Too great brevity of discourse tends to obscurity.
Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), French scientist, philosopher

I spend a good deal of my time thinking about why we think or believe certain things.  I have found that most people get deeply troubled when they state to me a heartfelt belief and I ask them one simple question:  “Why?”
 
Many in the criminal system come to hold beliefs for obscure, and unexamined, reasons.  That, in itself, is pretty amazing.  Here you have individuals who have went through not only high school but college and even continued on to professional degrees. Presumably, they have done some thinking along the way their professional capacity are afraid to think about why they hold certain beliefs.  Somewhere they lost the intellectual capacity to be curious and ask “why.”  Those who are hostile to examining their thoughts feel the pursuit of a complex thought tiresome preferring to simply accept the explanation of “that is the way we do things around here.”  I believe, however, brevity is never a virtue when it obscures the pursuit of a complex thought. 
 
Which leads me to discuss a sentencing hearing I had last week.  Lawyers in sentencing hearings many times make unsubstantiated, general statements which may sound good at the time but are in reality nothing but intellectual gibberish.  For instance, Wisconsin has a status offense known as operating after revocation (OAR) of your driver’s license.  This law is broken if you drive a vehicle on a highway after know your driver’s license has been revoked.  Regardless of how bad or good you were operating a vehicle on a road, if a cop pulls you over for say a burned out tail light and finds your license has been revoked, you can be criminally convicted of this offense.  The number of tax dollars wasted in the criminal prosecution of this offense is incredible.  More incredible is when you hear a prosecutor explain to a judge at sentencing on this offense that this is a “serious OAR” and asks for jail time.  I have to wonder if a prosecutor who says an OAR is serious means that the OAR is like a homicide because it is a violent offense.
 
Which brings me the sentencing hearing last week.  The prosecutor was trying to justify her sentencing recommendation that a person go to prison since the offense was a “violent” crime.  Saying someone is violent in the criminal system has severe consequences.  Considered violent in the criminal system may restrict housing, employment, voting and a range of benefits.  A violent felony might preclude someone from finding work; a nonviolent conviction might not.  Most judges will sentence a defendant more harshly with a longer sentence if the person is convicted of a violent crime.  And if that violent offender commits another offense, even if it is nonviolent, most prosecutors will refer to the offender as violent when sentencing on the second offense.
 
So what do we mean when we say an offense is violent?  Well obviously we know homicide is a violent offense because of the great social cost and suffering.  So in that same category we can include things like sexual assault battery or armed robbery.  But if our standard of what is violent is that offense which causes “great social cost and suffering,” should not businesses that cause pollution leading people to experience irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, wheezing, coughing, chest tightness, and breathing difficulties, worsening of existing lung and heart problems, such as asthma and even increased risk of heart attack be considered violent offenders because of the great social cost and suffering caused?  And what of the “great social cost and suffering,”caused by selling alcohol or cigarettes, especially to a minor?
 
And let’s not forget drug offenses.  Fortunately, we have the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys who have in July 2015 explained to us that it is “well-established [that] drug trafficking is inherently violent.”  This explanation is offered since some people, like President Obama, now realize that “we’ve also locked up more and more nonviolent drug offenders than ever before, for longer than ever before. And that is the real reason our prison population is so high.”
 
So we must ask ourselves: why think of drug offenses are violent?  Interestingly, from 1995 to 2012, drug use has slightly increased or stayed the same in the United States according to a drug use survey.  Also, in this same period, drug arrests have increased between 1995 and 2009.  And violent crime has steadily decreased during the period between 1995 and 2012. If the drug-violence connection existed as drug use increases then violent crime should also increase, rather than steadily decline. Though, there can be an argument that because drug arrests have increased, this has caused the steady decline in violent crime.  All of these assertions are not easily determined so at best the arrest data is inconclusive on a drug-violence connection.
 
But doesn’t the evidence show that drugs cause violence?  Actually, there is no solid empirical support for a direct relationship between drugs and violence, but because the data on this topic contradicts what we believe, it is disregarded.  See, Michelle Torok, et al., Conduct Disorder as a Risk Factor for Violent Victimization and Offending among Regular Illicit Drug Users, J. DRUG ISSUES 25, 25–26 (2011) (“Despite the available evidence, little is actually known about the causal mechanisms associating substance use and violence.”); Atkinson, et al., Interpersonal Violence and Illicit Drug Use, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION COLLABORATING CENTRE FOR VIOLENCE PREVENTION 1 (2009) (stating that violence and illicit drug use are strongly linked, however, whether the relationship is an association or causal is still debated); Deborah W. Denno, When Bad Things Happen to Good Intentions: The Development and Demise of a Task Force Examining the Drugs-Violence Interrelationship, 63 ALB. L. REV. 749, 756 (2000) (stating that the final report of a taskforce established to study the drug-violence nexus “concluded that drug-crime relationships were not nearly as clear or as strong as politicians and legislatures had presumed based upon the motivations for enacting the drug laws.”); Richard J. Gelles & Mary M. Cavanaugh, Association Is Not Causation: Alcohol and Other Drugs Do Not Cause Violence, in CURRENT CONTROVERSIES ON FAMILY VIOLENCE, 175, 180 (Donileen R. Loseke, et al. ed., 2d ed. 2005) at 177 (“[T]here is little scientific evidence to support the theory that alcohol and drugs such as cocaine and crack have chemical and pharmacological properties that directly produce violent and abusive behavior.”).
 
But we all know that there is evidence that drugs cause crime, right?  Short answer, no.  “Despite drug use among persons arrested for other criminal activity, however, drug policy reform advocates stress that: (1) most research testing the drugs-cause-crimes argument actually implies that there is only a loose connection between drug use and criminal activity, if there is one at all; and (2) substantial research also demonstrates that much (most) of the so-called drug-related violence actually results from the systemic factors arising because of drug prohibition, not from drug use itself.”  Bruce L. Benson, Escalating the War on Drugs: Causes and Unintended Consequences, 20 STAN. L. & POL’Y REV. 293, 350–51 (2009).
 
Wow!  That last point is pretty amazing!  Can it be that as we try to prohibit drugs, we are ourselves causing violence?  Unfortunately, yes.  Peter Andreas & Joel Wallman, Illicit Markets and Violence: What Is the Relationship?, in CRIME, LAW & SOCIAL CHANGE 227 (2009) (explaining that high-profile crackdowns often fuel the violence rather than stifle it, and that many times it causes violence to spike); David W. Rasmussen & Bruce L. Benson, Rationalizing Drug Policy Under Federalism, 30 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 679, 710 n.123 (2003) (discussing a study which found that “as drug enforcement increases, violent crime also increases.”); Jeffrey A. Miron, Violence and the U.S. Prohibitions of Drugs and Alcohol, AM. L. & ECON. REV. 78, 79 (1999) (arguing that increased homicide rates over the past 100 years is due in part to the influence of prohibition enforcement. “Assuming the estimated relation is causal, the estimates presented here suggest the homicide rate is currently 25%-75% higher than it would be in the absence of drug prohibition.” Id. at 79.); “At a minimum, this evidence fails to make a prima facie case that such prohibitions reduce violence by reducing alcohol or drug consumption . . . .” Id. at 109. John T. Schuler, Notes from the Front: A Dissident Law-Enforcement Perspective on Drug Prohibition, 18 HOFSTRA L. REV. 893, 901–03 (1990) (“The violence related to illegal drug trafficking is an inescapable consequence of prohibition”).
 
Some courts have begun to realize that is not drugs that cause violence but other factors.  See, e.g., Young v. County of Cook, 598 F. Supp. 2d 854, 867 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (finding that money and not drugs could lead to violence by detainees); United States v. Caro, 597 F.3d 608, 641 (4th Cir. 2010) (Gregory, J., dissenting) (stating drug offenses’ association with violence are one of many factors including family conflict, poverty, community disorganization, and others).
 
All this indicates to me there needs to be much more research done on what we consider a violent criminal offense.  More importantly maybe we need to examine closely how we think about the drug violence connection.

Demerit points are assessed drivers when they are convicted of a moving violation, beginning on the date of the violation.  The courts send WisDOT Division of Motor Vehicles records of all convictions for moving traffic violations.
Persons who hold a probationary license are assessed double points for the second and all subsequent points.
When 12 or more demerit points are accumulated in one year, a suspension of the driver privilege is required, for a minimum of two months.
Convictions remain on the driver records for five years from the date of conviction. However, alcohol related and some commercial violations remain on the record for 10 years to life.
How points can be reducedThe point total may be reduced by three points for attending an approved traffic safety school.
Only one reduction is allowed in a five year period for points assessed to the A, B, C, D classification.
One reduction of three points is also allowed in a five year period for points assessed for class M (Motorcycle) violations.
No point reduction is permitted if in one year a person accumulates 12 or more points which would require suspension.
How can I reopen a ticket? How would this help me?Specific questions about how a case can be reopened should be addressed by retaining  Attorney Paul A. Ksicinski, 38 South Main Street, #1056, Oconomowoc, WI 53066, 414-530-5214.
If a case is reopened and the final determination of the court results in an accumulation of less than 12 points in any 12-month period, there would be no suspension for demerit points. If a person is already suspended for demerit points, and the court's determination reduces the point accumulation to less than 12 points in any 12-month period; the suspension would be released.
1. My citation says 4 points; but the DOT letter about my points says 8 points. Why?The point value noted on the citation is an "estimated point value". The violation for which you are finally convicted, and the license type you hold at the time of conviction, determines the points assessed against the record.
If you hold a probationary license, instruction permit, or no license when the conviction is entered on the record, points will be doubled for any second and subsequent convictions, except for convictions under Chapter 347 of the Wisconsin Statutes, which are primarily vehicle equipment violations.
2. How many points do I have left?If you accumulate 12 or more demerit points in any 12-month period, a suspension will result. Individuals with a clear driving record have 0 points. Points are assessed for moving traffic convictions based on the violation offense date. When determining points, be sure to include any pending citations or convictions which do not yet appear on your record.
3. I have tickets pending. How will this affect my record?The violation date (not conviction date) determines whether you have accumulated 12 or more points in any 12-month period. If you are convicted of any pending violations the points will be counted based on the date of violations. If your conviction(s) result in the accumulation of 12 or more demerit points for violations within any 12-month period, a suspension will result.
4. Can I hold a ticket open so there will be more than one year between convictions?Since the determination of your point total is based on violation date and not conviction date, there is no advantage in doing so.
5. Points "fall off" after one year, but if there is a pending ticket, will the violation date be used?As long as convictions remain on the driver record, the points for those convictions remain available to determine whether 12 or more points have accumulated in any 12-month period. The violation dates, not the conviction dates, are used in that determination.
For example: you receive a traffic citation and do not go to court for two years. When the court does report the conviction, points are counted from the date of the violation. If the conviction causes you to accumulate 12 points in any 12-month period, your operating privilege will be suspended.
6. How will point reduction school help me?If you have completed an approved Traffic Safety course, you can request a 3-point reduction of your demerit point total. The point reduction must be claimed before the accumulation of 12 or more points in any 12-month period. No point reduction is permitted if you have already accumulated 12 or more points, which resulted in a suspension of your driving privilege. You can also request a 3-point reduction upon completion of a motorcycle rider course. (This point reduction only applies to violations and convictions incurred while operating a motorcycle.)
Courses can be taken as often as you wish, however you can receive only one point reduction in points every 5 years.
7. Can I take point reduction school after I'm suspended for accumulating 12 or more points?Yes, but no point reduction would be permitted and the suspension would stand. A reduction of up to 3 points would be applied after reinstatement of the operating privilege if points exist.
8. Is a zero point total good or bad?It helps to remember that these are demerit points. Therefore, you do not want to have points. All drivers with a clear record have zero points. As you accumulate convictions, you accumulate demerit points. If you accumulate 12 or more demerit points in any 12-month period, your driving privilege will be suspended.
9. When do points "fall" off my record?As long as a conviction remains on a driving record, the points associated with that conviction remain available to determine if a person has accumulated 12 or more points in any 12-month period. Remember that the violation dates, not the conviction dates, determine point accumulation.
See the example given in #5 above.
10. When can a ticket be removed from my record?Most convictions on a driving record are eligible to be removed five years after the conviction date. Many alcohol related convictions such as operating while under the influence of intoxicants, with a violation date after 12-31-88, remain on the driving record for 55 years. There are also commercial driver convictions which remain on the record for 55 years.

Attorneys like Paul Ksicinski who have successfully fought off shaken-baby convictions know the critical importance of a new decision this month from Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.  Paul Ksicinski knows it is not enough to hit the target in such cases; you must hit the bullseye.
Chief Justice Ralph Gants from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts just ruled that another SBS case in Massachusetts must be re-tried, because evidence contrary to the supposed “science” behind SBS was not presented at the trial. Judge Gants even went beyond just issuing a ruling to provide legal advice to attorneys seeking to represent their clients against SBS claims. In ordering a new trial for Oswelt Millien yesterday, the unanimous court didn’t throw out the science or chastise those doctors who stand by the embattled diagnosis. Instead, it told defense attorneys that there is a road map to reasonable doubt lined with experts, articles and scholarly treatises.

Although Millien was convicted of assaulting his baby, the SJC threw out the verdicts and ordered a new trial because his attorney didn’t put one expert (it should be noted that any attorney who has tried to find an expert in this area knows it is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT) on the stand. Instead, the jury heard the testimony of state experts — including Dr. Alice Newton, whose shaken-baby diagnoses have been challenged by doctors and lawyers in the past.
An attorney faced with the trial of such a case realizes that the death of a baby is a tragedy.  If there is a suspicion of criminal actions being involved in the death, they agree those circumstances should be investigated.
Paul Ksicinski demands that that such an investigation be based on facts, and valid and reliable science not just emotional reaction to the death of a baby.   And that emotional reaction is not limited to family members but can be shared by professionals.  For instance, Dr. Alice Newton, Medical Director of the Child Protection Program at Massachusetts General Hospital has wrongly convicted parents of Child Abuse. As these types of convictions are over-turned across the country, will doctors be held accountable for destroying families?
As the medical profession continues to debate the merits of “Shaken baby syndrome” (SBS), the American judicial system is increasingly determining that the evidence against SBS is strong enough to prevent convictions in a court of law, where the standard is “reasonable doubt.”
“By vacating the defendant’s convictions in this case and ordering a new trial, we do not claim to have resolved the ongoing medical controversy as to how often the triad of symptoms of abusive head trauma are caused by accidental short falls or other medical causes,” SJC Chief Justice Ralph Gants wrote. “We are simply recognizing that there is a vigorous debate on this subject.”
In one footnote alone, Gants spent 400 words describing numerous scholarly articles that cast doubt on the diagnosis.  “A defense expert could have assisted a competent defense attorney in mounting a significant challenge at trial on cross-examination by identifying the methodological shortcomings of the studies they cited,” Gants wrote.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, from a letter written on behalf of the Pennsylvania General Assembly

Florida is a state which is experienced in the massacres of the helpless.

The Rosewood massacre was a violent, racially motivated massacre of blacks and destruction of a black town by a self righteous white mob that took place during the first week of January 1923 in rural Levy County, Florida. Estimates of the death toll range from eight to as many as 150,  Libby, Jeff, "Rosewood Descendant Keeps The Memory Alive". Orlando Sentinel (February 1, 2004), http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2004-02-01/news/0401300610_1_rosewood-massacre-white-mob-black-residents. 

Today, America is trapped in sorrow as an unbalanced fool named Omar Mateen again kills in Florida.  The gunman who went on a shooting rampage in a popular Orlando gay nightclub, Pulse.  As officials offered new details about another mass shooting in American history the tragedy has left 49 people dead and 53 wounded.

And what was the response of the two leading candidates for president?

Clinton's plan? Expand the "terrorist watch lists" despite the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people who appear to be on the list for no reason at all, and whose lives are destroyed.  The Unfortunate Experience Of Being On Homeland Security's Terrorist Watchlist, https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141022/13594728911/blogger-terrorist-watchlist-details-ridiculousness-dealing-with-governments-various-security-theaters.shtml.  The Intercept, a news organization that obtained classified government documents, reported last year that more than 40 percent of the 680,000 people on the terrorist watch list as of 2013 were described as having “no recognized terrorist group affiliation.”  The Intercept, Watch Commander: Barack Obama’s Secret Terrorist-Tracking System, by the Numbers, https://theintercept.com/2014/08/05/watch-commander/
 
No matter, Clinton says let's expand it:
 
"We need to look carefully at this," she said. "Should we have a broader database? If someone comes to the attention of the FBI not once, but three times, that suggests that law enforcement needs to know, that people need to be more aware."  Danielle Kurtzleben, In Wake Of Orlando Shooting, Clinton Suggests Broader Terrorist Watch Lists, NPR (June 13, 2016) http://www.npr.org/2016/06/13/481853366/in-wake-of-orlando-shooting-clinton-suggests-broader-terror-watch-lists
 
Meanwhile, Trump, beyond the much publicized and repeated plan to stop anyone who is a Muslim from immigrating to the country (even though the shooter was born here), also encouraged a much broader version of the already moronic "see something, say something" campaign after blaming Obama:
 
[Trump] said Americans need to be willing to call the authorities when they see friends, family and neighbors performing suspicious activities.  Id.
 
Ahhh…America land of the free….so long as you are willing to rat out your parents and neighbors.  Franklin was right, if we follow the road suggested by Clinto or Trump we lose security and freedom.

So what should be done? 

Do you remember Chelsea Manning?  Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was convicted in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after disclosing to WikiLeaks nearly three-quarters of a million classified or unclassified but sensitive military and diplomatic documents.  Manning was sentenced in August 2013 to 35 years' imprisonment, with the possibility of parole in the eighth year, and to be dishonorably discharged from the Army.  Manning is a trans woman who, in a statement the day after sentencing, said she had felt female since childhood, wanted to be known as Chelsea, and desired to begin hormone replacement therapy.
 
Ms. Manning recently wrote in The Guardian:
 
As we mourn the shooting victims, it’s imperative that we remember the response can be more dangerous than the attack.
……
We must grieve and mourn and support each other, but in our grief and outrage we must resist any temptations to let this attack – or any attack – trigger anti-Muslim foreign policy, attacks on our civil liberties or as an excuse to descend into xenophobia and Islamophobia.
 
However, an attack like this is carefully planned and executed to maximize attention by inflaming the passions of a helpless public. Because of this, the response can be more dangerous than the attack. The refrains of “safety and security” have, for many years, been used as a tool by the powerful to justify curtailing civil liberties and emboldening backlash against immigrants, Muslim people and others.
 
Current proposals for hate crime laws and terrorism enhancements only take more power away from our community. We consolidate power with law enforcement only to have those same mechanisms turned against us. For example, more intense scrutiny on verification procedures in government and business have created barriers for trans people seeking documents that correctly identify their gender, causing us to be subjected to abusive and humiliating searches when traveling. Any increase in surveillance of marginalized communities for the sake of security theater have expanded the cycle of criminalization that queer people – especially queer people of color – are forced to navigate.
 
If only Clinton and Trump would listen to these words. 

Paul Ksicinski has explained here that the Bill of Rights are not gifts from the government but unalienable or natural rights you have as human being guaranteed by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  Paul Ksicinski has explained here laws of possessing guns and knives in Wisconsin.  Paul Ksicinski has discussed whether you should set up a gun trust here.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld a California law restricting the right of ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons in public. The court split 7-4 in a case that could provide a tempting target for U.S. Supreme Court review. The majority concluded that local officials can deny some concealed-carry permit requests. The dissenters said the law violates the Second Amendment. A 4-4 tie by the Supreme Court would leave this ruling intact.
However, the US Supreme Court invalidated a handgun ban in the past with this explanation:
[T]he inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one's home and family,” . . . would fail constitutional muster.  District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 628 (2008)
 Likewise, the Fourteenth Amendment also has as one of its objectives the protection of the right to keep firearms and to preserve the sanctity of the home from searches and seizures. See Heller, 554 U.S. at 614-15; McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 3038-40 (2010).  “The most familiar of the substantive liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are those recognized by the Bill of Rights.” Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 847-48 (1992) (referring to “the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution [such as] . . . the right to keep and bear arms”).
In Peruta v. County of San Diego, Judge William Fletcher held that “that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”  Slip at p. 11. 
The 7-4 ruling upheld California’s broad restrictions on concealed-carry use in their entirety.  Under current California law, a member of the general public may not carry a concealed weapon in public unless he or she has been issued a license. An applicant for a license must satisfy a number of conditions. Among other things, the applicant must show “good cause” to carry a concealed firearm. California law authorizes county sheriffs to establish and publish policies defining good cause. The sheriffs of San Diego and Yolo Counties published policies defining good cause as requiring a particularized reason why an applicant needs a concealed firearm for self-defense.
The en banc court held that the history relevant to both the Second Amendment and its incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment lead to the same conclusion: The right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment. Therefore, because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry — including a requirement of “good cause,” however defined — is necessarily allowed by the Amendment. The en banc court stated that there may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public, but the Supreme Court has not answered that question.
 Dissenting, JudgeCallahan, joined by Judge Silverman Judge Bea, and by Judge N.R. Smith stated that in the context of present-day California law, the defendant counties’ limited licensing of the right to carry concealed firearms is tantamount to a total ban on the right of an ordinary citizen to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. Thus, plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights have been violated. Additionally, Judge Silverman, joined by Judge Bea, would hold that the challenged laws are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment because they do not survive any form of heightened scrutiny analysis.  Dissenting, Judge N.R. Smith wrote separately only to express his opinion that the appropriate remedy is to remand this case to the district courts to allow them to initially determine and apply an appropriate level of scrutiny.

It is 1967 in the United States.  Lyndon Johnson is president.  He is escalating Kennedy’s war in Vietnam.  USMC and ARVN troops launch Operation Deckhouse Five in the Mekong Delta.  August 30th Thurgood Marshall is confirmed as the first African American Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. government needed public support for the war.  But one man was very publically not supporting the war.  His name was Muhammad Ali, born Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr.  Shortly after winning the world heavyweight championship, Clay converted to Islam, changed his "slave" name to Ali, and gave a message of racial pride for African Americans and resistance to white domination during the 1960s Civil Rights Movement.

When notified of that he was going to be drafted into the Army, he declared that he would refuse to serve in the U.S. Army and publicly considered himself a conscientious objector. Ali stated that "War is against the teachings of the Holy Qur'an. I'm not trying to dodge the draft. We are not supposed to take part in no wars unless declared by Allah or The Messenger. We don't take part in Christian wars or wars of any unbelievers." Ali also famously said in 1966: "I ain't got no quarrel with them Viet Cong ... They never called me nigger."

The issue of whether Ali was a conscientious objector ended up before the U.S. Supreme Court.  In the book The Brethern: Inside The Supreme Court, Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong detailed how things did not look good for Ali at first.  Initially, the Supreme Court justices ruled 5-3 against Ali during a conference.  Thurgood Marshall recused himself from the case due to his prior role as Solicitor General.  The justice assigned to write the majority decision was John Marshall Harlan.  He did not buy Clay’s conversion to Islam or understand Ali's religious conviction..

Fortuitously, a clerk gave Harlan a book to read that made Ali’s religious convictions clear.  The book was reportedly The Autobiography Of Malcolm X.  That changed the court vote divided at 4-4.  The court wanted to work a compromise since Ali was the largest sports figure of the day.  That meant as usual it was Justice Potter Stewart who convinced the other justices of a procedural error by the lower courts: that the lower courts never explained why they turned down Ali’s appeals.

The final decision was a unanimous ruling, 8-0 in Clay v. United States, 403 U.S. 698 (1971), in favor of Ali, a stunning turnaround from a potential 5-3 loss.  The Supreme Court held that, since the appeal board gave no reason for the denial of a conscientious objector exemption to petitioner, and it is impossible to determine on which of the three grounds offered in the Justice Department's letter that board relied, Ali's 1967 conviction must be reversed:

Since the Appeal Board gave no reasons for its denial of the petitioner’s claim, there is absolutely no way of knowing upon which of the three grounds offered in the Department’s letter it relied. Yet the Government now acknowledges that two of those grounds were not valid. And, the Government’s concession aside, it is indisputably clear, for the reasons stated, that the Department was simply wrong as a matter of law in advising that the petitioner’s beliefs were not religiously based and were not sincerely held.

After the court announced its decision, reporters asked Ali if he intended to recover damages from his three-year exile from boxing. “No. They only did what they thought was right at the time. I did what I thought was right. That was all. I can’t condemn them for doing what they think was right,” he said.

Now you know why the man was the greatest.

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies)

Paul Ksicinski has your back when you feel the world is against you and you are charged with a crime.
 
Being an experienced criminal defense attorney having helped people just like you when they have been wrongfully charged, I know that the criminal system is hammer rather than a fine tuned instrument that society uses, sometimes unjustly, against people.  Unfortunately, many times the hammer falls even though you are innocent.

For instance, I have  previously written how politicians will seek to exploit your faceless fear of the criminal system here, how the juvenile system may be creating criminals here and explained how antics of school clowns are being criminalized here, how the war on drugs has been used as a tactic to marginalize and imprison minorities here and here, how years out of a person’s life are lost when innocence is demonstrated after conviction was discussed here (since 1989, in Wisconsin there has been 43 exonerations amounting to an average year lost of 6.81: with 293 years total.), and finally I have written how even if you are innocent you may have to sit in jail until your trial here.

Recently I have been contacted by a number of people who have been contacted by people with no criminal record but who are now charged with a crime and the prosecutor wants to throw “the book at them” due to their record.  People who have no criminal record should be considered one thing: innocent.  It is like being pregnant:   either you are or you aren’t, there is no inbetween.  It is fundamentally unfair and a misrepresentation to say that someone has “a record” when the person has not been convicted. 

Think about it.  What is really being said is that because you are innocent of these things in the past we must find you guilty of something now.  That is the logic written about by Kafka in his novel, The Trial.  In the book, Josef K is arrested and prosecuted by a remote, inaccessible authority, with the nature of his crime revealed neither to him nor to the reader.  One of the more famous quotes from the novel is “[I]t's in the nature of this judicial system that one is condemned not only in innocence but also in ignorance.”

Is that the logic of a society that is supposed to believe one is innocent until proven guilty?  An arrest record is vastly different than a conviction record.  An arrest record is defined as information that a person has been questioned, apprehended, taken into custody or detention, held for investigation, arrested, charged with, any felony, misdemeanor or other offense by any law enforcement or military authority.  Wis. Stat. Sec. 111.32 ( 1 ).  So an arrest record may include the fact that you were once questioned by the police as a witness and not even involved in any way in the possible offense!  Contrast this with a conviction record which is defined as including, but is not limited to, information indicating that an individual has been convicted of any felony, misdemeanor or other offense, has been adjudicated delinquent, has been less than honorably discharged, or has been placed on probation, fined, imprisoned, placed on extended supervision or paroled pursuant to any law enforcement or military authority.  Wis. Stat. Sec. 111.32 ( 3 ).  So unlike an arrest record, a conviction record requires a conviction or adjudication followed by a punishment imposed in accord with the law. 

That fundamental difference of innocence and conviction simply cannot be dismissed or treated as insignificant.   Take a look here at the miscarriages of justice when the presumption of innocence is not respected.