The U.S. Supreme Court Is A Tragic, Pathetic Joke

18 06 2019

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

The U.S. Supreme Court just issued its decision in Gamble v. United States, and “left the door open for state prosecutors to prosecute Trump campaign officials regardless of whether federal officials have already done so.”[2]  In his dissenting opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch—President Trump’s first appointment to the Court—wrote: 

A free society does not allow its government to try the same individual for the same crime until it’s happy with the result. Unfortunately, the Court today endorses a colossal exception to this ancient rule against double jeopardy.  My colleagues say that the federal government and each State are “separate sovereigns” entitled to try the same person for the same crime. So if all the might of one “sovereign” cannot succeed against the presumptively free individual, another may insist on the chance to try again. And if both manage to succeed, so much the better; they can add one punishment on top of the other. But this “separate sovereigns exception” to the bar against double jeopardy finds no meaningful support in the text of the Constitution, its original public meaning, structure, or history. Instead, the Constitution promises all Americans that they will never suffer double jeopardy. I would enforce that guarantee.[3]

Our Supreme Court has been a tragic, pathetic joke for years, certainly since it blessed infanticide in Roe v. Wade—and the killing of more than 55 million American babies.[4]  Also, Chief Justice John Roberts constitutes the second worst decision that former President George W. Bush made during his eight-year presidency—other than the senseless Iraq War in which more than 5,000 Americans died and many more were maimed, and trillions of dollars were wasted, for nothing.[5]

Perhaps an editorial of The New York Sun described the Gamble decision best:

How is it possible that, after all the tumult over the Supreme Court, the only two justices to grasp the plain language of the Constitution in respect of double jeopardy are — wait for it — Neil Gorsuch and Ruth Bader Ginsburg? It’s amazing enough that there are but two sages for the bedrock prohibition on double jeopardy. More amazing still that the question unites the right- and left-most justices.

The case, known as Gamble v. U.S., involves an ex-con named Terance Martez Gamble. He was pulled over in a traffic stop in 2015 at Alabama. A gun was found in his possession in violation of both Alabama and American law. Gamble pled to the state charges and drew a year. Then the federales turned around and charged him again for the same offense, drawing additional time for the same deed.

The justices rejected his appeal in an opinion — by Justice Alito — that reminds us of President Clinton’s hemming about how it depends on what the meaning of “is” is. In this case, it depends on the meaning of the word “offense.” The justices reckon there were two offenses, one carrying the blasted gun in Alabama and the other the same gun at the same time in the United States. Could the United Nations also charge him?

. . .

Justice Thomas, sage of what Myron Magnet, in his new book, calls the “lost Constitution,” manages to concur with the majority’s ruling against Gamble while attacking stare decisis. The ink wasn’t even dry on his concurrence when the press started warning that Justice Thomas was — yet again — prepping the ground for overturning Roe v. Wade. Others were more focused on the implications of Gamble for Paul Manafort.

New York, after all, is preparing to bring charges against President Trump’s former campaign manager even while Manafort sits in the Big House hoping for a pardon on federal charges. It’s not so clear, though, that New York will throw at Manafort the same charges Mr. Mueller levied. To discern differences between the federal and state cases against Gamble, though, one would need an electron microscope.

Our own interest in this case is neither stare decisis nor Paul Manafort nor Ms. Roe nor Mr. Wade. It is the plain language of the Fifth Amendment, where the prohibition against double jeopardy is laid down. Our national parchment was supposed to be a bar against such injustices as the state appealing acquittals or the law chasing someone from one court to another.

This is beautifully marked by both Justices Ginsburg and Gorsuch in two dissents. Justice Ginsburg, citing precedent about the separateness of federal and state laws, warned of “frittering away” Gamble’s liberty “upon a metaphysical subtlety, two sovereignties.” Thundered Justice Gorsuch: “A free society does not allow its government to try the same individual for the same crime until it’s happy with the result.”

It is not our intention to suggest that there can never be, say, a federal prosecution after a state acquittal. During the Jim Crow era, southern juries often ignored the facts. In those cases, though, the argument would be, and was, that the accused racists were never in genuine jeopardy in the first place. That is not what happened in the case of Terance Gamble.

All the more inspiring that the two dissenting judges from opposite ideological ends of the bench came together on this bedrock. It doesn’t suggest the confirmation battles are about nothing. It does remind all of us not to panic. The thinness of the vapors at the altitude where these justices breathe makes it hard to predict how they will behave. History teaches that great dissents have a way of getting vindicated over time.[6]

We can only hope that Justice Gorsuch’s dissenting opinion becomes the law of the land, which is not very promising given the 7-2 ruling—or for Paul Manafort and others who tried to help President Trump and may be caught in the insidious web of double jeopardy.  We have to thank our Supreme Court again for the perpetuation (or creation) of tragic injustices.[7] 

 

 

© 2019, Timothy D. Naegele


[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and Timothy D. Naegele Resume-19-4-29). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal#Joint_Service). Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2]  See https://www.thedailybeast.com/scotus-reaffirms-double-jeopardy-exception-allowing-trump-campaign-officials-to-be-tried-by-state-feds (“Supreme Court Reaffirms ‘Double Jeopardy’ Exception With Mueller Probe Implications”—”The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed a 170-year-old exception to the Constitution’s double-jeopardy clause, and left the door open for state prosecutors to prosecute Trump campaign officials regardless of whether federal officials have already done so. The case, Gamble v. United States, has drawn attention for its potential effect on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s federal prosecutions on Russian interference in the 2016 election. Had the ‘dual sovereignty doctrine’ been repealed, states would not be able to pursue investigations parallel to the federal government. . . . State prosecutors in New York have brought charges against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort Jr., who was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison, in the event that President Trump pardons him”).

[3]  See Gamble v. United States, p. 64 (emphasis added), by clicking on the following link: https://naegeleblog.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/gamble-ussc-decision.pdf (or by downloading the decision).

[4] See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/abortions-and-autos-kill-more-in-america-than-guns/#comment-17243 (“Finally, More Abortion Bans Are Coming”—”Roe v. Wade unleashed a holocaust of epic proportions, which ranks with the greatest holocausts in human history—including the Nazi Holocaust, Stalin’s Soviet Holocaust and Mao’s Chinese Holocaust. Indeed, more human beings have been killed as a result of abortions—since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in 1973—than in each of the other three holocausts”).

[5] See, e.g., http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-the-mexican-judge-1465167405 (“[President] Obama . . . contributed to the Democratic intimidation campaign against Chief Justice John Roberts ahead of the 2012 ObamaCare ruling. ‘I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,’ the President said at an April 2012 press conference. The Chief Justice ruled as the President recommended”); https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-01/hold-the-revolution-roberts-keeps-joining-high-court-liberals (“Roberts Keeps Joining High Court Liberals”)

[6] See https://www.nysun.com/editorials/ginsburg-gorsuch-and-gamble/90732/ (“Ginsburg, Gorsuch — and Gamble“) (emphasis added).

[7] See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/justice-and-the-law-do-not-mix/ (“Justice And The Law Do Not Mix”—”The United States is a nation where rogue prosecutors reign, whose goals in life include the prosecution of even the innocent. Federal, State and local prosecutors ruthlessly and gleefully pursue countless numbers of innocent Americans for a multitude of crimes that were never committed; and the judiciary has allowed this to happen. Corruption is rampant among federal prosecutors and those who work with them, such as FBI agents. No amount of rational thinking or discourse can be applied to a system that is inherently and systemically corrupt”); see also https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-ruling-deals-potential-blow-to-paul-manafort-as-he-battles-state-charges (“Supreme Court ruling deals potential blow to Paul Manafort as he battles state charges”) and https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/nyregion/manafort-rikers.html (“Paul Manafort Seemed Headed to Rikers. Then the Justice Department Intervened”).





A New Catholic Manifesto?

13 04 2019

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

A recent survey found that there are as many Americans who claim no religion, as there are evangelicals and Catholics:

For the first time “No Religion” has topped a survey of Americans’ religious identity. . . . The non-religious edged out Catholics and evangelicals. . . .[2]

Also, it has been noted that “a growing number of Americans reject organized religion,” and that “‘No Religion’ will be the largest group outright in four to six years.”[3]  These conclusions do not surprise many if not most “believers”—which is the path less traveled.

Some of us “experienced” God at one time or another in our lives[4]; and without that, it is likely that we too would not only reject organized religion, but any belief in a “Higher Power” altogether.  We might look at the cruelties, injustices and sadness in Life, and wonder how a loving God could allow this.  It seems to fly in the face of logic and rational belief systems.[5]

Indeed, to “push” our belief systems on others, or even to mention the life-changing moment we experienced, seems arrogant and pious.  Each and every human being, or animal, is a child of God . . . or so many of us believe.  We are not special because of what happened to us, but we were privileged—and yes, blessed—to have it happen.  With that comes a sense of responsibility, to help others.

Often, evangelicals proselytize, quite vigorously, which turns off others.  If the “targets” were willing to be open-minded, having religion “shoved down their throats” can be threatening and repulsive.  However well-intentioned such evangelicals may be, they can have the opposite effect, of turning away the “candidate” from any religion, which is human nature.  Each of us is on a unique path to God, or so I believe, which is not shared by anyone else.

We fall, and get up again and move on.  We are not heroes or saints or anything else except another human being.  We are no more or less than our fellow human beings.  Each day we seem to struggle with our beliefs and faith.  As I have written:

I had essentially a “near-death” experience some years ago, similar to what others have described, during which I experienced God . . . as an intense bright light at the end of a tunnel, and as Infinite Intelligence of which our own intelligence is merely a part. God was neither masculine nor feminine. My mother had died months before it happened, and I felt her presence and I knew she was with God.

From that moment forward, I have never doubted that God exists, or that God created everything—heaven and earth and everything in between. However, I continually seek to understand how God operates in my life, on a day-to-day basis. The closest I have come is my belief that God acts through us as faith, inspiration, prayer, miracles, and perhaps most of all, love. I believe that in expressing love, each of us is God in expression.[6]

Christianity is the largest religion in the world today[7]; and the Catholic Church, or the “Mother Church,” is the largest Christian denomination.[8]  In the case of some, our ancestors have been Catholics for centuries—and at least two hundred years.  We may not be “official Catholics” today, but we are drawn to the Church for a variety of reasons.  One of the most important is the Church’s stand on abortions, and its unwavering pro-life and anti-Infanticide policies.[9]

Jesus’ teachings were simple; and they are set forth in the New Testament, for anyone to read.  Was He the Messiah and Son of God?  I believe so.  In many ways, His messages were clear: to help the poorest of poor (e.g., homeless) and the downtrodden; and not to worship material things or “creature comforts.”  We come into this world with nothing, and we leave with nothing, just like the Pharaohs or monarchs of ancient Egypt.[10]

How and where has the Catholic Church gone astray, and diverged from the teachings of Jesus?[11]  How can it be brought back “on track,” so it is true to Jesus’ teachings?  For some non-believers, there is probably nothing that the Church could do that would “redeem its sins.”  Some are determined to destroy the Church, and organized religions altogether; and seemingly, nothing will change their minds or alter their paths.

Pedophilia has ripped the Church apart around the world, and in places like Ireland where the Church used to be so strong.  What can be done about this, at least with respect to those who are “open-minded” and not bent on destruction?  First, the Church needs to “clean house,” and rid its ranks of pedophiles who prey on others, and those who engage in human trafficking and slavery.  Second, there must not be more cover-ups.  Third, I believe there should be no more vows of celibacy or chastity, which are unnatural.  Fourth, the priesthood should be open and welcoming to women.

Lastly, why should I care?  Why should I or anyone else waste time writing an article like this or trying to make changes, which may be unlikely to move the Church or its adherents one single inch?  Indeed, few people may read this article, much less be moved by it.  And some may be repulsed and/or angry about what I have written.  Yet, I want to see Jesus’ wonderful teachings flourish, and for the Catholic Church to continue to promulgate such teachings far and wide—and yes, to serve God in the process.

The Church has helped millions of human beings worldwide, and it continues to do so.  This is its future.

 

 

© 2019, Timothy D. Naegele


[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and Timothy D. Naegele Resume). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal#Joint_Service). Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2]  See https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/13/us/no-religion-largest-group-first-time-usa-trnd/index.html (“There are now as many Americans who claim no religion as there are evangelicals and Catholics, a survey finds”)

[3]  Id.

[4]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/what-and-where-is-god/ (“What And Where Is God?”)

[5]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/what-and-where-is-god/#comment-426 (“For A Lovely Woman Named Cynthia Whose Faith In God Will Help Her”)

[6]  See infra n.4.

[7]  See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups#Largest_religious_groups (“Largest religious groups”)

[8]  See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church (“Catholic Church”)

[9]  See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide (“Infanticide”)

As I have written:

An abortion is a criminal act: infanticide. Each of the mothers and the doctors and others who have participated—or participate in the future—in the taking of human lives should be arrested, tried, convicted and . . .

Abortion is the taking of a life!

. . .

IF any exceptions are to be made, they should only occur in the case of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is at risk.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/abortions-and-autos-kill-more-in-america-than-guns/#comment-3298 (“55 Million American Babies Killed Since Roe v. Wade“)

[10]  See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoh (“Pharaoh”)

[11]  See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/the-catholic-church-at-a-crossroads/ (“The Catholic Church At A Crossroads”)

 





Adoption: A Scar That Never Heals?

29 04 2018

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

A child is a sacred being, and God’s precious gift to the world.[2]  Each is unique and blessed, with God’s imprimatur in his or her original fingerprints and DNA.  The flip side of an abortion is adoption—hopefully by one or more loving adoptive parents.  Rather than take a life, adoption provides a means by which that life continues and is nourished and often cherished by those persons who adopt.[3]

This has been true of a relative of mine and his wife, who desperately wanted to adopt because cancer treatments had prevented one from ever conceiving again.[4]  Another relative was forced by her father to give up her baby, which had been born out of wedlock.  A third relative—whom I love deeply—fell in love with someone who had been adopted at birth; and he seems never to have reconciled his quest for knowledge of his birth parents with the love provided by his adoptive parents . . . or by my relative.

The adoptee’s mother has sheltered the teenager from the hurt and chaos that his birth parents might bring to their family, which is understandable.  In the process, however, the young man seems less than “whole,” and this has influenced his relationship with my wonderful and very loving relative.  Al-Anon teaches loved ones and families of alcoholics and drug addicts that they cannot “fix” or change such behavior, and that they must take care of themselves first and foremost.  This is sound and timeless advice, yet there must be a way to heal the “hole” in the young man’s heart and help him, so that he is healthy and truly happy in the years to come and for the rest of his life.

One woman who was adopted at birth has written:

I’ve spent my life having dreams about meeting [my biological parents] only to wake up and feel farther away from that dream. They live in a cloud, somewhere in my imagination, somewhere over the rainbow, they carry a sense of home that I have never known.

At times, I am convinced that I am looking at my biological mother in the face of a stranger on a subway, or in a restaurant, and when a pleasant person who resembles me smiles at me for no reason, the fantasies begin to do their dance. It is common, and it comes from a child’s imagination. The child in me who wants answers, and the adult who has questions.

. . .

Not knowing who your parents are is a strange life, though you adapt of course. You have other parents, other people you consider family. Love is stronger than blood for sure, but still, still, you can’t help wondering.[5]

Obviously, undergirding these issues, are often unfathomable mental health dimensions.  As one mental health professional has written:

Children may feel grief over the loss of a relationship with their birthparents and the loss of the cultural and family connections that would have existed with those parents.

This feeling of loss may be especially intense in closed or semi-open adoptions where little or no information or contact is available with birthparents. Such grief feelings may be triggered at many different times throughout the child’s life including when they first learn of their adoption, during the turbulent teen years, upon the death of other family members, or even as when becoming a spouse or parent.

There can also be significant concerns about feeling abandoned and “abandonable,” and “not good enough,” coupled with specific hurt feelings over the birthmother’s choice to “reject[] the child” to “give me away” or “not wanting me enough.” Such hurtful and vulnerable feelings may be compounded should the child learn that the birthmother later had other children that she chose to raise herself.[6]

Perhaps the issues are summarized best by one adoptee who has written later in life that “we don’t belong anywhere in particular.”[7]  Another stated: “I realized . . . that I had never really felt connected to anyone.  Maybe because my heritage was missing.  I didn’t know where I came from.  No real sense of belonging to anyone.”[8]  Yet, this woman added:

Thanks to the internet, I found ALL of my birth family. I now have a wonderful relationship with them. I have five half-siblings; uncles, aunts, and many cousins; and lots of family reunions. My sons have a new set of grandparents who have taken over loving them where Mom and Dad had to leave off. And I know where I got my nose, blonde hair, and love of dancing.

It’s amazing what hugging your birth family can do—it gives you a sense of connection.[9]

Such happy endings do not happen to everyone who searches though.[10]

adoption

 

© 2018, Timothy D. Naegele


[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and http://www.naegele.com/documents/TimothyD.NaegeleResume.pdf). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal#Joint_Service). Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2]  See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/what-and-where-is-god/#comment-13158 (“The Judiciary And Doctors In The UK Killed Little Charlie Gard And Now Alfie Evans”)

[3]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/abortions-and-autos-kill-more-in-america-than-guns/ (“Abortions And Autos Kill More In America Than Guns”)

[4]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/problems-with-foreign-adoptions/ (“Problems With Foreign Adoptions”)

[5]  See https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-cope-with-not-knowing-who-your-biological-parents-are

Another woman who was adopted at birth, and is also an adoptive mother, has written:

People tend to be curious about their family of origin story, whether or not they are adopted.  Look at the tremendous interest in Ancestry.com.  That’s not all fueled by adoptees, I promise you.  It’s natural to wonder how much of who we are is from our biology (nature) and how much is from our upbringing (nurture). That wondering applies to all of us; adoptees just know there is an additional layer to consider.

I’ve always been annoyed by the Hallmark TV version of adoption: the idea that we cannot be our real selves until we connect with our biological families.  If that connection completes you, great.  But don’t count on it.  That said, there is no shame in wanting to know your origin story and wanting to access your birth family’s (and therefore your own) medical history.  Do so with care though, because you are digging into the emotional past too.

Adoptions today are more likely to be open, at least to the extent that information and names are shared, if not to the extent that a relationship is maintained.  That openness can help answer many questions that an adoptee might wonder about, heading off the [] need to attend to answering the unknowns.

Being different in any way can set us up for loneliness and self doubt.  We’re all a little different, right?  We can choose whether that difference gives us a launch pad or a stumbling block.

See https://www.quora.com/Are-adopted-kids-really-obsessed-with-their-birth-parents-even-well-into-adulthood

[6]  See Kathryn Patricelli, MA, “Long-Term Issues For The Adopted Child,” https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/long-term-issues-for-the-adopted-child/

[7]  See Stephen J Betchen D.S.W., “Why Adoptees Need To Find Their Biological Parents,” https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/magnetic-partners/201104/why-adoptees-need-find-their-biological-parents

The author added:

Some of us who were adopted in “closed states” (or states that don’t allow for the free exchange of even the most vital information such as a health history) have a lingering fear that we might drop dead at any moment. I just love filling out the medical history questionnaire at a new doctor’s office; the one that asks what diseases your parents suffered from. How about the question: What age was your father when he died? How should I know? The great state of so and so…won’t tell me. Not knowing one’s medical history is especially annoying to those of us adoptees who have biological children. What am I passing on? Will I be around for the weddings?

. . .

Bio mom and I continued our telephone relationship for the next several years, but sadly enough, it just plain wore out. I got tired of playing in a fixed pursuer-distancer dance and so I did what a lot of adopted kids might do in a situation like this—I disappeared.  I took my medical history and a few more tidbits and I faded with a new appreciation for my adopted parents.  They weren’t perfect, but neither was I.  As for bio mom, I hope she lives forever.  She wasn’t a bad sort, and my kids could sure use the good genes.

[8]  See https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/08/the-sense-of-belonging-to-someone/497834/ (“The Sense of Belonging to Someone”) (“Whenever I thought about having birth parents, it was like putting my mind in a deep, dark, vast space—nothing existed.  My constant thought was, ‘I wonder if someone out there looks like me, and is similar to me’”—”Mom knew she couldn’t handle me finding my birth parents while she was alive.  She wanted me to, but after she was gone.  She did it in such a sweet way. I love her for this”)

[9]  See id. 

[10]  See, e.g., Lisa Lutz, “I Found My Biological Parents, and Wish I Hadn’t,” https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/magazine/i-found-my-biological-parents-and-wish-i-hadnt.html (“If I’d been given the choice of meeting my biological parents or getting a nice dossier on them, I would have chosen the latter”—”When I finally had time to take it all in, I felt like the result of a mishandled science experiment.  I wondered what might have happened to me if I had been raised by my genetic parents.  It seems unlikely that I would have ended up with the degree of ambition that I did, one that surpasses my modest genetic gifts.  I was never that smart or talented, but I was scrappy and dogged, and I believed I was owed something.  That seems ridiculous now.  Family is the luck of the draw, and so is how you turn out”)








%d bloggers like this: