\n Peter\u2019s heart sank. The professor was disappointed. He could tell.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Well, yeah. See above. Professor French spent a lot<\/em> of time preparing Peter for this, and he knew this argument was new, too\u2014he\u2019s the one who told Peter he could find a way to wheedle it in and present it as not-new. Farris acted on his advice, at least until he was asked directly whether the argument was new, at which point\u00a0he laid his soul bare before the Supreme Court, admitting that he was wasting their time by raising a new argument.<\/p>\n Professor French leads Peter and Gwen from the room.<\/p>\n He quickly paced down the hall and ducked into the cloak room at its end. \u201cYes! Peter,\u201d he said putting his arm around the shaken barrister. \u201cThat was the best answer you could have possibly given. This Court seem sos many pompous jerks who think that the name of the game is being the Supreme Lawyer; they hate it. Humility and knowledge. Humility and knowledge. That is the best way to do it. You were fabulous.\u201d Turning to Gwen, \u201cHe was fabulous! Don\u2019t you think?\u201d<\/p>\n Gwen\u2019s head was spinning, but she nodded enthusiastically anyway.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Oh gosh, there is so much gender going on here.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n I feel like I have seen this movie before. Oh, right, it\u2019s called Chariots of Fire. And, like, this is effectively a whole genre of Christian literature<\/a>.\u00a0In this genre, a character does\u00a0the rigidly ethical thing even though it\u2019s clearly a terrible<\/em> idea\u2014and then everything works out perfectly, and they both win\/live\/whatever\u00a0and<\/em> can pat themselves on the back for doing the rigidly ethical thing. It is this genre Farris is engaging in.<\/p>\n I\u2019m going to leave off here for this week, but I do want to note that I got through the Supreme Court hearing in two posts. Impressive, no? Next week Peter will open Cindy\u2019s mysterious packet of financial documents.<\/p>\n