Generic: Political Issues Page 1 of 3

Bozarth/Voell Arx Axiom/Vector

Generic: Political Obstacles/Corruption

Bozarth/Voell

Ohio Northern University Law Review 09 -

Brett Deforest Maxfield, [Attorney at Law in California, B.A., University of California, Berkeley, J.D., University of California, Los
Angeles, M.B.A. and LL.M. in Business and Corporate Law, University of San Diego], “Ethics, Politics and Securities Law: How
Unethical People Are Using Politics to Undermine the Integrity of Our Courts and Financial Markets”, Ohio Northern University
Law Review, 2009, <accessed via LexisNexis>, 35 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 243, (ZV)
“It is obvious to all who have been to law school that what is valued most is intellect, not
morals. Of course there are ethical codes of conduct for law students and tests of
professional ethics for state bars, and anyone caught [*245] cheating on a test or committing an act of moral
turpitude will most likely be kicked out of law school or disbarred. But, just because someone does not commit a major act of
dishonesty, does not mean that they are ethical. We praise and reward those who demonstrate a superior intellect and we punish and
defame those who get caught breaking a certain minimum level of ethics. While
the incentive for being brilliant is
positive, the incentive for being moral is only negative (or perhaps just not being very bright). Here is
the problem: one may be brilliant but unethical, and the more brilliant one is, the easier it
would be for him to adhere to the minimum ethical standards and advance to positions of
power and prestige. It has been said that there is good in the worst of us and bad in the
best of us. No one can be said to be without any ethical fault. No one can be said to be so unethical as to
have never done some good in this world. We have devised methods to single out the brightest among us and the most unethical
among us (or perhaps this is just a matter of intellect too, not ethics). Perhaps what stops someone from cheating in law school or in
business is not that they are ethical, but their ability to calculate risk. Thus, the person who gets caught cheating is only less bright
than those who do not cheat, but if there was a full-proof way to cheat without getting caught, perhaps the others would all cheat too.
The reason I bring up these scenarios is because of the recent examples of William Lerach and Elliot Spitzer and of the very bright,
but unethical, people who were behind Enron and other corporate debacles of late. I believe in the power of education. Thus, I believe
that if we as a society stress the importance of ethics and teach it in law school and business school, not just in philosophy curriculum,
there is hope of more ethical behavior in the future by those who advance to positions of power and authority.”

Ohio Northern University Law Review 09 -

Brett Deforest Maxfield, [Attorney at Law in California, B.A., University of California, Berkeley, J.D., University of California, Los
Angeles, M.B.A. and LL.M. in Business and Corporate Law, University of San Diego], “Ethics, Politics and Securities Law: How
Unethical People Are Using Politics to Undermine the Integrity of Our Courts and Financial Markets”, Ohio Northern University
Law Review, 2009, <accessed via LexisNexis>, 35 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 243, (ZV)
“Another way of talking about the substance versus form issue is that corrupt jurists refuse to see the forest from
the trees. By focusing on narrow issues and isolating them from a larger context, justice
and fair play can be sidestepped while still holding to logical arguments that adhere to
some form of reason. However, judges do this by only looking at trees while refusing to
acknowledge the forest. When in a position of power, this is where a person having a superior intellect without having
superior morals results in a tragedy for the public. The public interest might be better served by less brilliant people with superior
morals who can see the forest from the trees and call those who are sophisticated, but corrupt, on their sophistry.”

Reference this for above piece of evidence support: http://www.cato-at-

liberty.org/2009/07/30/cherry-picking-climate-catastrophes-response-to-conor-clarke-
part-ii/

Ohio Northern University Law Review 09 -

Brett Deforest Maxfield, [Attorney at Law in California, B.A., University of California, Berkeley, J.D., University of California, Los
Angeles, M.B.A. and LL.M. in Business and Corporate Law, University of San Diego], “Ethics, Politics and Securities Law: How
Unethical People Are Using Politics to Undermine the Integrity of Our Courts and Financial Markets”, Ohio Northern University
Law Review, 2009, <accessed via LexisNexis>, 35 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 243, (ZV)
“Another way of talking about the substance versus form issue is that corrupt jurists refuse to see the forest from the trees. By
focusing on narrow issues and isolating them from a larger context, justice and fair play can be sidestepped while still holding to
logical arguments that adhere to some form of reason. However, judges do this by only looking at trees while refusing to acknowledge
Generic: Political Issues Page 2 of 3
Bozarth/Voell Arx Axiom/Vector
the forest. When
in a position of power, this is where a person having a superior intellect
without having superior morals results in a tragedy for the public. The public interest
might be better served by less brilliant people with superior morals who can see the forest
from the trees and call those who are sophisticated, but corrupt, on their sophistry.”

Ohio Northern University Law Review 09 -

Brett Deforest Maxfield, [Attorney at Law in California, B.A., University of California, Berkeley, J.D., University of California, Los
Angeles, M.B.A. and LL.M. in Business and Corporate Law, University of San Diego], “Ethics, Politics and Securities Law: How
Unethical People Are Using Politics to Undermine the Integrity of Our Courts and Financial Markets”, Ohio Northern University
Law Review, 2009, <accessed via LexisNexis>, 35 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 243, (ZV)
“It seems that such a philosophy as that offered by Mill is perfect public policy for a society in which there are many different players
with different understandings of ethics/morals. This type of philosophy gives society a workable definition of ethics/morals because it
is more objective than most. It has been labeled Utilitarianism by some scholars and historians, but there are forms of Utilitarianism
other than that attributed to Mill. Perhaps this is what Judge Posner really means by saying that there is no such thing as justice, only
economics. What are economics? One way to define economics may be the ways in which people respond to incentives. However, the
The private
common law and even statutory law in America does not follow this principle of Mill, except accidentally.
prejudices, ethics/morals of specific communities get passed into law by legislatures and
laws get interpreted by judges with their own private prejudices and ethics/morals. The
common law in England developed because different communities had slightly different
customs and it was not practical to impose one law on all communities. Thus, each
community was allowed to develop their own law which made for a different set of laws
for each community based on the custom of each community. In America this principle
has been followed and the result is a mess. Each state has its own set of rules and each
federal circuit has its own set of rules. The U.S. Supreme Court lays down interpretations
of the law which in theory should create uniformity within the circuits on at least those
issues, but the reality is that each circuit interprets the interpretations of the Supreme
Court rulings differently, at least to some degree. Perhaps one day [*251] Mill's theory will spread into the
hearts and minds of legislators and judges so that a more predictable and universal type of law will govern, based on reason alone, and
be intrinsically and intuitively consistent. However, Mill's theory is only about outward issues, not internal ones.”

Ohio Northern University Law Review 09 -

Brett Deforest Maxfield, [Attorney at Law in California, B.A., University of California, Berkeley, J.D., University of California, Los
Angeles, M.B.A. and LL.M. in Business and Corporate Law, University of San Diego], “Ethics, Politics and Securities Law: How
Unethical People Are Using Politics to Undermine the Integrity of Our Courts and Financial Markets”, Ohio Northern University
Law Review, 2009, <accessed via LexisNexis>, 35 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 243, (ZV)
“One way of looking at law and judging is that it is simply about power divorced from
morals/ethical considerations. In this pure power play, ethics/ morals may be invoked
when they are useful but ignored when they are not. If there is an ethical argument to be made which helps
one accomplish their desired end, then spin it as about the ethics. However, if there are unethical considerations that avoid or diminish
these and hope no one makes a big deal about it. People often speak of this as the golden rule-not the
familiar adage that we should treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated, but
the principle that those with the gold, get to make the rules. In other words, might makes
right. Unfortunately, much of what goes on in U.S. legislatures and courts is nothing
more than this golden rule. From the founding of the nation there has been at least two streams of principle at work in
making and interpreting laws. One has been: might makes right. The other is some form of ethics/ morals based on high ideals.”

Ohio Northern University Law Review 09 -

Brett Deforest Maxfield, [Attorney at Law in California, B.A., University of California, Berkeley, J.D., University of California, Los
Angeles, M.B.A. and LL.M. in Business and Corporate Law, University of San Diego], “Ethics, Politics and Securities Law: How
Unethical People Are Using Politics to Undermine the Integrity of Our Courts and Financial Markets”, Ohio Northern University
Law Review, 2009, <accessed via LexisNexis>, 35 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 243, (ZV)
“This paper has considered three topics: ethics, politics and securities law. I have argued that we need a public view of ethics which
only prohibits direct harm upon others. In my view those politicians and judges who are shielding Corporate America from liability
Generic: Political Issues Page 3 of 3
Bozarth/Voell Arx Axiom/Vector
What is
when it has directly harmed the public are guilty of the same. I have not discussed the proximate cause argument.
direct harm? How far down a chain of causation should we hold people accountable for
wrong doing? These questions have been answered in the tort and contract context sufficiently. If the action was intentional
and the consequences were foreseeable, then the person should be held liable. If we continue on this downward
trend, we should expect another Great Depression eventually from a huge financial crash
due to corruption we as a society are tolerating in our financial markets, courts and
legislatures. One easy step in this direction is for Congress to amend the PSLRA to extend private actions against those who aid
and abet and overturn Central Bank and Stoneridge by legislation. However, this will only happen if those in our
society pay attention to what is going on in our society and get involved and vote for
those who are worthy to be policy makers and judges. It is ultimately in Corporate
America's best long-term interest for this to happen, but there are so many vested short-term interests in
America is hard to imagine how things can get turned around. It may be a cliche, but each of us must focus on what we can do for the
good within our respective spheres of influence.”