Category Archives: Philosophy of Law

No Longer a Christian Nation

For more than 50 years the Supreme Court and other federal courts have been dismantling and destroying the foundations of our once great nation.  For most of our history our laws were based upon the solid canon of Old Testament laws. Now courts routinely declare Biblical laws upholding morality to be unconstitutional. Virtually no state legislature, nor Congress, can, for example, pass laws these days to prohibit abortions or homosexual marriage. We now live in a society where good, such as Biblical laws upholding traditional marriage, are considered evil, and where evil, such as laws allowing abortion on demand, are declared to be good.

When our leaders and highest institutions of law and government call good evil and evil good the people become confused and can longer repent of their sins and the evil deeds they find themselves doing. After all, our highest courts now declare many of those deeds to be good. How long will it be, for example, until pedophilia and child pornography are considered to be rights protected by the United States Constitution? It is for this reason that we see such pervasive lawlessness throughout our society today. No one is really safe from theft, murder, or violent sexual assault.

Today I received word of yet another federal court decision driving still another stake into the almost dead heart of America. Now a Christian cross cannot be erected at a veteran’s memorial. Read about it by clicking here.

Is Participating in Evil the “Price of Citizenship” in the US Now?

A justice on the New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that a wedding photographer should have snapped photos of a homosexual ceremony, calling that obligation the “price of citizenship.” Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Elane Photography, released a press release late Thursday that included the words of Justice Richard C. Bosson.

In the ruling, Justice Bosson wrote that at times people “must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others” in what he called a “multicultural, pluralistic society.”

“Government-coerced expression is a feature of dictatorships that has no place in a free country,” ADF attorney Jordan Lorence says. “This decision is a blow to our client and every American’s right to live free.The court stated in its ruling that the couple has “to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different.” Lorence interprets that to mean anti-discrimination laws in New Mexico can be used to discriminate against Christians.

“The discrimination laws simply cannot be applied in this manner to force people to present messages that they don’t agree with,” he tells OneNewsNow.

Lorence, Jordan (ADF)

“Decisions like this undermine the constitutionally protected freedoms of expression and conscience that we have all taken for granted,” the attorney continues. “America was founded on the fundamental freedom of every citizen to live and work according to their beliefs and not to be compelled by the government to express ideas and messages they decline to support.”

Elaine Huguenin and her husband refused a lesbian couple’s request to photograph their wedding in 2006. One of the women, Vanessa Willock, filed a complaint with the state’s Human Rights Commission, which ordered the photographer to pay approximately $6,600 for sexual orientation discrimination.

Lorence said ADF is considering appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to “right this wrong.”

ADF had already lost the case in a lower court before it was appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court last August.

– See more at:

For another commentary on this type of decision by a judge see the article linked here.

Christian Attorneys

Both Glenn and Jaired Hall of the Hall Law Firm LLC consider themselves to be Christians and attempt to walk in the ways of Christ in their personal and professional lives.  Our goal is to represent our clients as Jesus Christ would if he were your attorney.  Of course, we do not consider ourselves as competent as our LORD and Savior, but we serve Him and desire to serve you to the best of our ability.

Call us today with your particular and unique legal need.

If We Do Not Have the Right to Question a Police Officer, then We Are Living In a Police State

Know your rights.  Do not consent to giving ANY STATEMENT AT ALL UNTIL YOU HAVE CALLED YOUR ATTORNEY.


CALL THE HALL LAW FIRM AT 573-729-2229 OR 417-967-0066.

Removing the Bible From Our Public Schools (The Law (2))

9How can(A) a young man keep his way pure?
By guarding it according to your word.
10(B) With my whole heart I seek you;
let me not(C) wander from your commandments!
11I have(D) stored up your word in my heart,
that I might not sin against you.
12Blessed are you, O LORD;
(E) teach me your statutes!
13With my lips I(F) declare
all the rules[a] of your mouth.
14In the way of your testimonies I(G) delight
as much as in all(H) riches.
15I will(I) meditate on your precepts
and fix my eyes on your(J) ways.
16I will(K) delight in your statutes;
I will not forget your word. (Psalm 119:9-16)

The second stanza of Psalm 119 answers one of mankind’s greatest needs. It tells us how to raise the coming generation in purity of thought and action. America’s parents and leaders knew this, yet in 1963 The Supreme Court hammered one nail into our coffin by outlawing the reading of the Bible and prayer in our public schools. They foolishly or evilly, depending upon their intent, said,

“Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment by Congress of any law “respecting an establishment of religion,” which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, no state law or school board may require that passages from the Bible be read or that the Lord’s Prayer be recited in the public schools of a State at the beginning of each school day – even if individual students may be excused from attending or participating in such exercises upon written request of their parents.” (U. S.  Supreme Court, SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. v. SCHEMPP ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 142. Argued February 27-28, 1963. Decided June 17, 1963, Pp. 205-227)

The Court rendered this decision when I was attending third grade public school. I still remember singing,The Battle Hymn of the Republic in this particular school and I think it was this very year. Here are the words to that stirring song:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword;
His truth is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His truth is marching on.

I have seen Him in the watch fires of a hundred circling camps
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps;
His day is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His day is marching on.


I have read a fiery Gospel writ in burnished rows of steel;
“As ye deal with My contemners, so with you My grace shall deal”;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with His heel,
Since God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Since God is marching on.

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet;
Our God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Our God is marching on.

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free;
[originally …let us die to make men free]
While God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! While God is marching on.

He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is wisdom to the mighty, He is honor to the brave;
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of wrong His slave,
Our God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Our God is marching on.

Today there exists hardly a public school in America where you can hear this song. And if you did, some unbeliever who also heard it would likely file suit against them and prohibit it from ever happening again. But, this song was the “battle hymn” of this republic, America. Now any so-called hymn of our public school would deal more with vampires, satan, and pre-marital sex than anything of God.

Can anyone really wonder why judgment has come upon this once great land?

Arguing with Gerry Spence

Arguing with Gerry Spence

Even on its own terms, Spence’s book doesn’t live up to its promise. The last chapter (“chapter” 16 is more an epilogue than a chapter. Chapter 15 is “Arguing in the Workplace) is mostly an entertaining diatribe against corporations. Instead of pulling the magical rabbit out of the rabid hat (successfully arguing your way up through an evil corporation or diabolical government bureaucracy), he suggests a paradigm shift that kind-of/sort-of results in victory. The ultimate goal of the worker is security, he says, and the more security you seek or seem to attain, the less secure you really are. Rather, “The self is the source of all security.” Rely on yourself and don’t seek “job security” and you’ll get what you want: “maximum security.” You get what you want; you win your argument.

In chapter 2, Spence defines winning: getting what you want. So far, so good. In this “review,” I’ll spend a few minutes talking about some things I got out of How to Argue, and then I’ll go on to argue with some things that troubled me along the way.

First, there’s the idea of giving yourself permission to win or lose. Don’t try to do something. Do it. It’s like Sam on Mount Doom. If he tried to carry Frodo to the top of the mountain, he’d have failed. He just up and did it. Triers try, and fail. Doers do. Doers win. Gerry describes how, as a young attorney, he suffered frustrating loss after frustrating loss. Is being a ridiculously successful attorney really as simple as deciding you’re going to win and then, voila, winning? No, I guess not, but one’s attitude as he approaches a task plays a huge role in success or failure.

Then, there’s the bit about one’s feelings. This is a huge point for Spence. He talks a lot about how our society is all about stifling the natural feelings of children until they’re turned into successfully subjugated, straight-jacketed, normal, dead-pan-faced societal peons. If you want to win an argument (and this goes particularly for attorneys who are arguing constantly for the rights and desires of others, not just for themselves personally), you’ve got to be able to feel, first for yourself, and then for your client. And then, you must convey those feelings. Spence describes insufferably boring attorneys droning away in the courtroom. How do you win an argument if you’re slit-your-wrists boring? (A phrase I borrow from Thaddeus Stanley).

Spence also talks a lot about fear. He talks about his own fear in confronting an attorney or judge or jury; about the fear that most have when facing an audience of any sort. To deliver the winning argument, you have to face your fear head on, and give your best argument despite it. You have to be honest about it. Maybe you even need to tell your audience, “Yeah, I’m afraid. I’m afraid you’re not going to like what I have to say. I’m afraid you’re going to think I’m stupid, or my speech stilted or confusing.”

Spence talks a lot about being honest. Don’t try to pull the wool over your audience’s eyes. You be the one that brings out the weaknesses in your case. Your body language, your eyes, your tone of voice–all will betray whether you really believe what you say.

Belief in what you say and honesty go hand in hand. When you believe what you’re saying, you’re being truthful about it. You can’t argue very successfully for something you don’t believe in (and belief in something, after all, is the thought that it is true). This is a huge hangup as an attorney, I think. In my long year as a rooky attorney, I’ve already struggled with this time and time again. I’m learning a couple of things: if you really can’t believe in the argument you’re making for your client, then you need to be more careful at the outset and not accept the case to begin with. Secondly, if you thought you were on board, and then you get off board, make sure you’re up-front about it with your client, and maybe even withdraw from the case if you have to.

But a second interesting conclusion that I’ve come to on this same topic is that just because you can’t get on board with everything your client wants, or the type of person your client is, or something like that, it is still possible that there are aspects of truth and justice that are still on your client’s side, and you need to believe in and pursue those things to the best of your ability.

So far, these points touch on things that I need to work on myself. Here’s something that I love. Preparation. Preparation is huge. Know your side inside and out. Know your side better than anybody else you might go up against knows theirs. Know it forward and backward. Live it, breath it, prepare it, prepare it, prepare. Write your argument once, twice, three times. Speak it while you drive. Speak it fast. Speak it slow. Experiment with it.


Ok, so I love to prepare. True, I’ve gone into hearings under-prepared simply because of lack of time or energy or diligence, but there’s also been hearings that I’ve entered over-prepared simply because that’s my nature (reminiscing now on the dozens of tests throughout my seven years of college and law-school that I left thinking, “yup, I over-prepared again.)

One day after reading for a while, I went to Tracy and complained. “He talks a lot about preparation. Well, it’s no fair. He’s got cases where he wins millions of dollars. I mean, imagine it: one case that the attorney gets even just one million out of gives him an amazing salary for an entire year. You know how much fun I’d have preparing one case for an entire year?” [True, you always have more than one case going at a time, even if you do win millions every now and again.] The idea is this: in big-cases, there’s big-money, and you and your clients can afford to pour dozens of hours into each nit-picky-little detail. In my practice, seldom are the stakes big enough to justify charging the clients for intense preparation. My clients can’t afford the type of preparation that I would enjoy. Maybe I owe it to them anyway. Maybe I should work a hundred hours a week and only bill fifty. Yeah, right.

A corollary to this reality in my practice is that I have got to do a lot of cases at once to keep enough fees coming in to pay the bills.

Admittedly, I frequently prepare for several hours off of the clock. I think in these instances, I would simply feel bad about billing a client such a high amount on the one hand and on the other hand would feel even worse feeling underprepared.

All in all, there’s a lot in the book that I found excellent. Spence is a clear, concise, and entertaining writer. As a long-time attorney and brilliant trial lawyer, his book certainly is helpful for attorneys, but he targets the general reader. Ultimately, I think the lawyer (or law student) will get more out of the book than others, but I think others could get a lot out of it as well.

There’s a lot of chaff with the wheat.

Early in the book, he explains that “Argument is the mechanism by which we reveal the truth–the truth for us.” The concept of truth and “our” or “your” truth runs throughout the book, from this early point, to the very end. Summing up Chapter 15, Spence “wish[es] us, all of us, to see clearly so that we may argue with power–our power–with authority–our authority–out of the place where truth abides–our truth.”

I agree that, when you argue, you ardently pursue your conception or understanding of truth. If this were what he was saying, then, ok, I agree. But his implication is that the concept of “truth” is relative. Your truth is truth as my truth is truth, and that’s just what truth is.

Well, no, that’s not what truth is. Reality exists, and we finite human beings, because of our environment, our sources of information, our client-alignment, (these are a few of many factors that play into our understanding or conception or interpretation of reality) have misconceptions of reality. We argue based on an internal model that we hope or believe is the best (or better) approximation of reality (truth).

When he talks of arguing for truth–our truth–I disagree with him. I think we could rephrase it and say that one should argue for truth–one’s understanding of what the truth is in any given situation.

But this may just raise a more perplexing dilemma that is particularly relevant to attorneys. Speaking relativistically, an attorney’s truth could be entirely dependant on what client happens to walk through his door. Attorney X argues for truth–his truth–which is that Attorney X’s client is right and the other party is wrong. When you stick with Gerry’s articulation of “truth” this approach to the attorney-client relationship creates no problems. When you rework it as I have suggested, suddenly, being an attorney is a significant problem indeed.

A deeper reading of How to Argue shows that this is not what Spence is saying. His truth does not differ with each client. Rather, he merely has a different truth from other people. His own truth–what he calls his truth, which I say is merely his personal opinion or worldview, which at times is more or less correspondent to reality (truth)–is deeply ingrained. He has a very definite worldview and morality encompassing issues of justice, fairness, society, how to raise kids, corporations, government, environmentalism, humanity’s relationship to the rest of creation, etc. He turns down clients who’s causes he finds abhorrent or unjust. He argues honestly–out of his own understanding of what truth is–for each of his clients. He does not, as I posed above, alter his truth to every client’s truth.

He’s got a lot of opinions and beliefs with which I take issue, but I will give this to him: if every attorney fought for his client from an honest belief about justice and truth, attorneys might not be loved more, but they would be some of the best, most principled individuals in the world.

All in all, How to Argue was an enjoyable and worthwhile read. I think the worldview issues that are fun for a philosophically minded Christian reader to quibble with do not make the book worth your time, if you are like me and have a seemingly infinitely lengthy reading list. But, with this aspect in addition to the genuinely insightful and helpful exposition on argument which I think will significantly benefit me in my law practice, it was definitely worth my time, and I recommend it to other lawyers, law-students, and people keenly interested in posing arguments, particularly in somewhat public settlings.

~Jaired B. Hall, 11.22.2009.