Alice Connes' parents received a cashier's check for $1,000 from the end of the case, which was anonymous and could be withdrawn at any time by any holder.

Along with the check, a letter was sent saying that the couple would receive $1,000 a month until the end of their lives.

The two old men were very unanimous in their views on what to do with the money, and they clearly refused.

Later, the Connes held a press conference, and made it clear and solemn that they used the media to show the world how they handled it, and two old men with white hair tore up the check in front of the media, vowing that "even if I am poor to death in this life, I will never touch this money." ”

"We're going to let some people carry guilt forever until they go to hell!"

"Money may buy so-called 'justice' in the United States, but when the Jews stand before God through the tombs, we can reverently kneel at the feet of the Lord and ask for acceptance."

"And some people's gold coins will fall on him forever, crushing him to the hottest corners of hell, and the fire will melt the yellow into his nimble mouth, and the same dexterous tongue will not be able to stop it no matter how much it stirs, and the hot gold will fill his greedy appetite drop by drop, and it will never end!"

……

September hasn't officially started yet, but the editorial office is already busy.

In order to compete with each other, the student editors never dare to slack off in their work, and conscientiously maintain the professionalism and high standards of this "student" publication.

In the first issue of September, an article was published for the first time in history, written by Edward Young, a freshman in the second year of the new editor.

The essay, titled, is more lyrical prose than a serious jurisprudence review and discussion.

For this reason, the editorial department disagreed on whether to publish the article, but in the end it was decided not to change the full text of the article, because of course, because it was the honor of Yale that Edward personally handled the lawsuit as a law student; At the same time, Mr. George Duffy's previous letter of recommendation also played a big role.

"Is Santo a hero when he goes low?"

Such a question is raised at the beginning of the article.

The author then reveals that he is also very confused, compared to Sheldon, who is widely sympathized with - although he is a terrorist who makes bombs, there are still a lot of flashes of humanity in him, such as religious piety - running to the church to confess; Valuing friendship - reluctance to testify against co-defendants in court.

These highlights are precisely the most cherished parts of the culture and traditions of the United States.

Judge Arnold was reprimanded as a villain by the media and the masses, because of the media's preference, his last words in court were not widely disclosed, even if they were published in some tabloids, it would arouse public anger, "That villain judge is clearly consuming the dead!" This was followed by "a sign of legal shame in the United States" and "a symbol of the infiltration of Russian spies into the judicial circles" and other ridiculous hats.

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

Judge Arnold's identity and performance are embedded in it, and he can't break free no matter how hard he tries.

The two are black and white.

Santo's identity is blurred, with many seeing him as a hero and guardian of the city, which is usually a conservative view; And the liberal masses denounced him as a scum villain, a destroyer of the Constitution.

His reputation wanders between the Millican boy and the waste of the United States.

Edward, as an in-depth participant in the case, could not fully answer this question.

From there, the pen turned and began to analyze the case.

The most fundamental contradiction in this case is that the legal issues and the moral standards are intertwined, so that the practice of conforming to the law is quite immoral, and after the supremacy of morality, the fairness of the law is suspected of being trampled on.

It also involves the limits of government intervention and early warning of crimes, as well as the ability to prosecute the most serious crimes.

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

The case of Shelton v. United States should have a place.

From a judicial point of view, it is childish to distinguish between good and bad people.

Nor can the process be evaluated solely by its consequences, because this is not the nineteenth century, and Bentham's utilitarian ideas have declined.

The role of an informant like Sheldon should be analyzed in depth from several angles.

Needless to say, the current people of the United States live in an era that is not very perfect, and the government needs to rely on whistleblowing to support national security.

This is a fact, and it is not a shame to recognize it.

The country is dotted with a variety of law enforcement agencies, both federal and regional, each of which is supporting whistleblowers.

Any group with the slightest influence, even some half-baked gangs, has been infiltrated by government agents.

Informants have in fact become a profession, and if it weren't for the fact that their reputation is too ugly, then their job advertisements would probably have appeared in a big way.

It is difficult to estimate how many informants are now operating in the United States and what role they are playing, so that even law enforcement officers are unable to identify them in a timely manner.

Informants are not good people, they usually have no justice in their hearts, and most of the time they are mercenary.

Will fabricate information in order to sell information. In order to give their employer the news he likes to hear, they make up false facts about the crime.

For the first time, the recording of Santo-Shelton's conversation has brought such a scene to public attention in the most conclusive way possible, through the ubiquitous media of this era.

Unlike traditional bribery, when law enforcers use their dominant position and power to exert all kinds of pressure, whether lawful or not, to force whistleblowers to provide information, no matter how unreliable the content of the information is, and whether the means of obtaining information comply with the regulations.

These are gray and even black phenomena in society, which everyone knew existed before, but never cared about, but after the outbreak of this case, the eyes of citizens began to be drawn to them - because there were obvious violations and even unconstitutionalities in them!

Just when the reader thought that Edward was going to take this opportunity to criticize the ugly behavior of the law enforcers who knew the law and broke the law and were still keen on it, the author's pen was swept away.

The effective use of whistleblowers in order to obtain important information to maintain public order is also an indispensable act in normal management.

All governments throughout history have used whistleblowers and spies and still do so.

Assuming that without the FBI's involvement in the Ku Klux Klux Klan, the civil rights movement would probably not have developed so much; Without people who provide intelligence from within, we would not be as knowledgeable about organized crime as we are now.

In the Jewish Defence League case, Judge Arnold repeatedly argued that Santo, as the "sheriff", had accidentally or unintentionally made a huge mistake, which was exculpatory to him, but it has to be said that the method was very clumsy.

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

In this case, it is impossible to prevent the possible catastrophic consequences without using illegal means, because the government cannot infiltrate the Jewish League.

According to Sheldon's confession, there are actually a series of whimsical but feasible "actions" for defending the Jewish League:

For example, a remote-controlled glider filled with explosives flew into the Russian embassy in the United States;

Or build a small portable mortar - such as the grenadier canister used by the Japanese army in World War II, and "fire" at Ambassador Dobrynin in a secluded place 500 meters away.

Or, the group knew that there was a staff member at the Russian embassy who would regularly go to the Brooklyn yard to look for the girl, so they considered putting a time bomb under his car while he was having fun.

And so on and so forth

In view of this, the law enforcers, after careful consideration, decided, with the approval of the supreme leadership, to participate in the "civil disobedience" movement for the sake of the greater national interest.

Many people argue on this issue that the government is simply doing what it has to do; The government must not sit idly by and turn a blind eye to all possible crimes, or dare not take a step beyond the thunder pond because of various rules and precepts, so as not to attract all kinds of discussions.

In the course of the litigation of this case, the author deeply sympathizes with the author and expresses his respect to the law enforcers who protect the safety of the United States.

The end result was that the government lost the case.

Skynet is magnificent, negligent but not leaky.

Finally, the author's ending is perfect, and is reproduced as follows:

"Yes, it is one thing for government law enforcement officers to take expedient measures in order to defend the vital interests of the country under great pressure; However, after observing in detail the ins and outs of this case as a criminal case, the court not only did not stop it, but instead gave it a legal status in the constitutional sense, which is another matter. ”

"Suppose, we can make a hypothesis, if the FBI director's memo and the approval of the attorney general can deserve the judge's permission to legitimize wiretapping, what will be the consequences of this essentially administrative change of judicial substitution?"

"Then the top executive leader of this country can have the right to ask law enforcement agencies to conduct eavesdropping, and the president himself is partisan, and it is difficult for us not to guarantee that the president uses public power to seek improper personal interests for himself or his own small group or party, which is very terrifying."

"Because it would make us a police state in the true sense of the word, just like Russia across the ocean.

Therefore, from the perspective of a lawyer and a patriot, I can only defend Sheldon, and even if I am scolded by the whole society for this, I will not hesitate to go down this path.

There is an ancient Chinese saying that "although there are tens of millions of people, I will go"

At this moment, my heart is officially thinking so.

As Justice Robert Jackson said in his dissent in the Supreme Court ruling in the World War II case concerning the internment of citizens of their descent in concentration camps: "If a government official violates the Constitution, "it is an incident"; If, however, the court subsequently endorses the action, "the event that has passed becomes part of the principle of law." This part of the stuff has its own reproductive power, and what it produces would undermine the constitutional principle itself. ”

"A grain of sand in the law is a mountain when it falls on an individual's head."

"A grain of sand in the law is a mountain when it falls on an individual's head."

"A grain of sand in the law is a mountain when it falls on an individual's head."

"If our laws do not correct these wrongs in time, but instead try to legalize them programmatically, it will end up devouring us all,

Similarly, in the Jewish League case, it may be necessary for the Government to take steps to prevent catastrophic consequences.

However, after the catastrophe has been averted, the criminal syndicate has been exposed, and its members have been apprehended, it is never wise or necessary to use unconstitutional means to ensure that the crime is convicted.

Thus, in a sense, it is easier for me to understand and tolerate Officer Santo's actions, but it is difficult to understand why Judge Arnold went to great lengths to try to legitimize them. ”

"The continued involvement of government intelligence agents in activities that violate the Constitution will generally not be more justified than this case.

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

or find that it is not harmful, and maintain the resulting guilty finding.

Every time a court overturns a finding of guilt on constitutional principles, it makes the next time the person who wants to contend with the constitution pay a greater price.

In some special cases, such as the BLM explosion, the cost can be unusually high. However, given the fact that it is rare for the Court to do so, every similar decision in the Shelton case should be regarded as a victory for the United States Constitution. ”

"We should look at the defeat of law enforcers rationally, fairly and objectively, instead of just relying on emotions to dominate our thinking, saying that those who deserve the crime have escaped the criminal law in the name of the law.

On the contrary, we should see that it was this case that allowed the spirit of Millican's constitution to shine once again and become a beacon to the free world and the whole world. ”

He concluded by citing Yale Law School's mission: lawyers are not only people who provide legal expertise to private individuals and corporations, but they are also policymakers, politicians, and social reformers. We should not only emphasize legal expertise, but also the conscience, vision, and benevolence and compassion of legal people. ”

It is a small-scale professional publication, usually with a print run of several thousand copies, mainly subscribed by major schools, law firms, and various libraries, and there are almost no retail channels.

This time, however, tens of thousands of copies were printed, and the money was paid by Itz Calabi, and these magazines were bought and distributed through various channels.

In fact, this article was also written by his grandfather at the suggestion of Edward, and the old man's point of view is very clear: "This matter is over from a legal point of view, but from a social point of view, it has just begun, and you have succeeded in exonerating Sheldon, but this will also offend many people, especially the police union and right-wingers, so you need a channel to give yourself a voice, pay attention, be a serious channel, take it officially, clarify your views and positions, and the purpose of patriotism and upholding the Constitution." ”

……