Contents
Dean's Letter
Around Campus
Faculty Briefs
God v. The Gavel
Interview: Rob Schwartz '92
Adieu J.D.: A Tribute to Jacques Derrida
Clerking at the ICTY
Cardozo Alumni Working in the International Arena
Alumni News
Class Actions
Calendar
Masthead
Administration
View As PDF

Groundbreaking Conference Examines Nuremberg Legacy as Human Rights Violations Continue
Menand Lecture
Bellhead/Nethead Addresses Federal Regulation of the Internet
Former Solicitor General Visits for Two Days
Sunstein Delivers Bauer Lecture on “The Right to Marry”
Moot Court Teams Take Top Honors at Prestigious Competitions
Eyewitness Identification Reform Discussed
Dinkins/Cardozo
Library Appreciation
Federal Judges and 1Ls
Auction Raises Nearly $100,000
PROGRAM IN HOLOCAUST AND HUMAN RIGHTS STUDIES
THE SAMUEL AND RONNIE HEYMAN CENTER ON CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
FLOERSHEIMER CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY
JACOB BURNS ETHICS CENTER
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROGRAM


Groundbreaking Conference Examines Nuremberg Legacy as Human Rights Violations Continue

Alec Baldwin on opening night

After the Holocaust the world vowed “never again,” but at a historic three-day conference on the Nuremberg war crimes trials, participants were reminded that “never again” has become “over again” as human rights violations continue.

A broad spectrum of participants including former Nuremberg prosecutors, government officials, participants in tribunals reviewing abuses in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, and Sierra Leone, and academics gathered to analyze the impact of the Nuremberg principles on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the trials. “We hope to reaffirm the lessons of Nuremberg,” said Sheri Rosenberg, deputy director of the Program in Holocaust and Human Rights Studies, who, along with Prof. Richard Weisberg, the Program’s director, organized the conference.

The standing-room-only crowd was introduced to the importance of the Nuremberg trials with a screening of the 1959 teleplay Judgment at Nuremberg, which contains an introduction by former Nuremberg prosecutor and Cardozo founding faculty member Telford Taylor. Actor Alec Baldwin, coproducer and star of the TNT mini-series Nuremberg: Infamy on Trial, and Prof. Michael Marrus of the University of Toronto offered comments.

“If you want to pursue justice, you must have a sense of injustice,” Irwin Cotler, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, said. As part of a “recollections” panel, firsthand witnesses to the injustice shared their experiences. At the age of 22 and with only a 10th-grade education, Richard Sonnenfeldt became the chief interpreter for the American prosecution team. Born into a Jewish family in Germany, Sonnenfeldt had the opportunity to speak with everyone during the trial and read the indictments. “I was a witness to that history,” he said.

Panelists John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group and Stephanie Frease of the Coalition for International Justice

Greville Janner, Member of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom, was not at the Nuremberg trials, but at the age of 18 he was stationed at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. As a war crimes investigator in the British Army of the Rhine, Janner was responsible for arresting war criminals. In describing his first capture, a prison guard, Janner expressed surprise that the man was so ordinary. “They weren’t what you regarded as people who were killers,” Janner said.

Leading the charge against the “killers” was US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, chief prosecutor for the United States. In discussing the history of Nuremberg, Henry King, a former Nuremberg prosecutor and a professor at Case Western Reserve School of Law, invoked the memory of Jackson. “We should never forget what Robert Jackson accomplished in such a short time,” King said, adding that we owe Jackson thanks for giving us a blueprint for the future and a vision for a better world. “I applaud his dreams. The real danger is not to dream at all,” King said.

Former Nuremberg prosecutor Ben Ferencz

“What happened to the dream?” questioned former Nuremberg prosecutor Ben Ferencz, who at the age of 27 tried his first case at Nuremberg. In answering his own question, Ferencz said, “Murder all over the place. Genocide all over the place.”

According to Hassan Bucabar Jallow, chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, while Nazi Germany and Rwanda are far apart in time and geography, they are the same problem. “It continues to happen,” Jallow said. “It has happened again.”

Although crimes against humanity continue, panelists reminded the audience that the work at Nuremberg was not in vain. In a keynote speech, Justice Theodore Meron, president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, said that although Nuremberg had flaws, without Nuremberg the establishment of an International Criminal Court at The Hague would not have been possible. According to Jallow, while the international community did not get involved in Rwanda until it was too late, international criminal justice is slowly happening. In West Africa, the power of the law is becoming greater than the power of an AK47, according to David Crane, chief prosecutor at the Special Court for Sierra Leone. “I believe the international community got it right this time around,” Crane said.

Lord Greville Janner, former war crimes investigator in the British Army

The questions of whether the international community got it right at Nuremberg and whether they will get it right in Iraq were also debated. “It’s not too late to correct the mistakes that have been made for the Iraqi tribunal,” Geoffrey Robertson, chief judge at the Special Court for Sierra Leone, said. According to Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program for Human Rights Watch, the problem with the Iraqi tribunal is that the death penalty is involved. “Death surely is too easy for crimes of this heinousness,” Robertson said, adding that it’s hard to teach reverence for life if Saddam Hussein is sentenced to death and made a martyr.

Dicker raised the point that bringing Saddam Hussein to trial is important to help victims gain a sense of closure, but Dr. Yael Danieli, president of the International Network of Holocaust and Genocide Survivors and Friends, said that courts can help with the healing process, but victims need more than prosecution. Preventing new victims is a priority, but participants on a panel on the crisis in Darfur, Sudan, described the war raging there that is producing new victims every day. Stephanie Frease, director of programs at the Coalition for International Justice, expressed dismay that the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Darfur has concluded that what is happening in Darfur is not genocide.

Former Nuremberg prosecutors Whitney Harris (center) and Henry King (right) and Mrs. Whitney Harris

“We need to respond to crimes against humanity whether they are genocide or not,” said John Prendergast, special advisor at the International Crisis Group, who had made three trips to rebel-held Darfur in the previous six months. The failure to act forcefully shows that little has changed since the crisis in Rwanda, Prendergast said, and the US government needs to impose sanctions on Khartoum. “We still have time to act,” Prendergast said. “It’s simply not too late to act in these cases.”

Concern about how the United States will act in the future was expressed by Ben Ferencz, the final conference speaker. He summed up the three days and electrified the audience with his experiences as a war crimes investigator. Sharing his disappointment that the United States does not support the International Criminal Court, Ferencz said, “There’s only one threat to our service personnel—war making,” and fighting against an international court is like fighting against Nuremberg. “It’s not enough to catch the perpetrators,” Ferencz said. “Stop the killing is what you have to do first.”

Menand Lecture



Author Louis Menand (center) chats with Prof. Paul Verkuil (left) and Dean David Rudenstine before addressing first-year students. As a special guest lecturer, Menand discussed his Pulitzer Prizewinning book, The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America, sent by the dean to all of last fall’s entering students because, according to the dean, it will "put in broad intellectual terms the opinions which you will read this year."


Bellhead/Nethead Addresses Federal Regulation of the Internet

Prof. Susan Crawford, organizer of Bellhead/Nethead, and Robert Blau, vice president, BellSouth

The United States has no national agency that regulates the Internet, but this could be changing. Controversial proposals for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) supervision of cyberspace were debated at Bellhead/ Nethead: The FCC Takes On The Internet.

Sponsored by the Floersheimer Center in conjunction with Yale Law School’s Information Society Project, FCC officials, leaders of the Internet and telecommunications industries, public policy officials, and members of the legal and academic communities gathered to examine plans by the FCC to regulate the Internet. Discussions focused on the FCC’s role in regulating Internet Protocol-enabled services, including Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), the technology that enables telephone calls using a broadband Internet connection instead of a traditional phone line.

The regulations under consideration could make the Internet more like the heavily regulated traditional telephone system. In a keynote address, Robert Pepper, chief of policy development for the FCC, discussed the need to balance the interests of the FCC, the FBI, and the affected industries, and the difficulties in doing so. “This is not just about telephones,” Pepper said.

Panelists at the one-day conference wrestled with the conflicting interests and discussed the challenges involved in restructuring and rebalancing the system. “The pace of change in this broadband revolution is accelerating,” Bruce Mehlman, a former Commerce Department official and cofounder of the Internet Innovation Alliance, said. “Like love, no amount of broadband is too much,” but Mehlman also said that if emerging technologies are taxed and regulated there will be a drag on innovation.

Former Solicitor General Visits for Two Days

Seth Waxman with Rachel Lubert ’06 (left) and Rebecca Hagenson ’06, winners of Vanderbilt University’s National First Amendment Moot Court Competition

Former United States Solicitor General Seth Waxman spent two days immersed in Law School life, sharing his invaluable experience by discussing a recent Supreme Court victory, leading a Moot Court master class, teaching Constitutional Law, and delivering a public lecture.

In a glowing introduction before the opening lecture, Prof. Susan Crawford said Waxman is known for his teaching, leading, and helping. “Seth makes us all proud of our profession,” Crawford said.

Waxman, one of the country’s premier Supreme Court and appellate advocates and a partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, lived up to the reputation by graciously inviting the audience to interrupt with questions and injecting humor into his speech. Waxman’s lecture “Who (or What) is the Solicitor General’s Client?” was part of Cardozo’s Bauer Distinguished Visitor Program and covered the role and responsibilities of the Solicitor General, which include representing the United States before the Supreme Court and insuring that the government speaks in one voice in the federal courts. “It probably was a job whose aspirations could never be filled,” Waxman said. Admitting he was unsure where to begin in the role, his response was to “show up for work every day and figure out how it’s done,” adding that arguing in front of the Supreme Court is “great, wonderful fun.”

Continuing the visit, Waxman, who has delivered more than 40 oral arguments in the Supreme Court, began the second day at Cardozo by leading Prof. Michael Herz’s Constitutional Law class. Jokingly promising a higher grade to anyone who asked a question, including the Hon. Olivier Dutheillet de Lamothe, Justice at the French Constitutional Council who was in attendance, Waxman discussed his recent Supreme Court win in the juvenile death penalty case Roper v. Simmons.

He discussed the Eighth Amendment and various cases involving the death penalty before talking about the preparation for Roper, in which the court ruled on March 1, 2005 that the death penalty is unconstitutional for anyone who commits a crime when under the age of 18. “We needed to write the perfect brief,” Waxman said. Representing Christopher Simmons, who murdered a neighbor when he was 17 years old and was sentenced to death, Waxman invoked “evolving standards of decency” and social science research that suggests personalities and moral character are unformed in those under 18.

After having lunch with another group of students, Waxman held a Moot Court master class. Second-year students Rachel Lubert and Rebecca Hagenson, fresh from their victory in Vanderbilt University’s National First Amendment Moot Court Competition, presented their oral arguments to Waxman and fellow students.

“This was really a pleasure,” Waxman said. “It’s quite obvious why you won.” He also offered practical advice, encouraging the students to prepare and recite their most important one or two points right off the bat. Admitting that justices probably don’t want to be considered pupils, he nonetheless encouraged everyone to think of judges as students when answering their questions. “This is all about teaching,” Waxman said. “It’s about trying to explain something.”

OTHER VISITORS
The Uri and Caroline Bauer Distinguished Visitor Program, which began this year, brings prominent speakers to Cardozo to deliver a public lecture and present a smaller talk to Cardozo faculty and students. In addition to Mr. Waxman, this year’s visitors were Thane Rosenbaum, professor of law at Fordham University and a visiting professor at Cardozo this spring, who spoke on “The Myth of Moral Justice,” and Martha Nussbaum, a professor of law and ethics at the University of Chicago Law School, whose talk was titled “Capabilities and Disabilities: Beyond the Social Contract.”

Sunstein Delivers Bauer Lecture on “The Right to Marry”



Eminent constitutional law scholar Cass Sunstein delivered a provocative lecture on an increasingly controversial and political topic, “The Right to Marry,” addressing a packed audience of students, faculty, and guests at the Uriel and Caroline Bauer Memorial Lecture.

Sunstein, the Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago, discussed the nature and scope of the right to marry. He argued that marriage should be understood as a licensing scheme and discussed whether marriage, in this view, should exist at all.

Sunstein explained that a marriage certificate provides “public legitimation and endorsement” as well as a set of material benefits, such as legal entitlements, ownership benefits, and the power of surrogate decision making. “They make life a lot easier,” Sunstein said.

He shared his personal view that he does not support the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages. Sunstein said it is “way premature for the Supreme Court to enter into that debate,” and that it’s an “area in which federal courts should tread very cautiously.”

Federal Judges amd 1Ls

Judge Joseph Greenaway, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

Judge Joseph Greenaway, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, speaks with a legal writing class as part of a new judicial visits program, which brings members of the bench to campus for informal discussions with first-year students. Judge Judith Smith, New York State Court of Appeals, and Judge William Bassler, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, also spoke to legal writing sections.



Library Appreciation




Prof. Lynn Wishart (second row center) and her staff were honored at Library Appreciation Day, which marked the acquisition of the 500,000th volume for the library’s collection. Professor Wishart, associate dean for library services and director of the Law Library, thanked her staff for their tireless efforts and praised them for being “mind readers.” In acknowledging Wishart, Dean Rudenstine said, “I don’t know how she does all that she does,” while Vice Dean Laura Cunningham suggested Wishart’s title be changed to “All Knowing.”

Moot Court Teams Take Top Honors at Prestigious Competitions

Monrad Paulsen Moot Court Competition winners Sharon Scher ’06, who won best oralist, and Chris Fugarino ’06, who won runner-up best oralist, with (from left) Judges Darrell Gavrin, New York State Supreme Court, Queens County; Naomi Buchwald, US District Court for the Southern District of New York; and Robert Smith, New York Court of Appeals

Rachel Lubert ’06 and Rebecca Hagenson ’06 of the Moot Court Honor Society triumphed in the face of tragedy when they won Vanderbilt University’s prestigious National First Amendment Moot Court Competition.

Lubert and Hagenson had to overcome not only 35 teams from law schools around the country but also the death of their friend and team editor, Liza Suckle, only days before the competition. “We really had no expectation of success, only the hope to honor Liza’s memory,” Lubert said. “We competed for her and hope only that we made her proud.”

The team, which also won runner-up best brief, argued both sides of a hypothetical First Amendment case that presented the issue of whether school officials could punish a student for a drawing depicting violence. “We work so hard in preparation, and it is so difficult to put yourself out there in competition, that just by doing it you’ve generally satisfied your expectations,” Lubert said.

Jeremy Sussman and Andrew Pak, also second-year students, took first place at George Mason University’s Henry G. Manne Moot Court Competition for Law & Economics, held at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The team analyzed the legal and economic implications of a complex antitrust price-fixing problem. According to Sussman, the competition challenged them to learn basic economic theory and antitrust law, and apply it to a question with no obvious answer. Pak also won best oralist.

Eyewitness Identification Reform Discussed

Keith Findley (left) and John Pray (middle), codirectors, Wisconsin Innocence Project at University of Wisconsin; Penny Beernsten, sexual assault victim and advocate for both victim and offender rights; and Prof. Barry Scheck

With their shirtsleeves rolled up—and armed with case studies, data from pilot projects, and visual aides—law enforcement officials, attorneys, scholars, and psychologists from across the nation gathered for a landmark conference to share progress reports and research in procedures and programs for reforming eyewitness identification in the criminal justice system. Kirk Bloodsworth, the first person to be released from death row through postconviction DNA testing, and two female sexual assault victims who made incorrect identifications in their own cases and now advocate both for victim and offender rights also participated.

The ubiquitous role of eyewitness testimony in criminal cases, its fallibility, and recent public scrutiny of this issue made this a critical and timely event. According to presenters, mistaken eyewitness identifications were present in over 80% of the postconviction DNA exonerations in the United States. They added that while many people disagree about the causes of and remedies for the problem, there is strong evidence that neither the pretrial identification procedures most commonly used in the precincts nor the Supreme Court standard of admissibility for eyewitness identifications is working.

The impact of witness confidence in a trial, the need to work with law enforcement in winning reforms, obstacles to implementing them, and other issues were explored at Reforming Eyewitness Identification: Convicting the Guilty, Protecting the Innocent. Among the techniques and examples shared at the two-day conference was an innovative pilot program in Minnesota that changes the way witnesses view line-ups, eliminating unduly suggestive identification procedures, and instituting new line-up methods. In one that is “double-blind,” the person conducting the procedure is uninformed about the identity of the suspect.

Conference co-organizer Prof. Barry Scheck said, “The purpose of the conference was to generate discussion and ideas and cultivate reforms and programs. As we can see from what was shared here, we’re making progress and that is encouraging. But we have much more work to do in the precincts, courts, and legislatures to improve our criminal justice system.”

The conference was cosponsored by The Innocence Project, the Jacob Burns Center for Advanced Legal Studies, Cardozo Law Review, and the Judicature Society.


Auction Raises Nearly $100,000



This year, the Annual Goods and Services Auction broke all previous records and, according to committee chairs Claire Tuck ’06 and Aron Zimmerman ’05, grossed over $96,000 for public interest summer stipends. This impressive number was reached through auction proceeds and donations from several members of the Cardozo community. Leading the way were sponsors Kathryn Greenberg ’82 and her husband, Alan, The David Berg Foundation, Elizabeth Greif, Barry Shenkman and the Jacob Burns Foundation, BAR/BRI Group, Paul Brusiloff ’91 and Nadja Caufield ’96, Rosemary Byrne ’80, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, and David Kessler ’82 and family. More than 200 items were auctioned off including Chanel pearls, a golf foursome at Trump National Golf Club in Westchester, a horse, and two dinners for seven hosted by Dean Rudenstine at the Gotham Bar & Grill that raised $4,000. The highest bid was for a bridal basket that was bought by engaged couple Joni Kletter ’04 (at right) and Doug Schneider ’05. Auctioneer Richard Brierley of Christie’s kept the crowd in high spirits. The event, sponsored by the Public Interest Law Students Association, raised enough money so that every student who applied and qualified for a public interest stipend received a grant of $3,500.

(From left) Rebecca Hagenson ’06, Gary Kaufman ’06, and Clara Seo Feacher ’07 perform “Cardozo Feud” at You Can’t Do That On Law Revue! The annual LAW REVUE show, a musical spoof, is produced, written, and performed by students.



Dinkins/Cardozo



At the invitation of New York City Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo (right), former Mayor David Dinkins was the guest speaker at the New York City Law Department Annual Diversity Reception, held at Cardozo. Mayor Dinkins encouraged participants to consider careers in public service. “You will never get more gratification than you will get working in public service,” he said.



PROGRAM IN HOLOCAUST AND HUMAN RIGHTS STUDIES

Cardozo Hosts Discussion on the Conflict in Darfur, Sudan

RUTH MESSINGER shares her stories of Darfur while panelists (from left) Gregory D’Elia, Gerald Martone, and Iain Levine look on.

With their shirtsleeves rolled up—and armed with case studies, data from pilot projects, and visual aides—law enforcement officials, attorneys, scholars, and psychologists from across the nation gathered for a landmark conference to share progress reports and research in procedures and programs for reforming eyewitness identification in the criminal justice system. Kirk Bloodsworth, the first person to be released from death row through postconviction DNA testing, and two female sexual assault victims who made incorrect identifications in their own cases and now advocate both for victim and offender rights also participated.

The ubiquitous role of eyewitness testimony in criminal cases, its fallibility, and recent public scrutiny of this issue made this a critical and timely event. According to presenters, mistaken eyewitness identifications were present in over 80% of the postconviction DNA exonerations in the United States. They added that while many people disagree about the causes of and remedies for the problem, there is strong evidence that neither the pretrial identification procedures most commonly used in the precincts nor the Supreme Court standard of admissibility for eyewitness identifications is working.

French Ambassador to Israel JACQUES HUNTZINGER was a guest speaker at European Anti-Semitism Past and Present: Restitution Efforts for Past Wrongs and Education Programs to Face Present Problems. He was joined by Ambassador Edward O’Donnell, special envoy for Holocaust issues at the US Department of State.

The impact of witness confidence in a trial, the need to work with law enforcement in winning reforms, obstacles to implementing them, and other issues were explored at Reforming Eyewitness Identification: Convicting the Guilty, Protecting the Innocent. Among the techniques and examples shared at the two-day conference was an innovative pilot program in Minnesota that changes the way witnesses view line-ups, eliminating unduly suggestive identification procedures, and instituting new line-up methods. In one that is “double-blind,” the person conducting the procedure is uninformed about the identity of the suspect.

Conference co-organizer Prof. Barry Scheck said, “The purpose of the conference was to generate discussion and ideas and cultivate reforms and programs. As we can see from what was shared here, we’re making progress and that is encouraging. But we have much more work to do in the precincts, courts, and legislatures to improve our criminal justice system.”

The conference was cosponsored by The Innocence Project, the Jacob Burns Center for Advanced Legal Studies, Cardozo Law Review, and the Judicature Society.

In COMMEMORATION OF KRISTALLNACHT, Prof. Richard Weisberg (right) and Prof. Harry Reicher of the University of Pennsylvania discussed the legal histories of the Third Reich and Vichy France. They questioned why two systems of law failed to challenge anti-Semitism at The Shattering of Law: Legal Systems and Their Role in the Holocaust. Also pictured are (from left) Prof. Sheri Rosenberg and Marlene Yahalom, educational director, American Society for Yad Vashem, a panel cosponsor.



THE SAMUEL AND RONNIE HEYMAN CENTER ON CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

FLOERSHEIMER CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY



Eminent political scientist Robert Dahl (second from right), Sterling Professor Emeritus at Yale University, was on campus to talk about his most recent book, How Democratic is the U.S. Constitution? He is pictured with (from left) Visiting Prof. John McCormick, Prof. Michael Herz, and Prof. Marci Hamilton, who all offered comments at the discussion.


Georgetown Law Prof. David Cole Lectures on Civil Liberties



Georgetown University Law Prof. David Cole (far right) expressed his view that the Bush administration’s model for preventing future terrorist attacks in this country, the “paradigm of prevention,” has been anything but balanced. “We’ve seen a fundamental sacrifice in equality,” Cole said at “The Paradigm of Prevention: Civil Liberties, Security, and the Rule of Law in the War on Terrorism,” sponsored by the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy.

While the desire to prevent terrorism is understandable, Cole said the rule of law cannot be ignored in the process. “On September 12 we had the world’s sympathy, and today we have the world’s animosity,” Cole said. In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court said the President does not have the power to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely, which according to Cole recognizes that the rule of law is critical in the war on terrorism. “Dignity is not something that is reserved for people with American passports,” Cole said.

Floersheimer Center Tackles Timely Subjects

Panelists Prof. Samuel Wheeler, University of Connecticut, and Prof. Avital Ronell, New York University, at Derrida/America

The Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy hosted conferences, lectures, and discussions on current topics and brought distinguished guests to campus during a successful year of growth and expansion of the Center’s activities, including new publications and the launch of a Web site, http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/floersh/index.asp.

TERRI SCHIAVO CASE
The Center recently sponsored a panel discussion on the Terri Schiavo case, with Professors Michael Herz, Marci Hamilton, Melanie Leslie, and Ed Stein discussing some of the issues raised by the controversy, such as living wills, end-of-life decisions, and freedom of religion. The professors presented brief summaries of the importance of the case to their fields and tried to answer the question, “What are the legal lessons of the Terri Schiavo case?”

Panelists Prof. Samuel Wheeler, University of Connecticut, and Prof. Avital Ronell, New York University, at Derrida/America

ELECTION LAW
Prior to the national election, an election law speaker series included Charles Spies, election law counsel for the Republican National Committee, who spoke on campaign finance laws; Henry Berger, New York counsel for the Kerry-Edwards Campaign, who discussed promoting and protecting the vote; Eric Hecker, associate at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP and adjunct professor at Cardozo, who discussed redistricting; and Prof. Michael Herz, who spoke on the Electoral College.

DERRIDA/AMERICA
In February, the Center cosponsored a two-day conference on the legacy of French philosopher Jacques Derrida. Following Derrida’s recent death, American and European scholars gathered at Derrida/America: The Present State of America’s Europe to review, explore, and examine the significance of his work. (See Peter Goodrich’s remembrance of Derrida on p. 28.)


FREEDOM AND LEGALITY
Prof. Peter Goodrich and Prof. Simon Critchley of the New School University co-taught Why Law? Freedom and Legality, a weekly class for Cardozo students open to invited guests. Each week distinguished guest speakers, including renowned French philosopher Alain Badiou, examined the nature of law and the relation between freedom and law.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
As in previous years, the Floersheimer Center hosted a small number of distinguished fellows to be in residence and teach a class, give a lecture, or provide an article to a Cardozo journal. The 2004–05 fellows were Prof. Otto Pfersmann, University of Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne; Prof. Christian Biet, University of Paris X Nanterre; and Olivier Dutheillet de Lamothe, member of the French Constitutional Council and of the Conseil d’État.

PUBLICATIONS
A new initiative is the publication of Floersheimer Center Occasional Papers. Written by Cardozo faculty members and friends of the Law School, the papers address topical issues and stem from a presentation at a Cardozo conference. This year the Center published two occasional papers, The Press and the “War on Terror”: A Failure of Courage? by Anthony Lewis and The Accountable Net by David R. Johnson, Susan P. Crawford, and John G. Palfrey, Jr.

JACOB BURNS ETHICS CENTER



PROF. GRAHAM ZELLICK, chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is the independent body set up to investigate suspected miscarriages of justice in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, discussed how the commission was established and what its powers are at “Reviewing Miscarriages of Justice in England: The Work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission.”





The Supreme Court’s consideration of the constitutionality of the FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES and the Court’s opinion in Blakely v. Washington were the topics of discussion at a panel hosted by the Jacob Burns Ethics Center. Prof. Ellen Yaroshefsky talks with Adam Lurie ’02, an associate at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP and the moderator of the panel, which included James Robinson, partner at Cadwalader and former assistant attorney general for the criminal division at the US Department of Justice; Josh Dratel, president-elect of the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; the Hon. John S. Martin, former US District Judge for the Southern District of New York; and Prof. Kate Stith, Yale Law School.



INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROGRAM



JOSH WOLFE, cofounder and managing director of Lux Capital and editor of the Forbes /Wolfe Nanotech Report, shows a pair of pants that demonstrates some of the benefits of nanotechnology at Nanotechnology and the Law, sponsored by the Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal. Nanotechnology experts Mark Modzelewski (center), cofounder and executive director of NanoBusiness Alliance, and Philip Braginsky ’90 (right), of counsel at Sills Cummis Epstein & Gross P.C., joined panelists Dan Ravicher, president and executive director of Public Patent Foundation, and Stephen Maebius, a partner at Foley & Lardner.





JAY ROSENTHAL of Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe, LLP, who is counsel to the Recording Artists’ Coalition, discussed advocacy and the role of the entertainment lawyer at a symposium hosted by the Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, in partnership with the GRAMMY Foundation® Entertainment Law Initiative and the ABA Forum on Entertainment and Sports Industries.





United States Federal Trade Commissioner MOZELLE THOMPSON (right) is pictured with Prof. Stewart Sterk after delivering the 12th Annual IP Distinguished Lecture, at which he discussed patent reform, competition, and the future of innovation. The annual lecture provides an opportunity for students to hear from an influential voice in intellectual property law.





University of Washington PROF. TOSHIKO TAKENAKA was among several IP scholars and experts to visit Cardozo this year as part of the Intellectual Property Speakers Series. She discussed patent law and compared US and Japanese technology transfer systems. Other visitors were Prof. James Boyle, Duke University; Prof. Sonia Katyal, Fordham University; Stephen Kunin, deputy commissioner for patent examination policy, United States Patent and Trademark Office; Prof. Joe Lui, Boston College; Prof. Peter Menell, University of California, Berkeley; Prof. Craig Nard, Case Western University; and Prof. Katherine Strandberg, DePaul University.





PROF. MICHAEL MADISON of the University of Pittsburgh spoke on repairing copyright’s fair use defense at Some Modest Proposals 2.0: A Conference About Pouring Academic Ideas Into Legislative Bottles, a two-day conference that focused on copyright, patent, and privacy law proposals. The “Modest Proposals” event, now in its second year, invites leading academics to present legislative proposals for improving the US intellectual property system. The proposals then receive scholarly and political commentary in a discussion among attendees, who include current and former Capitol Hill staff members, administration officials, and professors.