Andy Borgmann's Blog

Thankfully the USA is not a democracy, we are a republic. This means we democratically elect people to represent us. And because of this, our rights go beyond the majority and apply to all of our citizens - including the minority. The heart of our republic is protected by the Supreme Court, and I was all the more grateful to God for that this week when I realized that Americans are stupid...

This past weekend we discussed the case of Alton Logan. A man who was sentenced to jail in the same year I was born (1982) for a crime he did not commit. But here is the kicker: two attorneys representing the actual murderer, knew of the truth, but because of attorney-client privilege could not share the information.

Allen thinks these attorneys should have come forth and broke their oath. Most of our listeners shared this sentiment. I, on the other hand, think this it the type of thing that would erode our entire judicial system, which protects every single right we have. Take a listen to a 3-minute edit of what was said.

No it is not just how it is Allen (and America). And now that I can speak uninterrupted, I am going to tell you why.

What he fails to recognize is that by eroding the attorney-client privilege, you erode the 6th amendment, and when you erode the 6th amendment, you essentially erode our entire Constitution and the rights that are established within.

Do you like freedom of speech? Great! Thank the 6th amendment.

Do you like freedom of religion? Great! Thank the 6th amendment.

Do you like freedom of the press? Great! Thank the 6th amendment.

Do you like the fact you have the right to a fair trial? Great! Thank the 6th amendment.

The only thing that separates America from Iran or China or North Korea is the 6th amendment. And to erode attorney-client privilege is to beg Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to bring us his sense of justice.

The 6th amendment grants us the the right to a fair trial, which, among other things, assumes the requirement of Assistance of Counsel (an attorney). Who is going to go to an attorney and be honest if he can't trust that his attorney will keep his information private and provide him the best possible defense.

No one. And here's the thing. It doesn't even take a rebuttal of the 6th amendment to erode the system. It only takes 4 or 5 renegade attorneys taking their ethics into their own hands and having the Nancy Graces and the Allen Hunts of the world congratulating them for doing it, and before we know it, we have lost what makes America great.

Which brings me back to the Supreme Court. Americans can try all they want to apply situational ethics to the 6th amendment, but there will never be 5 Supreme Court justices that do not understand what is riding on attorney-client privilege. So sleep easy America, your rights are protected, even from yourself.

Jadyn turns 2 on Monday. So after the Colts party Rachel threw at my apartment on Thursday, I packed up my bag and headed out to Indiana for my annual September trip. As I crossed over the Ohio River and into the great state that is Indiana, I noticed something different than when I lived here: Everybody is a Christian!

How did I know this? Simple. Because more people have these licenses plates that say "In God We Trust" than the "normal / plain / ugly" Indiana license plates, and I am pretty sure it says somewhere in the Bible that if you have an "In God We Trust" licenses plate than you are a Christian.

Now, it is good to know everyone in Indiana is a Christian and I think we learned an important lesson: when Andy leaves, everyone becomes a Christian. Therefore, I think the best ministry I can do for any area is to leave. Next step: move to Iran and then leave - it will solve all the world's problems.

But seriously, it got me thinking. First off, I know if I still lived in Indiana I would not get one of these plates. Why? Because, well, lets just say my driving style isn't exactly a good "witness for Christ." This isn't that I am dangerous (quite the opposite), I just like to move if you know what I mean! <sidenote>Why do we associate driving style with religious integrity when religious symbols are on cars? We never look at somebody who cut us off with an environmental plate and say, "all those environmentalists are such jerks, I would never be an environmentalist."</sidenote> But in addition to that, I am not real sure I agree with these plates in principle.

I still don't get stuff like this. We don't live in a Christian nation. We might have been at our foundation, but lets call a duck, a duck, and acknowledge that we do not currently live in a Christian nation. So why do we continue to identify ourselves as such from the governmental/national/state level? As Christians, don't we think this does more harm than good. How do you have a serious, religious/theological conversation with a society who thinks they are Christian because they are American?

I will say I am proud of Indiana though. Unlike Georgia and their pathetic environment plates, Indiana actually has plates that care about important things like child abuse, habitat for humanity, etc... UPDATE: It looks like Georgia has finally started to care about stuff that is actually important and the comment I just made was wrong. They have added, what appears to be 30 new plates that actually care about stuff that is important (like child abuse, cancer, and of course NASCAR, etc...). Alright, I guess I'll see all you Christians on the road Please refrain from giving me the finger when I pass you going 90

Recently, three very large instances of hypocrisy were brought to the attention of the citizens of America.

First you have Al Gore winning an Oscar for his movie about Global Warming, but then reports come out that say his pool house uses $500 in natural gas a month (which is more than I spend all year), and his main house uses more electricity in a year than most people do in a month. In addition to that, he flies around in a private jet, and since we all know I am an aviation expert, let me tell you that his private jet uses more fuel in one round trip than most people do all year in their cars (example: one-way from Washington D.C. to San Francisco would burn 3,260 gallons of fuel).

Then you have John Edwards crying, in LBJ fashion, "war on poverty." Yet, this guy lives in the biggest house in his entire county.

And thirdly, you have Ted Haggard. A Christian evangelical leader who on many occasions has spoken out on the immorality of sexual impurity, especially homosexuality, but then it was found out that he himself visited homosexual prostitutes.

Now here is what I am thankful for out of all this: we can finally have a discussion on the lack of value hypocrisy has in relation to an issue.

Lets start with global warming. Now my verdict is still out on global warming. But regarding my global warming doubts, I sort of take a Pascal's Wager approach to the issue (which I will discuss more another day). But here's the issue for today: regardless of Al Gore's personal hypocrisy, it doesn't change the issue at all. Global warming is either true or it isn't. Al Gore's hypocrisy might show a lack of virtue in his character, but it doesn't change the argument. The same is true for John Edwards. The war on poverty is either a good cause or it isn't (it is). But John Edwards living in the biggest house, all while crying we should help the poor, really doesn't change the argument. Same goes for Ted Haggard (and this is what is really going to set people off). Sexual sin is either wrong or it isn't (it is). Ted Haggard's actions show he isn't a man of integrity, but it shouldn't hurt the moral stance.

I often use a financial planner as an example when talking about hypocrisy. Now lets say I visit one and she tells me I need to stay out of debt (except for a mortgage), save 8% a year for retirement starting at age 22, and save another 4% a year in general savings. I later find out through the grapevine that she herself has $80,000 of consumer debt, and doesn't save for retirement. Now, I could react and say, what an idiot, I am not listening to anything she said. But the only person this would be hurting is me because while she is a hypocrite, her advice is still valid.

I fully admit I am a hypocrite. Just reading this blog will tell you that (particularly the porn blogs). But this doesn't mean that my moral stance on this issue is wrong, it just means that I lack integrity. And while I strive and try so freaking hard sometimes to live up to it, sometimes, I fall short.

What I am thankful for is God. He has established a moral law that is absolute. He (not us) has determined what is and isn't morally correct. And our actions do not change what is and is not true. But yet He tells those who believe in Him to strive to their very best to live up to this. But He, in His infinite love and wisdom, knows full well we aren't going to live up to it. So He chooses to forgive us when we ask Him to. This doesn't excuse our actions. And it sure as heck doesn't give us an excuse to be a hypocrite. But I am definitely grateful for that grace; and so should Gore, Edwards and Haggard.

(P.S. I am really not trying to rip on the democratic party with this post. As I have posted before, I definitely don't think being a Christian means you are by default a republican).

Today was a first: I spoke at a career day at a local private academy on what it was like being a radio producer on arguably one of the top five secular talk radio stations in the world. The morning was interesting, the kids seemed intrigued, and of course, it got me thinking. It got me thinking about how we get where we are.

Oddly, my thoughts drift to an ex-girlfriend named Emily. Emily was a very smart girl. I don't have a shadow of a doubt that she won't be a success. I haven't talked to Emily since graduation so it has been six years, and she is about the only ex-girlfriend of mine I haven't stayed in touch with. But I hear from time to time that she is still pursuing the law thing and she is at the University of Virginia Law School.

What cracks me up about Emily's choice of career is its genesis. We had to put on a mock trial in a 9th grade English/Social Studies class for, if I remember correctly, the Nuremberg trials. Emily's tactic in cross examining my witness was what would be classified as "badgering the witness," and in a real court wouldn't have been allowed past the third question. But needless to say, this wasn't a real court, and she "stuck with it enough" to impress our English teacher - who definitely wasn't a lawyer (and frankly a little crazy). But Mrs. Walker complimented Emily and told her she did a great job, and well...the rest is history.

But here's what is funny, even though I kind of chuckle at the genesis of all this, I can't help but think that there are few people that would make a better attorney than Emily (and if there is something I know it's attorneys as I can count at least 8 attorneys in my family and another dozen or so friends in law school and as my friend Lissa says, "I just need to accept the fact that I am an attorney and go to law school already" because of blogs like these).

It's funny how very very small life events (like a compliment from an unqualified person) can lead us to such a huge life decision; especially when that "lead" is exactly where we are suppose to go, doing exactly what God created us to do.

I think about my own start and how I almost missed it. We switched youth group formats my sophomore year in high school, which really pissed me off because it sort of alienated a friend of mine I was bringing to church and trying my hardest to accept Jesus. The format switch though caused for a huge increase in the use of technology, and I was asked if I would do it. For the first week I protested the change and refused to be involved. I later reconsidered after I realized I had little choice in persuading him, and well, the rest was history...at 24 I now am a radio producer for something truly innovative.

Well that's about it, nothing too profound. I told the kids that grades aren't as important as everyone makes it (yeah I know, you think I am kidding but I am not), and that there is a difference in being successful in your career and being a successful person. We should all strive to be people of balance, keep faith first, trust God, and work as hard as we can at what we feel He created us to be.

P.S. Lissa, I am sorry, I know you are rolling your eyes at me right now. I promise I'll blog about how great of an attorney you will be one day. I just have to find the right fit and career day blog wasn't it - although you were mentioned now three times if you can spot it ;-)

P.P.S I am about 99.9% sure Emily doesn't read this blog, but if she does, she will kill me for using the above photo.

About a month ago, I received something I have always wanted to receive: a traffic citation through the mail because of a traffic camera. Now I know you think I am nuts. But I'll explain why in a second. The problem was in this instance, this particular traffic citation was from Australia, for speeding, and there was no cheap way to fight it. However, there also was no way for them to enforce it either, so I didn't pay it. One of my friends even suggested that I "take a picture" of the $200 they were requesting in fines and send them the photo. I thought that was humorous, but passed.

I should note that this brings my speeding ticket count up to eight, in five states, and now two countries. That's pretty impressive, right? But I digress.

Ok...so even though this wasn't quite what I have always wanted, it is a good premise to talk about traffic citations with the use of cameras. Most Americans don't realize that we all have the right to cross examine our excuser when being accused of a criminal offense. Now, the problem is, if the only "accuser" in the situation is a traffic camera, you have no ability to cross examine said traffic camera.

Now according to Scottsdale, AZ mayor, public opinion poll reveals that 65% of people are ok with red light traffic cameras (he call's this "widespread opinion," I hardly called 65% widespread, but, ok "I'll bite.") Now you say, Andy, that's cool. Why not enforce people who run red lights. Just like the seatbelt law, again, I have to ask the question, where does it stop? There are already some in Arizona considering traffic cameras for speeding (like Australia). But does it stop there? Or does the camera, alas George Orwell's 1984 prophecy come true, become the here all, end all, in law enforcement. Lets just put cameras up everywhere and we'll all be a lot safer. Thus yielding the power to anyone in power to take creative liberties to any photo with a $299 purchase of Photoshop.

For me, I'll stick with the founders of this country and demand the ability to cross examine my excuser. It might create a slightly more "volatile" country, but I'll take that risk to live in freedom from Big Brother and Photoshop. After all, who’s going to believe me when I call Photoshop to the stand as my accuser?

I finally got to do something that I have always wanted to do: be summoned for Jury Duty. Now I know, most of you are thinking, that's crazy (especially Bryan Taylor who gets summoned shockingly often). I know, I am weird. But I have always grown up with a great appreciate for our justice system, and a great appreciate for being an American, so for me it is an honor to be apart of Jury Duty.

I will say that what I didn't appreciate about my jury summons yesterday was the fact it took 12 hours! I was there from 8:15 am to 8:45 pm and they only gave us one meal break! Nuts, I know. But I digress.

I found out at 2pm that the trial I was being considered for was a murder trial. Apparently on October 31, 2004, the alleged (and I do mean alleged) murderer shot and killed one woman and shot another man. If I wasn't excited before, I sure was now.

But my enthusiasm was not shared. In fact, out of the 58 potential jurors, I would say at least half made vocal objection to having to be there, and I would imagine there were many more. But after working in a courthouse for four years, and being apart of quite an extensive "legal family" (I can count 7 attorney's in my immediate family, cousins, and grandparents), I have to say I was a little disappointed in the experience.

Now you could say it is because I didn't get picked and my feelings are hurt, but those who know me, know I have no feelings so that isn't the case. What disappointed me was seeing who these lawyers did pick. It was clear about half of the jurors pretty much fit the defense, and half of them fit the prosecution. Even odder, one of the women selected was one of the most vocal objectors in having to be there (she was pissed to be selected). And this is where I just don't get it. Instead of picking a well-rounded, fair-minded jury, they picked people who hated being there (which I am sure clouds judgment), and a polarized pool. It’s like our Jury selection has succumb to the Hannity/Combs effect where we just divide up sides, get in an argument, and the ratings sky rocket. This man deserves a fair trial, and the State deserves a fair process of the evidence against this man, but with a polarized jury, I don't think either one of them is capable (especially since the burden of proof lies on the State).

I don't really have any great insight about this. The selection process is probably the "best it can be." I just wanted to share observations from jury duty.

We've all seen the ads on TV and on billboards. "Click-it or Ticket! It's a law you can live with." Well whoever came up with that slogan, you piss me off! Don't tell me what law I can live with, and frankly, I don't think I can live with this law and your arrogance to say that I can only makes me not want to wear my seatbelt more. I wonder if Patrick Henry could have lived with this law.

I need to add this disclaimer. I think wearing your seatbelt is a good thing. People who don't do it (myself included sometimes) are just stupid! But all "good things" are not meant to be laws and that is where I have to claim the seatbelt law is unconstitutional. And here's why...

Law's have two purposes. 1.) To protect us from others, and 2.) to protect us from ourselves when we have been deemed insane. The problem with the seatbelt law is that with a broad stroke of a pen, it has deemed all of us in society unfit to take care of ourselves and think responsibly. It is this insinuation that drives me nuts and honestly "Mr. PR Man" makes for a law I can't live with.

Now you say Andy what is the big deal? It's a good law that encourages us to act safer. Really? Where does this stop? It would be much better for America if everyone stopped smoking. Do we outlaw that? No! It would be much better for America to eat healthier. Do we legislate that? No! (Although on a side note they are considering it). It would be much better if Americans didn't rack up so much debt. Do we legislate spending? No! Frankly, the government needs to back off this issue and if Americans want to kill themselves by not wearing a seatbelt, the government should have nothing to say about it!

So you've got two options, you can just click-it mindlessly because the government and TV tell you to, or you can think about it and the unacceptable precedent this is setting. All in the name of "safety."

Ok, I need to say right off the bat that I do not support child molesters, nor do I support using the internet to solicit underage girls (or boys) for sexual activity. Remember that.

Last night, Dateline did another segment of what seems like the never ending "To Catch a Predator.” If you don't know what I am talking about, flip on NBC on any random night and you should be able to find it. Anyways, the premise of the show is they act like teenagers and solicit older men to meet them in person. When this event takes place, Dateline guy pops out, lambastes them for their actions, and then lets the person go. Only, once they get outside, the police take them down (violently I might add) and haul their butt off to jail.

Now, while still keeping in mind what I said at first, I have to say, I think the real criminal here is NBC (not that the others aren't criminals, but in this instance, it is NBC). The last time I looked entrapment was defined as, "agents of the government inducing a person to commit a crime he or she otherwise would not have committed." Now I know their are two things someone will say right away. 1.) Dateline is not the government and 2.) these people would commit these crimes anyway, therefore its not entrapment.

First of all, the government is using Dateline, so therefore, Dateline is a tool of the government. So that response is invalid. And to point number two. How do we know these people would have committed these crimes had they not been solicited by Dateline. Maybe it was a one time thing. Maybe it was the beginning of a downward lifestyle pattern that the individual would never recover from. Either way, it is Dateline’s fault. Also, I personally know how hard it is to resist the temptation to talk to someone online that is "eager to meet new people" and then turns it into something else. Now I am not saying I ever followed through with anything. In fact, when that conversation turned south, I would leave. But nevertheless, to say that someone would do it otherwise, just because they did it now, is not valid logic.

All I can say is, I hope Dateline never decides something I do is especially heinous for society. Because I imagine I'll fall into that trap easily and then it will be my face on Dateline, sitting across from Scuba-mcgee saying, gee, I don't know what I was thinking.