Columns

Butzel attorney and shareholder Mitchell (“Mitch”) Zajac will be featured during a webinar titled, “Tariffs Aren’t Going Away: The Procurement Playbook for the New Trade Era” presented by LightSource on Tuesday, July 14. 

The courts struck down the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs and roughly $170B in duties are moving back toward importers. Some may interpret it to mean the tariff era is ending – it  isn’t. Notably, Section 232, 301, and the new 122 surcharge all survived. Elevated tariffs are the baseline now – and refunds hinge on deadlines and documentation, not on who overpaid. Most entries won’t be refunded automatically. 

During the webinar, Zajac will break down where things stand and LightSource CEO Spencer Penn will frame what it means for the sourcing decisions businesses are making right now. 

Zajac’s legal practice includes a focus on automotive, intellectual property, regulatory and emissions compliance. He has experience in commercial litigation, transactional matters, counseling, and negotiating successful resolutions in a variety of sectors, for large corporations and entities of all sizes. 

His experience is comprised of commercial automotive advising, including supply chain disputes for light-duty, commercial vehicle, after-market, and remanufacturing suppliers; non-disclosure, joint-development, and public-private-partnership agreements in a variety of industries, including automotive, defense, and construction; product warranty and cost-recovery; product safety and compliance; emissions certification and compliance; international trade and customs, including United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) matters, Section 301 China tariffs, and Section 232 steel and aluminum, and IEEPA tariffs; and e-discovery.

Before joining Butzel, Zajac was an engineer at a Detroit Three automaker. In this role, he was an advocate for progress and change in a variety of functions, including powertrain and engine systems design and development; design and development engineering, including customer sourcing, quality, and design; international program, supply chain, and manufacturing management, including responsibility for vehicle chief engineering, product planning and branding, two global manufacturing facilities, supply chain management and customs. 

In addition, Lex Mundi recently recognized Butzel as the recipient of the Lex Mundi Equisphere® Deal of the Year Award at the Lex Mundi Annual Conference in Vienna, Austria, recognizing a multi-jurisdictional matter led by a member firm. Butzel is the exclusive member firm in Michigan for Lex Mundi.

Butzel represented Altimetrik Corp., an AI and digital engineering firm, in a multi-jurisdictional transaction in which TPG, a leading global alternative asset firm, acquired a majority stake in Altimetrik and its global subsidiaries. The matter included a complex merger involving hundreds of shareholders and option holders across jurisdictions, which was followed by a significant acquisition to further support Altimetrik’s long-term growth and global structure. 

Butzel lead attorneys included Nicholas J. Stasevich and Jennifer E. Consiglio. Other team members included Arthur Dudley II, Laura A. Johnson, Justin G. Klimko, Lynn McGuire, Shanika A. Owens and Daniel Soleimani. Paralegal Jeanne Balint assisted the team as well.

The transaction required close coordination with 15 Lex Mundi member firms worldwide.

•            •            •

Suzy Siegle, president and CEO of Walsh College, has been named a DBusiness Magazine 2026 Powered by Women Honoree. 

Siegle, who currently serves as Walsh College’s ninth president and CEO, earned a bachelor’s degree, an MBA, a law degree, and a doctorate in higher education leadership and management, with her dissertation focused on alternative and innovative operating models for 21st century higher education. 

Siegle is a Society of Human Resources Senior Certified Professional (SHRM-SCP), a certified executive coach through the Center for Executive Coaching and earned certifications in AI for Business Strategy from MIT Sloan, Augmented Reality through Columbia Executive Education, Applied Neuroscience & Brain Health, the Neuroscience of Learning & Development, and in Consumer Neuroscience & Neuromarketing from Copenhagen Business School.

A board member of the Detroit Economic Club, Siegle has presented at several of its Young Leader events, and is a frequent speaker for the National Management Association’s local leadership development chapter. As a SHRM Senior Certified Professional, she also has attended and presented at several HR conferences. 

Her board service and professional engagement include:

• Detroit Economic Club, board member
• The Michigan Venture Capital Association, university partner
• Entrepreneurs’ Organization- Detroit, Strategic Alliance Partner
• Advisory board, Drench LLC
•  State Bar of Michigan, member

Siegle is also an author who has written several books 

•            •            •

The law firm of Couzens Lansky, located in Farmington Hills, is pleased to announce that Karen V. Fairman has joined the firm.

Fairman is a member of the Probate & Estate Planning Section of the State Bar of Michigan.

She received a B.S. from Wayne State University and her law degree from the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. She was admitted to practice in the State of Michigan in 2010.

Fairman has concentrated her legal practice in the areas of estate and trust administration by providing advice and assistance to fiduciaries. She represents clients in Probate Court proceedings of all types including will, trust and estate administration matters, guardianships, conservatorships and trust reformations. She also prosecutes and defends claims by or against Personal Representatives, Trustees, beneficiaries and other interested persons in contested estate, trust and probate matters. This includes will and trust contests, contested proceedings for guardianship and conservatorship and breach of fiduciary duty claims.

•            •            •

Varnum is pleased to announce that David Joo has joined the firm’s Business and Corporate Practice Team as a partner in the Birmingham office.

Joo focuses his practice on mergers and acquisitions, private equity transactions, and other strategic corporate matters. Fluent in Korean and English, he has experience advising on cross-border transactions involving Korean businesses and multinational companies operating in Korea. His transaction experience includes advising on complex acquisitions, joint ventures, investments, and corporate spin-offs for clients across industries such as automotive, health care, technology, financial services, and manufacturing.

Prior to joining Varnum, Joo practiced at Wall Street and Magic Circle law firms, as well as law firms in Korea. His background also includes capital markets, antitrust and competition, privacy and data security, and financial regulation and compliance matters.

Joo earned his law degree from New York University School of Law and his Bachelor of Arts in political science from the University of Michigan. He is admitted to practice in New York and is qualified as a Foreign Legal Consultant in Korea.

•            •            •

Clark Hill is pleased to announce Michael Witzke has joined the firm’s Tax & Estate Planning practice group as a member in the Birmingham office. Witzke represents clients in estate and gift tax planning, special needs planning, asset protection, charitable giving, family office services, and business succession with a focus on protecting and transferring wealth.

With a multidisciplinary background in complex wealth planning solutions, Witzke works closely with high-net-worth families, business owners, and physicians to develop strategies that align with their financial goals and long-term objectives.

Witzke is an active member of the Probate and Estate Planning Section of the State Bar of Michigan and the Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan Legal Financial Network. He previously served as president of the Financial Planning Association of Michigan.

“The firm’s national reach and collaborative nature present a compelling opportunity to better serve clients with their complex planning needs,” Witzke said. “I’m excited to contribute to the continued growth of the Tax & Estate Planning practice group.”

Witzke is admitted to practice in Michigan, Illinois, and Florida and earned his law degree from Wayne State University Law School. He also holds a Retirement Planning Specialist designation from the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School.

•            •            •

Dykema recently announced that Lori McAllister, a nationally recognized insurance industry attorney, has been elected chair of the Board of Directors of the Attorneys’ Liability Assurance Society (ALAS). ALAS is the country’s largest lawyer-owned mutual insurer, providing professional liability coverage to more than 220 law firms representing approximately 84,000 attorneys nationwide, including nearly half of the Am Law 200.

McAllister has served on the ALAS Board of Directors for more than a decade and previously chaired its Audit Committee. 

McAllister is a litigator and advisor to insurers and businesses on complex litigation, regulatory matters, corporate governance, and strategic transactions. She serves as outside general counsel to organizations, advising boards of directors and audit committees on governance and risk management issues. She is also recognized for her work guiding mutual insurance company conversions under Michigan’s demutualization statute and counseling clients on significant insurance regulatory matters.

A former member of Dykema’s Executive Board, McAllister also served as the firm’s general counsel for more than a decade. She was inducted into the Michigan Insurance Hall of Fame in 2021 and has been repeatedly ranked by Chambers USA as a leading lawyer in Insurance. She is also regularly recognized by The Best Lawyers in America, including being named “Lawyer of the Year” multiple times.

•            •            •

McDonald Hopkins is proud to announce that several of its attorneys have been recognized in the 2026 Legal 500 US City Elite rankings.  In Detroit, attorneys John Benko and Michael Latiff were ranked.

•            •            •

Honigman was recently recognized at Michigan Lawyers Weekly’s inaugural Legal Innovation awards event.  The firm was presented with the “Best Use of AI in Legal Services” honor for utilizing AI to enhance firm efficiency and yield beneficial client outcomes.

By Mikhail Murshak

Injunctions, Innovation, and the Problem We Can’t Price

There is a shift happening in patent law, but its real impact will not be felt in policy statements ... it will be felt in federal courtrooms.

Recently, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a Statement of Interest in Collision Communications, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., reinforcing a principle that has quietly eroded over time: a patent is a right to exclude, and injunctions are central to that right.

At first glance, that sounds obvious, patents have always been framed this way. But in practice, particularly over the last fifteen years, that right has softened. For many patent owners, the realistic outcome of enforcement has not been exclusion, it has been compensation.

This latest filing suggests a course correction and with that correction comes a harder question: who should actually have the power to shut down a competing product?

The Legal Foundation: The Right to Exclude

The statutory framework is clear. Under 35 U.S.C. § 283, courts “may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent.” That right, traces directly to the Constitution, which empowers Congress to grant inventors exclusive rights to promote the progress of science and useful arts. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.

“[The Congress shall have Power ... ] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

The government’s recent filing reinforces that patents are not merely economic instruments. They are property rights with exclusionary force. That framing matters because in litigation, how a right is characterized often dictates the remedy that follows.

The eBay Framework and the Shift That Followed

Modern injunction analysis is governed by eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006). In eBay, the Supreme Court rejected both automatic injunctions and categorical denials. Instead, it imposed a four-factor equitable test:

• Irreparable harm
• Inadequacy of monetary damages
• Balance of hardships
• Public interest

That decision reshaped patent litigation. In theory, it restored balance and in practice, it often shifted outcomes toward damages. Over time, courts became more hesitant to grant injunctions, and operating companies became more comfortable treating infringement as a manageable risk.

The result is what many now describe as efficient infringement where the question is not “Can we do this?” but “What will it cost if we do?” The DOJ and USPTO appear to be pushing back on that dynamic.

Not All Patent Owners Are the Same

Any discussion of injunctive relief inevitably runs into the issue of non-practicing entities (NPEs). But that label hides important distinctions.

Universities, for example, are non-practicing entities. They conduct foundational research, often with federal funding and rely on licensing to bring that research to market. 
Without meaningful enforcement rights, including the possibility of injunctions, their model weakens. Why take a license early if competitors can simply use the technology and deal with damages later?

Licensing companies occupy a more nuanced middle ground. Some aggregate fragmented rights and facilitate access to innovation. Others rely more heavily on enforcement as a business model.

Then, there are patent assertion entities often labeled “trolls” that raise legitimate concerns. These entities may assert patents late in a product lifecycle, targeting companies after products are already deployed and redesign is costly.

Treating all of these actors the same under an injunction framework is both impractical and inconsistent with how the innovation ecosystem actually works.

The “Gotcha” Problem and Enforcement Timing

For many operating companies, patent enforcement does not feel like a predictable risk, it feels like an ambush.

A patent surfaces after a product is launched. Claim scope becomes clear only through litigation. The accused feature cannot easily be redesigned. And the assertion arrives at the moment of maximum leverage.

This creates what can fairly be described as a “gotcha” dynamic where timing, not just merit, drives outcomes. That reality complicates the equitable analysis because while the legal right may be valid, the manner in which it is asserted raises legitimate questions about fairness and market impact.

A Useful Contrast: Standard Essential Patents (SEPs)

Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) provide a helpful comparison. SEPs cover technologies necessary to comply with industry standards: Wi-Fi, 5G, USB and are typically disclosed through standard-setting organizations. Their owners generally commit to licensing on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

This creates predictability. Companies know the landscape; they can anticipate licensing obligations. And disputes are more likely to center on pricing than exclusion.

In that environment, courts are often less inclined to grant injunctions because monetary compensation is expected to be adequate. The contrast is telling: where predictability increases, the need for injunctive relief often decreases.

The Ongoing Debate: Is This About NPEs?

Some commentators have suggested that the DOJ/USPTO filing places a “thumb on the scale” in favor of non-practicing patentees—particularly those who rely on enforcement rather than commercialization. (See e.g., USPTO and DOJ Statement of Interest in Collision Communications: Another Thumb on the Scale in Favor of NPE Patent Plaintiffs; Rich, Joshua, March 5, 2026, PatentDocs.org).

That concern is not without merit. Strengthening the availability of injunctive relief increases leverage. And leverage can be used in ways that feel disconnected from innovation in the traditional sense.

But focusing solely on NPEs risks missing the deeper issue. The concern about NPE leverage is real but it may be a symptom, not the cause.

The Valuation Problem That Nobody Wants to Solve

At the center of this debate is a more fundamental problem: we do not have a reliable way to value patents. Patent damages are built on hypothetical negotiations, what willing parties would have agreed to in a world that never actually existed.

Courts and experts construct models. Assumptions are layered on assumptions. Outcomes vary widely. And everyone involved, patentee, defendant, expert, and judge, knows that the number, at best, is an approximation.

That creates a structural tension within the eBay framework. If monetary damages cannot be calculated with confidence, how can courts conclude they are “adequate”? And if they are not adequate, the logic begins to tilt toward injunction.

Which raises an uncomfortable question: are we relying more heavily on injunctive relief not because harm is truly irreparable but because valuation is inherently uncertain?

Irreparable Harm and Doctrinal Drift

Under eBay, irreparable harm is supposed to be specific and demonstrable. But in practice, arguments have expanded to include:

• Loss of market position
• Competitive disadvantage
• Uncertainty in future licensing
• Difficulty in quantifying harm

At some point, the line begins to blur. Irreparable harm risks becoming less about the nature of the injury and more about the limits of economic modeling. If that happens, the system begins to drift toward something eBay rejected: a soft presumption of injunction.

Litigation Implications Going Forward

If courts take the DOJ/USPTO signal seriously, we are likely to see changes in how cases are litigated. Plaintiffs will focus more heavily on:

• Non-quantifiable harm
• Market dynamics
• Loss of control over technology

Defendants will emphasize:

• Lack of notice
• Predictability
• Timing of enforcement

And courts will likely respond by crafting more nuanced remedies, tailored injunctions, delayed enforcement, or structured licensing opportunities.

Let’s call it what it is: we built a system that demands precision in valuing innovation—while dealing with assets that resist precision. Now courts are being asked to choose between two imperfect tools:

• Monetary damages that are inherently uncertain
• Injunctive relief that can reshape markets

The DOJ and USPTO are not trying to empower any particular class of patent holder. They are trying to restore credibility to the right to exclude. But once that right is strengthened, it applies across the board.

Closing Thoughts

The Constitution did not promise inventors a royalty, it promised them: an exclusive right. The challenge now is ensuring that right:

• Rewards innovation,
• Supports competition,
• And does not become a tool for strategic surprise

Maybe the real issue isn’t injunctions at all. Maybe it’s that we never solved the problem of valuing innovation with the level of certainty the law demands.

And now, faced with that uncertainty, courts are being asked to choose between imperfect math, and market exclusion. As courts grapple with uncertain patent valuation, injunctions are regaining relevance. 
————————
Mikhail “Mike” Murshak is a licensed patent attorney and experienced Intellectual Property (IP) attorney at Foster, Swift, Collins, & Smith PC.  He specializes in patent, trademark strategy and acquisition, and general IP and business counseling including preparation, prosecution, and licensing.

It may be hard to fathom, but there once was a time when there was a sense of civility in the political world, when compromise, cooperation, and constructive discourse were the operative words of the day.

It was an era when patriotism was a unifying force, and where respect for others was ingrained in our collective DNA.

Now, due largely to the disruptive tone set by our nation’s president, the prevailing political mood is shaped by name-calling, mudslinging, and backbiting, the likes of which 
are instantly amplified by the unsettling and growing influence of social media as a political battleground.

The disturbing trend has only deepened the political divide in this country and leaves us to ponder the question, “Where have all the good people gone?”

In a somewhat different form, the question was posed by folk artist Pete Seeger in 1964 with his hit song – “Where Have All the Flowers Gone?” – which became an anthem for the anti-war movement during the Vietnam era.

At that time, like now, the country was split into two camps, bitterly divided over which political party was better equipped to bridge the divide without causing further calamity. It would take years to find some common ground, as Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and then Ronald Reagan each took a turn at striking a more congenial and conciliatory tone, attempting to reach across the political aisle to find bipartisan solutions to some of the most difficult economic, social, environmental, and military problems of the day.

President Reagan, who most historians rank as one of the greatest communicators to ever occupy the Oval Office, was particularly skilled at the art of political compromise, regularly using his oratorical talents to convince a wary opponent of the wisdom of his legislative programs.

His skill at disarming an opponent was never more evident than during the 1984 presidential debate against former Vice President Walter Mondale. When pressed with repeated questions about his age, the 73-year-old Reagan displayed his comedic chops, responding that “I made a promise not to make age an issue in this campaign because I don’t want to use my opponent’s youth and inexperience against him,” prompting laughter even from the 56-year-old Mondale.

The willingness to use wit and wisdom, unfortunately, has given way in recent years to taunts and insults as the new means of political communication, further corroding the democratic process and threatening our moral values.

Much of the blame for that development rests at the doorstep of right-wing media outlets that revel in twisting the truth and stoking fear for the sake of boosting their TV ratings. 

All this nonsense heightens the need for change and reform in an effort to restore truth and decency as the primary underpinnings of our political system so that policy debates and real governance can take place. Otherwise, we run the risk that political extremists will continue their efforts to stifle dissent, roll back individual rights, eliminate fair elections, and consolidate power in the hands of their chosen few.

In his 1961 inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy issued a call to action, uttering the immortal words, “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”

His challenge helped inspire the creation of the Peace Corps, the transformational agency of American volunteers who over the past six decades have worked hand-in-hand with residents in impoverished areas around the world to create a better life and to foster a greater cultural understanding.

Kennedy’s words also spurred man’s exploration of space, highlighted by a lunar landing on July 20, 1969 that was celebrated globally as a stunning scientific and engineering achievement.

Those two milestones for mankind helped America become a hero to the world, a nation bound together by a unity of purpose and spirit that awaits a reawakening when those who are determined to do good emerge again.

Regrettably, the battle for our election souls in 2026 is not being waged by the best and the brightest that America has to offer. That ship sailed years ago when our political parties became mired in seemingly intractable disputes over social and economic disparities, causing partisan fragmentation that threatens to send such time-honored principles as cooperation and compromise into full scale retreat.

That is unless we – on election day in November – decide to chart a different course by writing a new program, a political script featuring high-quality candidates of competency and character who believe in the fundamental truths framed within democracy itself.

Such a sea change, of course, can only be accomplished if we put our political differences aside with a new-found determination to engage in meaningful and respectful dialogue, embracing the wisdom of our forefathers who knew the high cost of preserving our most precious freedoms for the common good.­

Foster, Swift, Collins, & Smith PC shareholder Stefania Gismondi has been selected as a 2026 Fellow of the Michigan State Bar Foundation. 

Gismondi is a member of the General Litigation Practice Group in Foster Swift’s Southfield office. Her practice includes defense and representation for businesses and individuals in insurance coverage disputes, managing and resolving first and third-party no-fault automobile claims and insurance and liability issues and trends regarding autonomous vehicles.

Established in 1984, the Fellows Program recognizes Michigan attorneys for their professional excellence and service to the community.  It supports the Michigan State Bar Foundation’s mission to improve the administration of justice and expand the delivery of civil legal services to vulnerable populations in Michigan. 

Each year, a select group of attorneys and judges are invited to join the Fellows Program following a peer nomination and selection process. There are more than 1,500 active Fellows statewide.

The Michigan State Bar Foundation was established in 194 as the state funder for civil legal aid and provides leadership and grants to improve the civil justice system and increase access to justice. For additional information, visit www.msbf.org.
.
•            •            •

Cooley Law School Distinguished Professor Emeritus Joseph Kimble was honored with the 2026 Burton Award for Book of the Year on Legal Writing for the book, “Essentials for Drafting Clear Legal Rules.” He co-authored the book with Bryan A. Garner, distinguished research professor at SMU Dedman School of Law. The awards ceremony was held at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., on June 1.

This marks the third time that Kimble has received the prestigious Burton Award. He previously won Burton Awards for Reform in Law in 2007 and 2011 for his work in helping to completely redraft the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence.

“In some ways, this book has been 30 years in the making because it reflects the work that Bryan and I have done in helping to restyle all five sets of federal court rules,” said Kimble. “The guidelines and techniques that we applied throughout are captured in this book. It’s all about the ways to achieve clarity — 90 or so guidelines and techniques, and something like 250 before-and-after examples. And we decided to make the book available for free online. We’re trying to change the way that lawyers draft, and the book is already being used in some law schools.”

•            •            •

McDonald Hopkins welcomes attorney Allison Cronin to the Litigation Department and the Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group. Her practice focuses on incident response, pre-breach services, and regulatory defense.

“I am excited to work alongside attorneys who are leaders in a dynamic and rapidly expanding area of law, while representing clients across a wide range of industries. I am especially looking forward to contributing to a practice that is helping shape how businesses respond to the legal implications of emerging technology,” Cronin noted.

“The firm’s outstanding reputation stood out, but also its collaborative, supportive culture. From my first conversations with the attorneys here, it was clear that the team values mentorship and brings together attorneys with diverse subject matter expertise to provide exceptional client service.”

Cronin has a background spanning legal technology, artificial intelligence, and real estate law. She began her career as a legal technology consultant at a global technology company where she partnered with law firms and corporate legal departments to implement technology-driven solutions. She also worked as a legal AI trainer, training and evaluating artificial intelligence models to improve their performance on legal tasks. This role gave her  hands-on experience with emerging technologies and the evolving intersection of AI and the law. 

Prior to joining McDonald Hopkins, Cronin practiced at a title company and its affiliated law firm where she advised clients on a range of real estate and title matters.

•            •            •

Honigman LLP recently announced that Dwight Floyd has been appointed as the firm’s chief operating officer (COO). A former litigation partner, biologist, and transformational law firm leader, Floyd most recently served as the COO of Eversheds Sutherland (US). Based in Detroit, Floyd will oversee the firm’s operations, including finance, information technology, talent, business development, marketing, and administrative functions, helping advance Honigman’s strategic priorities and support its continued growth.

Joining the firm with more than 25 years of legal and operational leadership experience, Floyd possesses a track record of leading complex initiatives, implementing strategic change, and building high-performing teams, as well as fostering communication, alignment, and accountability.

“Honigman’s growth trajectory, strong market position, and entrepreneurial culture make this an incredibly exciting time to join the firm,” said Floyd. “I am honored to take on this role and look forward to partnering with the firm’s leadership team to support the firm’s continued evolution, strengthen its operational platform, and enhance the exceptional service Honigman delivers to its clients.”

Floyd earned his law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law, his M.S. from Colorado State University, and his B.S. from Clemson University.

•            •            •

Brooks Kushman is pleased to announce that the firm and Sangeeta Shah have been selected for a 2026 Legal Innovation Award recognition for Law Firm Excellence in Innovation by Michigan Lawyers Weekly. 

Shah is the president of Brooks Kushman, leading the firm’s shareholders and driving the firm’s strategic vision and business administration. In her first year, she expanded the practice by bringing on several new attorneys and spearheading initiatives to strengthen the firm’s infrastructure, positioning it for long-term growth. 

In addition to her leadership role, Shah maintains a practice with more than 20 years of experience managing patent portfolios, PTAB matters, patent litigation, and opinions. As an early leader in inter partes review proceedings, she serves as co-chair of the firm’s post-grant practice and works closely with Fortune 500 clients, providing counseling on post-grant matters and complex global intellectual property portfolios. 

Shah’s expertise has earned national recognition from Managing IP, Best Lawyers, AIPLA, and the PTAB Bar Association, including being recognized as a member of IAM Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists.

By Zenell Brown

A friend shared with me that they were a little kerfuffled when a non-Black person wished them a “Happy Juneteenth.” They weren’t quite sure how to respond. Was a simple “thank you” sufficient?

My friend’s experience was a microcosm of a national experience. How do you expand the conversation on freedom and independence that we inherited and have been having for 250 years? For generations, July 4th has been our singular acknowledgment of freedom and independence. In 2021, Juneteenth was introduced as a national holiday, and we are still in the early stages of embracing it. We are learning language from those who have been celebrating since 1865, and we are adjusting so that it deepens our appreciation of freedom and independence as a right for all.

National holidays invite everyone to learn, reflect, and participate in preserving our shared history while advancing the ideals upon which our nation was founded. 

Juneteenth is a national holiday experience and an invitation that invites all Americans to learn, reflect, celebrate, and engage in the ongoing journey toward freedom for all.  Opal Lee, affectionately known as the Grandmother of Juneteenth, envisioned a National Season of Freedom, spanning from June 19, Juneteenth, through July 4, Independence Day. The preservation and advancement of freedom is our collective responsibility.

So I asked my friend, “What did you think the greeting meant? Was the person simply acknowledging the holiday, or were they extending an invitation to share in its meaning?”

“Happy Juneteenth,” “Happy July 4th,” “Happy Independence Day,” and “Happy Freedom Season” are appropriate greetings and replies.

And a better question is: What conversation does that greeting invite us to have?

Juneteenth is an opportunity for everybody to educate, engage, and enjoy.

Continue the conversation

Justice is not just us. Explore more reflections on justice, inclusion, and civic engagement by watching my TEDxPontiac talk, Justice Is Not Just Us: https://youtu.be/9rS9y0I3zC0
————————
Zenell B. Brown is the fairness and accountability administrator  for the State Court Administrative Office. Brown previously served for more than 25 years in various roles at the 3rd Circuit Court culminating in nearly a decade as executive court administrator.

By Berl Falbaum

As we celebrate the country’s 250th birthday, I am having a difficult time saying, “Happy Birthday.”

Instead, I keep asking, “How did we come to this?”

Yes, we always had bitter political disputes and conflicts, i.e. over civil, women, labor, abortion, gay rights, and other causes.

But throughout we kept a moral base and, generally, held public officials accountable for criminal and moral offenses.

A couple of examples to make the point:

In 1987, for instance, Gary Hart, the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for president, had to abandon his campaign because he was having a consensual extra-marital affair. Emphasis on “consensual,” not sexual harassment.

In 1958, Sherman Adams, assistant to the president, (Eisenhower), resigned because he accepted a fur coat valued at $700, for his wife and a few others gifts totaling about $2,000.

Now, the country is awash in an immoral, despicable, obscene, reprehensible cesspool — and it is accepted as normal.

We have a president, supported by half the electorate, who has been accused of sexual harassment by dozens of women and found guilty of sexual assault (the judge said it was rape) and is running “businesses” out of the White House which as earned him, according to some reports, more than a billion dollars.

He has been found guilty of 34 felony charges and six Republican candidates for president, when asked if they would support, a convicted felon (Trump), answered in the affirmative.

Of course, the above two paragraphs hardly do justice of capturing 11 years of Trump lies and corruption.

At about 2:30 a.m., the morning after Trump’s victory in 2016, I wrote that his victory revealed a political cancer and I hoped it would not metastasize.  But it has.

Consider: Democrats who have railed about Trump are endorsing a Senate candidate in Maine whose scandals could fill the pages of this paper.

Our acceptance of immoral, degenerate, obscene contemplatable behavior in our politics is traveling through our political bloodstream.

For readers who believe I am too pessimistic, maybe even a little paranoid, some evidence of our moral decline comes from none other than Vice President JD Vance.

While I never thought I would quote — and agree — with Vance on such an issue, he provided some proof of my despair.  

In a recent speech, referring to the Nixon’s Watergate scandal, Vance said that would be “like a 12-hour news story” if it happened today.

I am not sure that Vance understood the implication of his remark. Basically, he is telling us that if we can accept all of his boss’s corruption, then surely Watergate was a misdemeanor, if that. (We can be confident that Trump understood the implication and is probably not very happy.)

Incidentally, this comes from Vance, a man who, before winning public office, derided Nixon and called Trump “America’s Hitler.”

Political scientist and author Michael McFaul said that Vance was obviously oblivious of his statement’s nuances.

The fact that Watergate would probably be a mere blip, McFaul said, “is a tragic indictment of [the] administration,” and it’s “amazing to me that’s not obvious to him.”

“Vance is telling on himself,” said David Sirota, editor-in-chief  of The Lever, an investigative news outlet. “He’s insinuating that his own regime has so normalized 
corruption and lawlessness that past corruption and lawbreaking schemes now seem minor.”

We need to remember it was Republicans who pressured Nixon to resign, telling the president that if didn’t, he would not only be impeached, but convicted in a Senate trial.

Need I describe the moral status of Republicans in Congress today?

Of course, Trump would not be in office and neither would any of his GOP sycophants if they did not have the support of the electorate. And thereby hangs the tale.

Something is may be rotten in Denmark, but it is in the U.S. as well. We, the people — the hallowed first three words of the Constitution — have lost our way.

I have never understood, for instance, black Trumpites supporting a man who banned them from his properties and called African nations s***-hole countries or women given his perverted sexual record or Jews ignoring his stoking of antisemitism and his embrace of anti-Jewish white supremacists. 

I have always wondered how they explained their support of Trump depravity and other corrupt officeholders to their children and grandchildren.

So, can we recalibrate our moral compass? Is it possible? What should we do? What can we do? How long would it take?

I’ll forego any answers. Enough of the bad news already on this holiday. 
————————
Berl Falbaum is a veteran journalist and author of 12 books.