Alice Connice's parents received a bank notice of one thousand dollars after the end of the case, and they did not report the loss without a name. Any holder can withdraw cash at the bank at any time.

There was another letter sent with the check, which stated that the old couple would receive 1,000 US dollars every month until their lives ended, and there was no signature after the letter.

The two elderly people had very consistent opinions on the handling of the money, and they clearly refused.

Afterwards, Connies and his wife held a press conference, and clearly and solemnly used the media to show the world their handling methods. The two snow-white-haired elderly men tore the checks apart in front of the media, swearing, "Even if they are poor until they die in this life, they will never touch this money."

"We want some people to be guilty forever until he goes to hell!"

"Money may be bought in the United States of America, but when the Jews cross the tomb and stand before God, we can kneel piously at the foot of the Lord for acceptance."

"And some people's gold coins will fall on him forever, pressing him tightly in the hottest corner of hell. The fire will financialize the yellow and flow into his flexible mouth. No matter how hard the tongue is stirred, it cannot be stopped. The hot gold fills his greedy appetite drop by drop, and it will never end!"

...

Schools have not officially started in September, but the editorial department of Yale Law Review has begun to get busy.

In order to compete with the Harvard Law Review, student editors never dare to neglect their work and work diligently maintain the professionalism and high standards of this "student" publication.

In the first issue of September, an article was published for the first time. The author was Edward Yang, a second-year freshman who was a new editor (actually not yet accepted).

This article, titled "Why is the Goddess of Justice blindfolded" is more of a more lyrical prose than a serious jurisprudence commentary and discussion.

For this reason, the editorial department had a disagreement on whether to publish this article, but in the end, it decided to publish the full article without changing it. The reason was that Edward personally took over the lawsuit as a student of the law school, which was the glory of Yale; at the same time, Mr. George Duffy's previous recommendation letter also played a great role.

"Is Santo a hero?"

This question is raised at the beginning of the article.

The author then said that he was also very confused. Compared with Sheldon, who was widely sympathized with, although he was a terrorist who made bombs, there were still a lot of human highlights, such as his devotion to religion - running to the church to confess; his cherishing of friendship - unwilling to testify against accomplices in court.

These highlights are precisely the most cherished part of American culture and tradition.

Judge Arnold was denounced as a villain by the media and the masses. Because of media preferences, his last sentence in court was not widely disclosed. Even if some tabloids were published, it would arouse public anger. "That villain judge is clearly consuming the dead!" What followed was "a symbol of the shame of the United States' law", "a symbol of Russian spy infiltrated into the judicial world", and so on.

In the eyes of the people, the reputation of judges Sheldon and Arnold is inversely proportional to their identity. This is certainly one of the results of Edward's war of public opinion, but it also said that the Midi society is seriously polarized at this moment, and the traditional order no longer has majesty, but has become the object of ridicule and deconstruction.

Judge Arnold's identity and performance were embedded in it, and he could not break free even if he tried hard.

The two are clearly black and white.

Santo's identity is unclear. Many people think he is a hero and the guardian of the city, which is usually the conservative view; while the liberal masses directly denounce him as a scum villain and a destroyer of the constitution.

His reputation wanders between the Militarian men and the United States waste.

As an in-depth participant in the case, Edward was unable to answer this question in a comprehensive manner.

From this, the pen turned around and began to analyze the case.

The most fundamental contradiction in this case is that legal issues and moral standards are intertwined, so that practices that conform to the law are quite unethical. After moralism is supreme, the fairness of the law is suspected to be trampled on.

It also involves the government's intervention and early warning limits on crimes, and has an impact on the authority to sue the most serious crimes.

In fact, this case should be an excellent classroom analysis material, especially when it comes to telling about judicial ethics.

The Sheldon v. United States case should have a place.

From a judicial perspective, we should not simply distinguish between good people or bad people, as that is a childish behavior.

Also, we cannot only evaluate the process afterwards. After all, this is not the 19th century, and Bentham's utilitarian thought has declined.

The role of a whistleblower like Sheldon should be analyzed in depth from several angles.

It goes without saying that the current Americans live in an era where the government needs to rely on informing to support national security.

This is a fact, and recognizing the facts is not a shameful expression.

There are various law enforcement agencies in this country, whether federal or regional, and every law enforcement agency is raising whistleblowers.

Any organization with a slight influence, and even some half-baked gangs, has been infiltrated by the government's slew.

In fact, informants have become professionals. If it weren't for their reputation being too bad, their recruitment advertisements would have appeared in the New York Times long ago.

It is difficult to estimate how many informants in the United States are now active and what role they are playing, so that law enforcement officers cannot identify them in a timely manner.

Informers are not good people. They usually have no justice in their hearts and are profit-oriented most of the time.

They fabricate information to sell intelligence. In order to provide their employer with information they like to hear, they fabricate false facts of crime.

The recording of Santo-Sheldon's conversation is the first time that such a scene is dramatically exposed to the public through the media everywhere in this era with the most conclusive evidence.

Unlike traditional money bribery, when law enforcement officers use their dominant position and power to put various pressures on informants, whether legal or not, to force them to provide intelligence, no matter how unreliable the information is, or whether the means of intelligence comply with the regulations.

These are all gray and even black phenomena in society. Everyone knew that they existed before, but they never cared about it. However, after the outbreak of this case, citizens began to be attracted - because there were obvious illegal and even unconstitutional behaviors in it!

Just when readers thought Edward wanted to take this opportunity to criticize the ugly behavior of law enforcement officers who knew that the law was breaking the law and was still keen on, the author's pen tip was opened again.

Effectively using informants to obtain important information and maintain social security is also an indispensable behavior in normal management.

All governments in history have used whistleblowers and sleepers, and they still do so.

Assuming that without the FBI's inquiry into the Klan Klan, the civil rights movement would probably not have developed so much; without the people who provide information from within, we would not have known organized criminal activities in the underworld as we do now.

In the Jewish Defense Alliance case, Judge Arnold repeatedly believed that Santo, as the "Supervisor", had accidentally caused a huge mistake, which was an excuse for him, but I have to say that the method was very clumsy.

In fact, this is not "accidental" or "unintentional" at all.

You should know that in this case, if the government does not use illegal means, it will be impossible to prevent possible disaster consequences, because the government cannot penetrate the Jewish alliance.

According to Sheldon's confession, there are actually a series of whimsical but feasible "action" plans to defend the Jewish alliance:

For example, a remote-controlled glider filled with explosives and flew into the Russian Embassy in the Rice;

Or build a small portable mortar - for example, the grenade launcher used by the Japanese army during World War II, and "shot" to Ambassador Doberenin in a secluded place 500 meters away.

Or maybe the guys knew that a staff member of the Russian embassy would go to Brooklyn's premises to find girls regularly, so they considered taking advantage of his time to have fun and load a piece of soil under his car to make a time bomb.

Such things are different

In view of this, the law enforcement officers decided after careful consideration that, after approval by the supreme leader, those who know the law violate the law will participate in the "civil disobedience" movement for greater national interests.

("Civil disobedience" is a protest that intentionally violated social order in the anti-Vietnam War movement in the 1960s, such as marching, sitting in the face of slogans to get the police arrested. Courts generally fined these people for civil torts, or imprisoned for one week.)

Many people argue on this issue that the government is just doing what it must do; the government must not sit idly by and watch out for all possible crimes, or dare not go beyond the line due to various rules and regulations, so as not to attract various discussions.

During the litigation process of this case, the author deeply agrees and expresses respect to the law enforcement officers who protect the safety of the United States.

The final result is the government's defeat in this case.

The net of heaven is vast and sparse without leakage.

Finally, the author's ending is perfect, and the following is recorded:

"Yes, it is one thing that government law enforcement officers are under great pressure to defend the key points of national interests. It is one thing that the court has no choice but to take stopping measures in detail during the trial procedure. After observing the ins and outs of this case as a criminal case, it not only does not stop it, but instead put it into a legal status in the constitutional sense. It is another thing that the court has observed in detail the ins and outs of this case."

"Suppose, we can make an assumption that if the Director FBI's memorandum plus the attorney general's approval can replace the judge's permission and legalize the eavesdropping behavior, what will the essence of this change in administrative replacement of justice have to do with the essence?"

"Then the highest executive leader of this country has the right to ask law enforcement agencies to conduct eavesdropping activities, and the president himself has partisan attributes. It is difficult for us not to guarantee that the president uses public power to seek improper self-interest for himself or his own small groups or parties. This is very terrifying."

"Because this will make us a real police state like Russia on the other side of the ocean.

Therefore, from the perspective of lawyers and patriots, I can only defend Sheldon. Even if I am scolded by the whole society for this, I will follow this path without hesitation.

There is an old Chinese saying that says, "Even if there are thousands of people, I will go."

At this moment, I was thinking this way.

As Justice Robert Jackson said in his objection in the Supreme Court ruling of the Second World War Japanese citizens being held in concentration camps: If a government official violates the constitution, "it is an event"; but if the court then approves this action, "the past event is part of the principle of reform. This part has its own fertility, and what it produces will damage the principle of the constitution itself."

"A grain of sand in law falls on a person's head and is a mountain."

"A grain of sand in law falls on a person's head and is a mountain."

"A grain of sand in law falls on a person's head and is a mountain."

“If our laws fail to correct these errors in a timely manner and instead try to legalize and program them, then it will eventually devour all of us,

Similarly, it may be necessary for the government to take measures to prevent catastrophic consequences in the Jewish Alliance case.

However, after disasters have been avoided, criminal groups have been revealed, and their members have been arrested, it is by no means wise to use unconstitutional means to ensure that the crime is determined, and in fact there is no such need.

Therefore, in a sense I can easily understand and tolerate the behavior of officer Santo, but it is difficult to understand why Judge Arnold took great pains to legitimize these behaviors."

"There are generally no more reasonable reasons for government personnel to continue to participate in activities that violate the Constitution.

In most cases of this type, they can get the best of both worlds because the courts will turn a blind eye to the violation.

Or determine that it is not harmful and maintain the resulting guilt.

Every time the court rejects a guilty claim in constitutional principle, it will cost those who want to compete with the constitution a greater price next time.

In some special cases, such as the major cases of the BLM explosion, the cost would be unusual. But considering that the courts actually do this, every ruling similar to Sheldon should be regarded as a victory in the United States Constitution.”

"We should look at the defeat of law enforcement officers rationally, fairly and objectively, rather than dominating their thinking based on emotions, saying that those who deserve the crime evade criminal law in the name of the law.

On the contrary, we should see that it is this case that once again let Miligan’s constitutional spirit release its light and become a beacon for the free world and the whole world.”

"" Finally, he cites the Yale Law School's purpose as a finale: Lawyers are not only those who provide legal expertise to private and corporate, but also policy makers, politicians, and social reformers. We not only emphasize legal expertise, but also legal persons' conscience, vision, and kindness and compassion."

"Yale Law Review" is a professional small-scale publication, usually with only a few thousand copies printed, mainly for subscriptions from major schools, law firms, and various libraries, and there is almost no retail channel.

However, this time, tens of thousands of copies were printed, and the money was published by Yitzkarabi. After these magazines were bought, they were distributed through various channels.

In fact, this article was also written by my grandfather, Edward, and the old man's point of view was clear: "This matter has been completed from a legal perspective, but from a social perspective, it has just begun. You have successfully let Sheldon get rid of the crime, but this will also offend many people, especially police unions and right-wingers. So you need a channel to make yourself speak out, pay attention, it is a serious channel, formally happening, clarify your views and positions, as well as the purpose of patriotism and upholding the Constitution."
Chapter completed!