Happy Birthday to the United States Army

 

 

This weekend, on June 14th — Flag Day —  we celebrated the 250th anniversary of the United States Army.  The Wood family enjoyed watching the military parade in Washington, D.C. and were so proud of all those who participated and thought it was a fitting tribute to our army.  For 250 years, we have had these brave men and women serve in our armed forces and support the Rule of Law, Democracy, and Freedom.  

Those who have served since June 14, 1775, are quite a contrast to those today who are of another ideological persuasion who choose to assault, insult, hector, threaten, and impede our brave men and women of law enforcement. 

Follow me on LinkedIn  

Ames v. Dept of Youth Services - Plaintiffs who are white and heterosexual should not automatically have their claims disfavored

The “heightened burden” rule made up the Federal courts is “atextual”

The Supreme Court has made clear the obvious:  that all plaintiffs making similar claims for discrimination must meet the same burden of proof.  While this may seem obvious to anyone who knows the guarantees of liberty and equality found in our Constitution, Federal courts have held that certain plaintiffs, such as white people or straight women, are disfavored and must meet an almost impossible standard so as to, of course, discourage their pesky claims.  It has taken a unanimous United States Supreme Court via a well-written opinion by the Hon. Ketanji Brown Jackson to disabuse these courts of this notion. (Ames v. Dept. of Youth Services (June 5, 2025) 23-1039.). This means that even Justices Sotomayor and Kagan voted to treat all Americans equally in terms of their claims of discrimination — even if they are straight and/or white.

The Supreme Court summarized the underlying claim of discrimination succinctly:

The Ohio Department of Youth Services operates the State’s juvenile correctional system. In 2004, the agency hired petitioner Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, to serve as an executive secretary. Ames was eventually promoted to program administrator and, in 2019, applied for a newly created management position in the agency’s Office of Quality and Improvement. Although the agency interviewed her for the position, it ultimately hired a different candidate—a lesbian woman—to fill the role.

A few days after Ames interviewed for the management position, her supervisors removed her from her role as program administrator. She accepted a demotion to the secretarial role she had held when she first joined the agency— a move that resulted in a significant pay cut. The agency then hired a gay man to fill the vacant program-administrator position. Ames subsequently filed this lawsuit against the agency under Title VII, alleging that she was denied the management promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation.

The District Court found this poor woman had to meet a very high burden, a heightened burden designed to stack the deck against her, and granted the department summary judgment.  Somehow, the Sixth District, and other districts had either created or perpetuated this heightened burden, as the Ames opinion explained:

The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Like the District Court, the Sixth Circuit held that Ames had failed to meet her primafacie burden because she had not shown “‘background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.’” 87 F. 4th, at 825. The court reasoned that Ames, as a straight woman, was required to make this showing “in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima-facie case.” Ibid. And it explained that plaintiffs can typically satisfy this burden, where applicable, by presenting “evidence that a member of the relevant minority group (here, gay people) made the employment decision at issue, or with statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination . . . against members of the majority group.” Ibid. The panel concluded that the agency was entitled to summary judgment because Ames had failed to present either type of evidence. Ibid.

But, as Justice Brown explained, each individual American who is a plaintiff must - wait for it — be treated “equally:”

By establishing the same protections for every “individual”— without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group — Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.
. . .
Our case law thus makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group. Accord, Bostock, 590 U. S., at 659 (“This statute works to protect individuals of both sexes from discrimination, and does so equally”). The “background circum stances” rule flouts that basic principle.

The concurrence of Justice Clarence B. Thomas  noted that the heightened evidence rule had been entirely made up, i.e., was “atextual,” having been created by the Courts and was not found in the language used by Congress:

I join the Court’s opinion in full. I write separately to highlight the problems that arise when judges create atextual legal rules and frameworks. Judge-made doctrines have a tendency to distort the underlying statutory text, impose unnecessary burdens on litigants, and cause confusion for courts. The “background circumstances” rule—correctly rejected by the Court today—is one example of this phenomenon.

 

Follow me on LinkedIn  

 

Secretary Hegsworth: "We produce such men still, from far flung places willing to traverse the entire globe to defend freedom”

D-Day Anniversary 2025

Today we commemorate the 71st Anniversary of the Invasion of Normandy — not by the forces of “neutral” or “pacifist” nations — but by Allied forces from democracies who believe in fighting evil.  Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth spoke the following remarks at today's commemoration, making the apt comparison between our soldiers today to those who served then, stating that we “produce such men still, from far flung places willing to traverse the entire globe to defend freedom.”

Given that I like to highlight excellence in argumentation and speech, here are his remarks:

As I stare at that flag, we are forever grateful to the French government for dedicating this land as a resting place for our men. It's also an awe-inspiring sight to see the American flag flying here above thousands of crosses and stars as a tribute to our very best. As the former superintendent of this cemetery used to say, there they are. Still serving their country. A living reminder.

Eighty-one years ago, Hitler thought his Atlantic Wall was impenetrable, many agreed. He clearly had not met enough Americans. A more daring assault had never been planned. The task was daunting, a frontal assault across the channel on beaches and cliffs, strewn with obstacles and defended by heavily fortified bunkers.

 

Our only advantage was that the enemy underestimated the strength of the Allied war cause. The invasion would include brave troops from the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, France, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Belgium, Norway, Poland, Greece, and Holland. On the ground, the French Resistance covertly aided the effort.
And as the troops loaded into their ships, planes, and landing craft, they received copies of an order from General Eisenhower reminding them of the stakes of their mission. I have a copy right here. 

 

He wrote, "You are about to embark upon the great crusade toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere march with you. 

 

"In company with our brave allies and brothers in arms on other fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe and security for ourselves in a free world. Your task will not be an easy one." 

 

He ends by writing, "And let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking." 
Now that's a mission statement if I've ever heard one. Those words along with ceaseless prayers to the Lord Almighty willed our troops as they pushed off into dark and choppy waters.

 

They prayed. They smoked. They joked. They wrote home. They looked at photos. They knew many of them would not make it out alive and they would have to rely on each other to succeed or to just survive.

 

 
The assault began quietly before dawn on June the 6th with radio silence as paratroopers and gliders landed in the early hours. These men flung themselves into the abyss of night lit only by the fire of German tracers. 

 

Later that morning, the greatest amphibious assault in the history of mankind began in full force. Our men pushed through the waves and flung themselves upon the sand. The courage it took to do this is unfathomable.

 

The first groups were decimated. Thousands of young men lost their lives, cut down by the barrage of machine guns and mortars. But they never let up. Our warriors never faltered, God at their backs. As they forced their way inland, the Atlantic Wall began to crumble. It is these men and their bravery whom we are here to celebrate and remember.

 

A generation of farmhands and city kids. Baseball players and shopkeepers. Big towns, small towns, rich, poor, who were forged and hardened in the Great Depression. Hard men, forged for hard times. Ordinary men, who mustered extraordinary courage. While every one of the 9,000 Americans buried here are heroes, three men here also received the Medal of Honor for their actions in the invasion.

 

And as Sebastian mentioned, one of those was Brigadier General Theodore Roosevelt Jr., the oldest man to land on D-Day at the age of 56. He had to submit a written petition to receive permission because he had a heart condition and arthritis. He had nothing to prove, but he could not stay back while his men met their fate.

 

There were no other generals on the beach that day. When he landed far from his objective, he simply said men will start the war from right here. He organized the troops and made order out of chaos. A month later, his heart gave out, but he had completed his mission, as did every soul buried under one of those markers.
You see, war reveals the true character of men. The character of a people. Lead from the front or capitulate and fall out. To walk over or run if you can, carrying equipment over that open beach as shells and bullets thunder around you again and again, I cannot imagine. Could you do that? Could I? Could we? As we know, we have a number of these warriors with us here today.

These men, boys then, were part of those landing forces. They embody the warrior ethos. We have many other men here today who served in France, and across the world in that war. To that, I can simply say, gentlemen, thank you for your service, for your sacrifice and for your bravery. That day and those days that followed turned the tide of the war and history itself.

 

In the two months after the invasion, the Allies poured more than two million troops through the hard-won opening in Normandy without Operation Overlord, without the sacrifices of American, French, British and other Allied powers, we would not have the free world. This day, June the 6th, is the price of freedom.

We remember the losses. We celebrate the victories. We rededicate ourselves to the fight for liberty, security, and peace. And again, we should ask ourselves, could I do what they did? Could you? Could we? Could our kids? Do we produce such men? How do we produce such Americans? Our civilization today and going forward must answer those questions.

 

You know, I wrote this speech before this morning, but this morning I got my answer. This morning, I had a chance to do PT with Army Rangers on the beach, on Omaha Beach, I got my answer to those questions. With the sun rising with the Ranger regiment, yes, we do produce such men still, from far flung places willing to traverse the entire globe to defend freedom.

I had a chance this morning to run with a young ranger whose grandfather was liberated in the Philippines by the sixth Rangers. He joined and he didn't even know that. The legacy of Americans around the world for freedom. As we ran on that beach this morning at 6:30, as the sun was rising about the same time those first landing crafts landed, didn't look much like a battlefield.

 

Follow me on LinkedIn  

Using ChatGPT to create your resume - a stunning example

 

 

ChatGPT can create an eerily accurate and personal resume from publicly available data

 

I recently asked ChatGPT to create my resume, but only using information available to anyone.  Meaning that I gave ChatGPT no information whatsoever about myself, and merely asked it to find what information it could find from other sources, and then make a resume for myself.

 

The resume created was eerily accurate, with my only quibble being that it used adjectives such as " accomplished" that I prefer to leave out.  Here is the nearly-instantaneous result:

Based on publicly available information, here is a professional résumé for attorney Paul Kevin Wood:

⸻

Paul Kevin Wood, Esq.

Contact Information:
    •    Address: [omitted here]
    •    LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/paulkevinwood

⸻

Professional Summary

Paul Kevin Wood is a seasoned appellate attorney with over three decades of experience in civil litigation, appellate law, and legal education. Certified by the State Bar of California as an Appellate Law Specialist, he has led law and motion departments and served as a legal education director. His career includes extensive work in appellate advocacy, legal research, and litigation strategy. He is also an accomplished author and legal commentator.

⸻

Bar Admissions
    •    California (License No. 151004) – Active since 1990  

⸻

Certifications
    •    Certified Specialist in Appellate Law – State Bar of California  

⸻

Education
    •    Juris Doctor (J.D.) – University of Southern California Gould School of Law
    •    Bachelor’s Degree – Pepperdine University

⸻

Professional Experience
    •    Appellate and Law and Motion Attorney
    •    Over 31 years of experience in appellate practice and civil litigation.
    •    Led the Law and Motion/Appellate department and served as Legal Education Director at a major corporation.  

⸻

Publications & Commentary
    •    Author: Kinetic Blue – A coming-of-age novel set in 1980s Southern California.
    •    Legal Blog: The Appellate Spectator – Provides insights on appellate decisions and legal analysis.   

⸻

Personal
    •    Resides in Palm Beach County, Florida, with his husband and their three children. 

 

Follow me on LinkedIn  

Question: When is humor ever appropriate in terms of oral or written argument?

"Blonde Ambition:" the proper use of satire towards the ridiculous use of language

 

 

I often get asked if there is any place for humor in a legal brief or at oral argument, and the answer, of course, is virtually never, no matter how ridiculous opposing counsel or the other party may be in terms of their affect or positions.  Ergo, humor – especially when aimed at a particular person or a group of persons – is rarely appropriate.

But I would say the one exception would be mild humor directed, not at any person or entity, but at disingenuous phrasing or more specifically use of a misnomer by opposing  counsel, such as calling a baby a  "fetus" to divert attention from its personhood or a person convicted of a violent felony a “person involved in the criminal justice system."
 

For example, the recent “space flight“ of the “astronauts“ on the Virgin Galactic spacecraft involving Katy Perry, Gayle King, etc., is of course ripe for satire.  This is especially true in terms of the insistence of some in describing these publicity-seeking space tourists in the same terms as astronauts on the actual Space Shuttle or ISS. Indeed, National Public Radio recently called this brief trip “historic,” as if Jeff Bezos’ girlfriend's space tourism ride should be mentioned in the same breath as Valentina Tereshkova or Sally Ride or even Ham, the first Chimpanzee in space, who beat Bezos' girlfriend by about 64 years. (See https://www.npr.org/2025/04/14/nx-s1-5364460/blue-origin-launch-female-space-flight-katy-perry.}


This is perhaps best illustrated by one of the funniest and most enjoyable satirical videos I have ever watched, namely, Megyn Kelly’s video “Blonde Origin” in which she and two other women visit a facility where they enjoy the sensation of weightlessness, and afterward, insist that they in fact, went on a "space flight” as "astronauts.” 

 

So here, then, is a good example of humor aimed at exaggerated language, with one celebrity woman making fun of the pretension of other celebrity women:

 

 

(See https://www.megynkelly.com/2025/05/02/watch-megyn-kelly-blonde-origin-parody-with-mk-media-team/.) 

 

Follow me on LinkedIn  

Study - Near Death Experiences Often Profoundly Change Views of Work So Much That 75% Switch Careers

 

Near-death experiences alter views of work towards valuing relationships and meaning over pure productivity

 

A retrospective study finds that 75% of those who have had a "near death" experience are so profoundly changed that they switch careers.  See the article at StudyFinds.org:

 

https://studyfinds.org/near-death-experiences-how-people-view-their-jobs/

As the linked article states:

 

The study identified six major themes characterizing how NDEs affect work lives: (1) insights and new realizations, such as believing in continued consciousness after death and seeing a universal connection among all people; (2) personal transformations, including increased confidence, spirituality, and sometimes perceived unusual abilities; (3) reprioritization of work, with reduced importance placed on material success and greater emphasis on meaning and personal fulfillment; (4) job changes, with 75% of participants switching careers after their NDE; (5) changes in motivation, with participants losing interest in traditional work goals while becoming highly motivated by work aligned with their newfound values; and (6) transformed relationships with colleagues, clients, and customers, characterized by greater empathy and viewing business transactions as relationship opportunities rather than merely financial exchanges.

Food for thought the next time a Court is rude or hostile during oral argument.

 

For the records, I have never had a "near death" experience.  I did, however, have a "near life" experience, as I call it, in that we took an entire month off work to complete a home exchange in the Netherlands and also visit Israel and Jordan. I therefore highly recommend finding a way to take at least one long break during your career:  it gives a glimpse as to how life would be without professional deadlines and pressures.

 

Follow me on LinkedIn