July 23, 2019

Archives for January 8, 2014

Surviving a Personal Apocalypse — Part 4: Judgment Day

rhodes(Since we just took a holiday break, you might want to go back to Parts 1, 2, and 3 and refresh yourself on the topic of “personal apocalypse.” Go ahead; we’ll wait.)

Jungian psychology identifies observable, predictable patterns of human experience called “archetypes.” One of them is the Apocalypse archetype. Like the others, it plays out both individually (personal apocalypse) and collectively (public apocalypse).

Jungian scholar Edward Edinger identifies four phases of the Apocalypse archetype: The first is revelation, which we talked about last time. The second is judgment, today’s topic.

No, this isn’t the Last Judgment we’re used to hearing about, when all wrongs everywhere for all time are thrown into the Lake of Fire, and us along with them. Instead, as global trends analyst, futurist, and Jungian student William Van Dusen Wishard describes it, this is the “judgment of existing beliefs and institutions against the background of the new truth” we’re given in the revelation phase.

In other words, this is the phase where we find out how our personal beliefs and behaviors, plus the operative dynamics of the important institutions in our lives, all combined to create the mess we now find ourselves in. We’re going to get a private briefing on the topic, and we’re not going to like what we hear. If we thought revelation was a tough pill to swallow, then our personal judgment day is like chugging cod liver oil.

As Edinger says, the judgment phase “can be so overpowering that it can threaten complete demoralization.” No wonder: nobody likes to be told that the thoughts and practices they relied upon colluded with the institutions they trusted to bring about the collapse of their world. That’s never happy news, and hearing it NOW makes it less so: this is after all the end of the world as we’ve known it, and we’re not exactly having a good time here.

As a result, we usually respond by blaming others or dumping ourselves into the tank of guilt and shame and remorse. But really, there’s no need for that. There’s no moral judgment here, no need to punish ourselves or anyone else for what we’ve done or what happened to us. Forgive, yes; punish, no. It’s just that there’s a new sheriff in town, and things are going to be different around here. That’s all. Nothing personal.

Still, the deflation is hard to overcome. We weren’t trying to screw things up, weren’t trying to get sick, get laid off, get hit by a train… things just turned out that way. Maybe so, but if we want to move ahead with rebuilding our post-apocalyptic lives, we need to accept responsibility for what just happened. No, we didn’t and don’t control everything, but we do control what we believe, how we behave, and the choices and responses we make, and now that the leases we had on all of those have been terminated – however unfairly – it’s time to renegotiate. Entering those negotiations with an understanding of how we got ourselves here gives us our best shot at restoring the trust, hope, confidence, and security we’ve lost.

Welcome to Judgment Day. Thankfully, it’s not the end of the process.

To be continued.

Kevin Rhodes is a lawyer in private practice and a registered mentor with the Colorado Supreme Court’s CAMP program. He offers career coaching for lawyers and leads workshops for a variety of audiences, including the CBA’s Solo and Small Firm Section and the Job Search and Career Transitions Support Group. You can email Kevin at kevin@rhodeslaw.com.

Tenth Circuit: FCC’s Actions Not Abuse of Discretion

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in Council Tree Investors, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission on Friday, January 3, 2013.

Petitioners Council Tree Investors, Inc., a communications investment firm, and Bethel Native Corporation, a small wireless carrier (collectively, “Council Tree”), sought review of two orders issued by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “the Commission”) — the D Block Waiver Order (the “Waiver Order”) issued in 2007 and a Waiver Reconsideration Order issued in 2012.  Council Tree specifically requested nullification of Auction 73, the FCC’s auction of the 700-MHz wireless spectrum conducted in early 2008 pursuant to the Waiver Order.

Council Tree filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Waiver Order (the “Waiver Reconsideration Petition”) with the FCC in 2007, as well as a Supplement to the Waiver Reconsideration Petition (the “Supplement”) in 2011. In its Waiver Reconsideration Order, the FCC dismissed the Waiver Reconsideration Petition as moot and dismissed the Supplement as untimely.

The Tenth Circuit held the FCC’s actions were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion and dismissed Council Tree’s petition, as it pertained to the Waiver Order, and denied its petition, as it related to the Waiver Reconsideration Order.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 1/7/14

On Tuesday, January 7, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and five unpublished opinions.

United States v. Weathersby

United States v. Jenkins

United States v. Ramirez

Martinez v. Jones

Buhendwa v. RTD

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection

In Memoriam: Elizabeth Giordano

Liz_GiordanoIt was with a heavy heart that we said farewell to our friend and former CBA-CLE colleague Elizabeth “Liz” Giordano last week. Liz passed away on December 28, 2013 after a courageous fight with pancreatic cancer. Every person Liz met, even if only for a short time, was affected by her vibrancy and usually ended up sharing a laugh with her. Liz was known also for her huge heart and compassion for those less fortunate.

Liz graduated from Broomfield High School, then on to the University of Colorado Boulder for undergrad, and continued with CU for her law degree. After graduation, Liz’s professional experiences included positions at the Adams County Attorney’s Office, the First Judicial Court of the State of Colorado, Coors Brewing Company, the Hispanic National Bar, and Colorado Bar Association CLE. Liz was a member of the Colorado Bar Association, the Colorado Women’s Bar Association, the Colorado Hispanic Bar Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, and the American Corporate Counsel Association. She was instrumental in the development and success of the Spanish Language Lawyering Committee.

We were sad to lose her as a program attorney at CLE, but in 2003 Liz found her true vocation when she began her own law practice focusing on immigration matters for religious workers. Twenty-seven vested priests and deacons presided at the mass for her on January 3 at St. Catherine of Siena Catholic Church, where she was a devoted member. At the mass, in addition to her sister and sister-in-law sharing memories of Liz, 13-year-old Kayli Jankowski gave a touching eulogy, saying, “She was my angel on earth who has now earned her wings.” When she was very young, the teen received a life-saving bone marrow transplant from Liz.

Due to her work securing visas for hundreds of priests and religious, the impact Liz had on the Church was great, said Msgr. Tom Fryar, moderator of the curia. “Especially when you think about the number of babies baptized, the number of funerals celebrated, weddings prepared and celebrated, Masses, and the number of people helped by the priests and religious who arrived here in Denver with proper immigration papers because of her work.” “Liz was not about Liz,” he added, “She was about others… The truth is she poured out her life for others. She will be deeply missed.”

Liz’s passions also included her beloved dogs, gardening, flowers, and creating beautiful things. She started the tradition of transforming the CLE offices over the holidays into a lovely landscape of blue and white.

She is survived by her husband, Toby, and their almost two-year-old “miracle baby,” Grace Katherine Giordano; her mother, brother, four sisters, 26 nieces and nephews, and numerous aunts, uncles, cousins and friends.

We will miss Liz greatly, but we also feel grateful that we had the chance to know her and share in her great spirit.

Tenth Circuit: Denial of Motion to Suppress Affirmed Due to Inevitable Discovery Doctrine

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in United States v. Christy on Friday, January 3, 2013.

After bringing a 16-year-old girl, K.Y., he had met online and exchanged sexual messages with from California back to New Mexico, Edward Christy was charged with one count of transportation with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, and three counts of possession of matter containing visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

He filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the warrantless search of his house, including his statements to the detective and all evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrants. The FBI contacted the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office (“BCSO”) and told them what they had found. As a result, BCSO deputies Littlefield and McKinney were dispatched to Christy’s residence to conduct a welfare check on K.Y. The district court found that the deputies violated the Fourth Amendment when they entered Christy’s house without a warrant, and granted the motion to suppress. The government then filed a motion to reconsider. After reconsideration, the district court then denied Christy’s motion to suppress, on the grounds of inevitable discovery.

In rejecting Christy’s first argument on appeal, the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed that inevitable discovery requires only that the lawful means of discovery be “independent of the constitutional violation,” and concluded that a second investigation is not required. In this case, Officer Carvo had sufficient probable cause to obtain a warrant based on the information he had before the BCSO deputies searched Christy’s residence.

The court also rejected Christy’s argument that the district court misapplied the four Souza factors in finding the evidence would have been inevitably discovered. It held that Officer Carvo would have obtained a search warrant and the evidence would have been discovered legally. The fact that he had not taken preliminary steps to obtain a warrant did not defeat inevitable discovery because such preliminary steps are but one factor. The court affirmed.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 1/6/14

On Monday, January 6, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and three unpublished opinions.

Watkins v. Donnelly

Wiglesworth v. Pagel

United States v. Dupree

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.