JULY 31, 2020 KELLEY KIDD Yesterday was one of those times when all of the threads of American history are dramatically shown in the day’s headlines. The President of the United States ignored the funeral of a national civil rights icon while claiming that the November election will be rigged if he is not allowed to postpone it! Immediately a host of members of his own party and self-proclaimed conservative supporters publicly disclaimed his claim. Meanwhile three former presidents eulogized the civil rights icon at the funeral, and one of them gave a rousing speech for expanding the opportunities for larger voter turnouts, something the President clearly believes will lead to his undoing.

Then there was news that the U.S. economy has just experienced the worst quarter of contraction in history. At the same time Republican Congressional leaders announced that they would be going home for the week without passing any legislation to address that crisis. And the stock markets showed gains for America’s largest corporations, thereby clearly revealing in the most stark terms the truism that what is good for the big corporations has nothing to do with what is good for the vast majority of the American people. Millions of Americans will be left without financial relief for job loss tomorrow, and other millions will be subject to homelessness when rent protection expires at the same time. This horrifying prospect led to some political handwringing but no action. True to their current form of rewarding the super rich at the expense of the rest of us, the major investment markets took a cheery upturn today!

Congress adjourned for the weekend on the day that followed, i.e. today. Both Republicans and Democrats gave up negotiations last night after it became clear that 77 days had not been nearly enough time for the Senate Republicans to come up with a coherent response to the Democratic legislative package proposed way back then to aid workers, renters, unemployed, state and local governments, hospitals and front line health personnel, small businesses and election supervisors. On the night of this historic day, both sides agreed they did not have enough common ground to do anything but wring their hands and blame each other! The President had sent his Treasury Secretary to the negotiation. Afterwards we learned that most republican Senators had rejected the President’s tax cut proposal and did not trust the Treasury Secretary! Unstoppable force met immovable object while further saddled with undesirable burden and unlovable intrusion.

The deceased civil rights icon had become a hero championing the claims of poor people. So the same funeral-ignoring president chose this day to announce the end of long-standing federal protection for efforts to assist the poor to live in areas where their chances for a better life could be enhanced by good location for their homes. The President bragged that his actions this day would prevent suburbanites from having to share their neighborhoods with poor folks. George Wallace and Bull Conner would have been proud of this betrayal of Jewish and Christian compassion. Sadly, I suspect the President’s evangelical base will receive the news with neither reproach for the action nor compassion for its victims. So much for the Jesus who told the story of the Good Samaritan and spent his life among the poor. Most of these public housing projects hold Black folks. That fact is lost on nobody. Racism now clearly has become the principal plank of the President’s re-election campaign. He picked the day of John Lewis’s funeral as the best moment to reveal that racism in its boldest form to date.

Then there was the baseball game the night before the 24 hour period in the spotlight. The world renowned Yankees played the current champions, the Washington Nationals. All of the players on both teams greeted the national anthem on one knee with head bowed! That’s our national pastime, the great game of baseball folks. Despite the greed of its owners and the sometimes ungrateful attitudes of some of its players, major league baseball remains as a sometimes amazing reminder of the redeeming qualities of American life.

On the same night federal agents, who had been hired and paid to keep the homeland and its people safe, attacked peaceful American citizens with tear gas, a weapon outlawed for use in foreign wars by the Geneva Conventions. The President, who has bragged about the unconstitutional and brutal actions of these militarized agents, has encouraged this behavior, for which he is responsible.

That President’s pre-election polling numbers were revealed yesterday to be the lowest in memory. And polling shows a large majority of the American people disapprove of the President’s handling of both the current economic crisis and his continued attacks on the demonstrations he has helped to engender. Other related news shows the President actually trying to prevent the Postal Service from doing its job, apparently in hopes of frustrating mail-in voting, which the President claims will lead to the electoral chaos he himself is fostering. The fact is that people of color and the elderly may be most affected by any constrictions of voting opportunities. Nevertheless, in many places the President and his Republican Party seem hell bent on adding hurdles for would-be voters to overcome. By contrast, John Lewis–the civil rights hero we buried that day–is his country’s greatest champion of those rights.

Also revealed today was the fact that this President refused to even mention to the dictatorial ruler of Russia that U.S. intelligence has reports indicating that the Russian government has been financing the killing of soldiers whom that President has been elected to lead as Commander in Chief. The deaths happened in Afghanistan. He passed off questions about that behavior by shrugging that we had done the same thing to Russian soldiers in the past. In fact, that was true during the Cold War in the late 1970s when Russia was part of the Soviet Union. It should be noted that this is the same president who violated international law last year by assassinating the commander of the most prominent Iranian forces in supposed retaliation for Iran providing military equipment to rebels in Iraq, a neighboring country to Iran. Of course international law has condemned political assassinations for decades. The same President did not even mention the killing of American soldiers in the very near past.

Last, but not least, the President held a press conference to triple down on his claim that an anti-malarial drug he likes can protect from the virus that has killed 150,000 Americans. While all the scientific evidence available says otherwise, a president who has refused to implement a national strategy to combat the virus has also refused to supply major support to the states he claims have all the responsibility for leading the fight against a world wide pandemic. The press conference gave us a president who is not afraid to keep repeating snake-oil claims of companies whose bosses are friendly to him. This is the guy who used purloined Emails of his client in 2016 as the basis for his claim she was a practitioner of “crony capitalism.”

Quite a day. Wouldn’t you agree? Buckle up friends. There are many more such to follow soon. We are all living in a period of intense change that will leave us a very different country in many ways. I believe with my whole being that this is the time for action from each of us who are healthy enough to act. What each of us is called upon to do depends upon our present circumstances and abilities. Despite my advanced age and limited abilities, I have at least fifty years of training and experience in practicing law, thirty eight years in trying to be helpful to alcoholics, fifty two years of intense concern for the victims of racism and poverty, and sixty eight years of knowing that the decency and dignity of every human being is a concern the Creator of the universe expects each of us to cherish with Him. I am not infirm yet, so I have no excuses if I don’t use my legal ability and other resources as well as possible in pursuit of the justice and compassion John Lewis showed and sought his entire life.

Each is called to do his or her part. “If I am for myself only, what am I” Hillel asked 2100 years ago.”And if not now, when?” Each of us is challenged by what Martin Luther King called the fierce urgency of now. Recently we have lost an irreplaceable person whose whole being summoned us to make good trouble, necessary trouble. The deepest roots of our religious heritage must nourish our capacities to comfort the disturbed, and to disturb the comfortable. When we see ourselves becoming cynical or frightened or tired, the life of John Lewis just might remind us that we are not here to be comfortable or contented. We have work to do today, and tomorrow will be too late.


July 31, 2020 KELLEY KIDD When a friend introduced me to John Lewis in 1970 he was a world famous civil rights hero. He had been among the first practitioners of nonviolent direct action when he led the sit-ins at lunch counters close to his college campus. And one of the first freedom riders who integrated buses in other Southern cities. Elected as the first President of the Student Nonviolent Coording Committee, he led the shock troops of the movement until the Black Power advocates led by Stokely Carmichael voted to evict the white folks, then he had resigned. He had expanded his advocacy for what he called “the beloved community” by demonstrating for peace in Southeast Asia, for desegregated housing in Chicago, for fair conditions for nurses in South Carolina, for community control of education in New York City, for farm workers in California, and for the Poor Peoples Campaign. And most famously he had been at the forefront of the demonstrators when the Alabama troopers charged and beat him and others for daring to demonstrate for giving Black folks the simple right to register and vote. In short, John Lewis was already a legend. I was a white guy with a few years of service in trying to educate federal employees about the need for federal responsiveness to the problems of inner city poor people.

Despite the huge disparity of importance between us, John talked with me exactly as though our worth was unquestionably equal. He steered the conversation to my work and aspirations as though my life’s work was the most important subject. His speech impediment and the simplicity of his words left the unmistakable impression of a man who thought of himself as ordinary. Nobody special. I had worked a little for and with his friend Julian Bond, the smartest, coolest, most patrician person I knew. The contrast between these civil rights giants was striking. But even then I think I knew that in his own way John was what he has remained—the most irreplaceable person I would ever know. When I learned of his death two weeks ago I started to cry. I only came out of sobbing grief by telling understanding friends stories about John for hours on end.

Just this week I have learned from a white friend that he had come to Atlanta to volunteer to work with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in the early 60s, He needed a place to stay. John put that friend and his girl friend in John’s apartment. There was only one bed. John insisted that the white couple from some place up north sleep in John’s bed while John took the sofa.

John never wavered, never hated, never surrendered to evil or to the demands of social respectability, never ignored human need for necessities and for basic dignity, never gave up on sinners or on the struggle to help those sinners to salvation, never despaired or whined or griped or made excuses for himself or his actions. His steadfast courage and love and vision have been surpassed by nobody. We have truly been blessed that he walked among us. Like John, we must keep “walking with the wind.”



July 10, 2020 Kelley Kidd. One of the strange consequences of getting very old is that you remember stuff that no living contemporary can recall. So it is with me. I remember being an employee in the United States Senate in 1959. I was fifteen years old and it was only a summer job. But I can tell from memory how that Senate was conspicuously different from what that body is like today, and the differences are large. Several years ago a judge said i was the only person left who could tell about how it was in the Senate back then. And an old indian friend of mine has urged me to write about those memories so there would be some record of that subject. This is what I have done here.

I got the job through the efforts of my step mother. She and I had spent about a week in Washington in June of 1968. We went up that way because to watch Jack Gladden graduate from the naval Academy. Since the academy is at Annapolis right around the corner from the Capital, she decided it would be a good idea to take in a little bit of that too. So we did and that got the idea rolling that I was going to go back as a page in the office of our representative, Mr. Carl Vinson.

You may wonder how it was that my stepmother was in a position to suppose that Mr. Vinson would want to bring little Kelley up to work for him. working for a member of the House of Representatives would not be a usual ambition for a fifteen year old in 1959 or ever I suppose. So I am gonna back up and tell you some more about my step mother and my relation to her. If you want to skip that part and go right on to memories of 1959, you go right ahead. The caution I would add is that between here and the tale of 1959 lies some stuff that might help you get a better grasp of the tale. A dog that barks a lot is one who has been through some stuff before. Knowing the stuff helps to appreciate the dog barking today.


Harriet Oxford Kidd was my Father’s third wife. She was his last. They were married in 1950 and he died in 1961. My Mother had been his first, and they had fifteen years of tumult caused largely by my Father’s alcoholism. Although she got custody when they divorced, he spent a weekend with his twin boys every month in Milledgeville, Georgia where we were born in 1942. Harriet inherited the man who would not give up on getting to live full time with his kids. In 1955 he succeeded in getting just that. My Mother justified giving us up because Milledgeville offered education in the military high school associated with the junior college named Georgia Military School.

So for five years i was a military cadet of sorts. i had a paper route to throw every evening and Sunday morning, a ping pong tale in a small room my father had built at the back of the garage, and a portable transister radio to catch the only audible station’s music after school. But my chief preoccupations aside from school lessons was the Presbyterian church located only two blocks away on the same large square as the military school.

The first Presbyterian Church as well as other denominations had been given state land for construction in the planning that had gone into the construction of the village of Milledgeville in 1803. These were all protestant churches of course and all had become or been founded as sanctuaries for white freemen aad their families. The building in which I went to school had housed the Georgia legislature and the Supreme Court of Georgia. I had become a Presbyterian–despite the Methodist and baptist roots of my parents– largely because Harriet was one and i greatly admired her.

Harriet oxford Kidd was a relatively world wise person compared to the small town experience of most of my contemporaries and their families. She had been a semi-professional ballet dancer, lived most of her life in the big city of Atlanta—where se had become the first female claims investigator for a large insurance company, made herself a confidente of a famous Presbyterian minister, directed plays and fashion shows, and served as a member of the first unit of female Navy seamen. That latter distinction endeared her to a prominent citizen of Milledgeville who had become the father of the modern Navy, Congressman Carl Vinson.

She used that last connection to obtain an appointment to the naval Academy in Annapolis for Jack Gladden, a poor boy who worked after school in my Father’s small haberdashery in downtown Milledgeville. four years later she took me to his graduation. It was June of 1958 and the graduation speaker was the President of the United States, Dwight David Eisenhower. After the ceremony she and I spent three days in the capitol city. We visited all the famous places and used letters of introduction from prominent Milledgeville Republicans to meet J. Edgar Hoover and Vice President Nixon. I was fascinated by the glories of national government. Harrie went to work to get me an opportunity to work as a page in Carl Vinson’s office the next summer. And when that fell through, she hornswagled Senator Richard Russell’s administrative chief Bill Jordan into taking me on as a worker in the Senate. Somehow Bill got me a job wrapping and mailing books that Senators gave to various celebrants trough their franking privilege. the bargain was that I would volunteer time doing menial administrative jobs in Russell’s office after regular working hours. I was more than willing.

WHAT I SAW AND HEARD IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE. I was there for about ten weeks. The Senate was a very very different place from what it seems to be in 2020. I lived in a tiny room at the YMCA, which was only a few blocks from the White House. Buses ran up and down Pennsylvania Avenue to take me to and from the Senate five days a week, sometimes six. At the Senate office building, where I worked in the basement wrapping and mailing books, I entered through the main entrance. There may have been a single guard for the entrance to the building that housed the one hundred Senators and their staffs. I do not remember ever feeling that security was an issue for anybody.

I got my breakfast in a tiny restaurant in the basement of that building. Sometimes there were half a dozen other customers, never more. The other two regulars for breakfast at the same time were the “whips” of the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate. Dircksen of Illinois was the minority leader and I believe Aiken of Vermont was his whip. The Majority Leader was Lyndon Johnson, who was often referred to publicly as the most powerful man to ever hold that position. His whip was Mike Mansfield. The two whips talked quietly over their eggs and toast.

That amiable breakfast meeting I now regard as a microcosm of the way the Senate operated then. There was a complete lack of the kind of bitter partisanship that is now constant. Legislation originated in bills proposed by individual members of either the House or Senate. Frequently these proposals were offered by a member from each party. Proposed legislation was then printed and readily available to all members of Congress and to the press. Each bill actually had to be considered by a committee of the House in which it was proposed. No legislation was proposed by a party caucus. All of the bills had to be read several different times out loud in the chamber of the House in which it had been proposed. All were subject to proposals to amend before being voted on by the members of the House. Differences between House and Senate were ironed out in “conference committees” before final vote. I never heard a single rancorous comment said by any Senator to or about another. The Democratic leaders in both houses consulted frequently with the President regarding legislation, and the President usually consulted them about any dramatic executive order or action.

A few years before 1959 the so-called McCarthy era had come to a quick end after Senate committee hearings showed the American people that the anti-communist finger pointing and bullying of that Senator were products of an immorally reckless man. The even worse such behavior by the House Un-American Activities Committee was ended soon after. Most Committee inquiries and hearings seemed to be legitimate and frequently bipartisan efforts to do the nation’s business.

In the summer of 1959 the most celebrated hearings were conducted by the Select Senate Subcommittee for the Investigation of Improper Activities in the labor and Management Field. Despite the inclusion of management as one of two targets for investigation, in fact the subcommittee’s public hearings all centered on allegations of bad conduct by labor leaders. Jimmy Hoffa, president of the powerful Teamsters Union, was the most conspicuous target and witness. His attorney was Edward Bennett Williams, who later owned both the Baltimore Orioles and Washington Redskins. I attended several hours of their appearance before the Committee. Their principal antagonist on the committee was the attorney for the committee, Robert Kennedy. His older brother, John Kennedy was one of the committee members. The thing that left the strongest impression was the presence of John Kennedy. When he was in the room he dominated it with the magnetism that got him elected the next year. It seemed barely possible that anyone could dislike him and I certainly did not.

Of course the Senate at that time was filled with famous and influential men. Three would eventually become the President of the United States—Kennedy Johnson and the presiding officer, Richard Nixon. Others included Barry Goldwater and Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russell and Paul Doulas, Wayne Morse and Harry Byrd, Everett Dirksen and William Fulbright, Scoop Jackson and Wayne Pastore, and many more.They all showed each other respect and even affection, regardless of party affiliation or other association. They appeared to be determined that the Senate would live up to its reputation as the ‘greatest deliberative body in the world.” Maybe it was.


July 4. 2020 KELLEY KIDD A friend recently posted on Facebook an article attacking people who have defaced statues of confederate soldiers and generals, Jefferson Davis and other leaders of the confederacy. The article was published first in a publication of the Federalist Society, a group of self-styled “conservatives.” The rationale for opposing the destruction of confederate statues in that article was the claim that these statutes represent “art”. The more frequent argument for preserving the statues has been that they “are history.” Both arguments usually assume that the only alternative to keeping these statues where they are is that of destroying the statues. Hence the opponents of these things are deemed to be out to destroy either history or art or both. This author is certainly NOT opposed to either history or art. And I am NOT in favor of leaving any of those statues on any public lawn. Art and historical statues belong largely in museums and galleries, not on courthouse and state capitol lawns.

The courthouse is the place our public funds create to support the institutions of democracy and justice. There our aspirations to provide equal justice either do that or our pretenses to fairness and justice for all are shown to be shams and false pretenses. The majesty of the law then is mocked when the lawn of that courthouse is adorned with a tribute to the white men who fought to keep the Black citizens of our community in the degradation of slavery. Yet there is such a symbol before the courthouse of Bulloch County where I represent the descendants of slaves.

I have lived major portions of my life in the vicinity of statues that portray confederate soldiers or famous supporters of slavery. My childhood and my school years were filled with both reverence for the confederacy and the presence of memorializing art that carried that message. I was born in a clinic across the street from the building in which my state of Georgia seceded from the union in 1861. in the same building the Georgia laws that created the legal sanctions for slavery during the antebellum period. I went to high school in that building and graduated in the room in which secession became the law. Every year during my high school career we had a special program dedicated to remembering the confederacy and by implication the slavery it embodied. The confederate gray uniform I wore while a student there was also worn by every white male student, and all the students were white males.

All the students in my school were white males because of the same history that produced the secession and the confederate monument. That home was on the same street as the school and the monument because location near that school and monument was prestigious. And my family had money and prestige. My Father and his Father had graduated from the same school, a school which sat on land owned by the State of Georgia and supported largely by local taxes, the burden of which fell on Black folks and women as well as on white males. Poorer white males did not attend the school because the costs of uniforms and books put that option out of their reach. The war in which the memorialized confederate soldiers fought was intended to protect the slave-holding interests of wealthy white males, although most of those who died and were maimed were poor. That history was also carved into the confederate statues, and that history is carved into every confederate memorial, whether or not the carver is aware of any of it.

In my American history class I was taught to revere certain white slave owners, including those who had led the effort to dismember the United States in order to protect slavery from the real of imagined threat posed by the election of Abraham Lincoln, who I was taught to loathe for his Emancipation Proclamation. The proclamation was said to be evil because, as one aunt said, it “exposed white women to rape by slaves” while their husbands were away fighting for their rights to their property”. It was clear to me that fear of black me and a love for the confederacy was powerfully underlain by a foundation of racism that was much deeper than the legal segregation and discrimination which was commanded by the laws of my state. I sensed then that abolishing legalized racism would not change the problem, ut at most ameliorate some of its consequences. Adoration of confederate “heroes ” was and still is a symptom of the intractability of the problem.

In 1962 the truth as published in a book I read outside any of my academic college courses. Michael Harrington summarized the extent and depth of racism.

“If all the discriminatory laws in the United States were immediately repealed, race would rmain as one of the most pressing moral and political problems in the nation. Negroes and other minorities are not simply the victims of a series of iniquitous statutes. The American economy. the American society, the American unconscious are all racist. If the laws were framed to provide equal opportunity, a majority of the Negroes would not be able to take advantage of the change. There would still be a vast, silent, and automatic system directed against men and women of color.”

Harrington was right. Nearly eight decades have passed since that book, Harrington’s book, THE OTHER AMERICA, But the situation he described remains as real as it was then. The very least of the things we can and should do is to remove the visible symbols of our pride that this situation remains to poison the lives of children of color and to symbolize the intractability of this evil. These statues smother the truth that the rebellion called the Civil War was caused by this evil. They proclaim the continuation of this racist system with the heartless pretext that we are entitled to be proud of it.


6/4/2020 KELLEY KIDD I saw the video of the killing on the day it occurred. Of course I was horrified by the video of the killing of George Floyd. The death appeared to be the inevitable result of the kneeling officer’s continued pressure on the neck of his helpless prisoner while the prostrate, handcuffed prisoner begged for his life. It was murder, and the actual death was preceded by the torture that deliberate and callous violence is calculated to produce. And it was just as obvious to me that the supporting officers were aware of what was happening while they not only did not try to intervene, but actively warded off the efforts of bystanders to prevent the killing. They were clearly accomplices under Minnesota law, and they would have been clearly “parties to the crime” under Georgia law.

I immediately did a little research into Minnesota Law relating to murder. The State has three degrees of murder, the first of which requires premeditation, a state of mind that summons ideas of advance planning. Since the encounter between George Floyd and the officers appears to have resulted from a reported “forgery” a very short time before, that charge would be extremely difficult to predict ending in a Guilty verdict as the resolution of a jury trial.

But second degree murder appeared to fit what happened here. One of two bases for that charge requires proof of a “predicate” felony. If the prosecution can convince the jury that the officer whose prolonged kneeling killed Mr. Floyd committed the crime of felonious assault, then the predicate offense will be the replacement for the usual requirement that the prosecution show the officer was animated by malice. This “felony murder” provision is a standard feature of most states’ statutory definitions of the crime of murder. In Minnesota conviction for felony murder carries a potential punishment of 40 years in prison. I also believe the prosecution will have some chance of convincing the jury to find malice. But premeditation would have been more difficult.

The other officers should have been charged with aiding and abetting the crime of murder. My problem from the first day of this case with the way it was handled boils down to this. Anyone other than a police officer who did what these men did would have been arrested by warrant on the same day. Of course I knew that the prosecutor would not do that. The delay in prosecuting officers for violence to Black men has become as inevitable as hot weather in July. It has never been excusable. That delay, coupled with the County Attorney’s half hearted announcement that he would be investigating to see “if any crime has been committed’ two days later, has played a huge part in igniting the huge pssionate protest now erupting all over this country.

I am more than grateful that this case has resulted in the rivers of righteous anger that continues to be poured out here. This old man never dreamed he would live to see the time when so many people from all walks of life–including miltary and police–have responded to the call for nonviolent and continuing protest and demand for change. A very conservative Republican white woman told me a few days ago that it has taken this horror to wake her to the call for justice that she has ignored for so long. “Finally now I am beginning to see” she said. Yes.

At terrible cost George Floyd is truly changing the world. May that change continue. Please God. Help us to continue this until the oppression of African Americans becomes only the long sad pages of our history for four hundred years. Amen.

THE AHMAUD ARBERY MURDER CASE: Introduction to Your Commentator

May 12, 2020 KELLEY KIDD, writer and editor. This is the first posting on a subject about which the author expects to continue commenting until at least there is a plea or verdict that appears to resolve the case legally. Some of the facts of the case are unfolding rapidly for public view. New information is coming every day, sometimes multiple times in a single day. A week ago today no arrests had been made, the GBI had not yet begun the investigation that led to two arrests, formal charges had not been made, the coroner’s report had not been made public, the present prosecutor in the case had not made any appearance or even been appointed, the federal government had not been involved in any way, a possibly important video of the deceased’s whereabouts shortly before the shooting had not yet surfaced, the President had not expressed any opinion publicly, and this case was not yet in the daily attention of most of those presently following it.

So this first posting is not about the facts of the case. I refer you to your local and national news sources for that. I do promise to return to those facts as soon as they become clearly enough available to make intelligent commentary possible. I am confident that the rush of new information will at least pause soon. At that time I will give you a “what we know now” posting.

In the American criminal justice system the facts determine the applicable law, or at least they should. I had originally planned to use this initial posting to at least outline the Georgia criminal law and procedure involved here. I will do that very soon. However the factual situation is unfolding so rapidly that I will postpone that effort for at least a few days.

What I can and will do here is to very briefly try to sketch a picture of those elements in my background that bear directly on reporting and on my vision of this case. I do not believe any human being can be totally objective about any situation as emotionally explosive as this. But I believe each of us should try hard to be as unaffected as possible by the preconceptions and the emotional bent our previous experience has given us. The jury will be asked to do that if there is a trial. I hope each of us has been taught even as children that open minded attention and fair consideration are fundamental goals of decent human beings.

So here is your writer, who is aware that he has the very hardest time being fair minded when the subject he writes about is himself. I am a 78 years old white guy from Georgia. I have been a lawyer and a member of the Georgia Bar since 1970. I have been a public defender doing full time criminal defense work since the creation of the statewide public defense system in 1995. I was representing criminal defendants and alleged juvenile delinquents part time for many years before that. It seems to me that my record has been at least pretty good. Although I have lost more than a few bench trials, jury trials and motion hearings, I have also won quite a few. I have recently been honored by the Bar Association for my long service. I continue to do my best to give each of my clients diligent and zealous service. This work is my calling and my passion.

Last year I represented a man accused of Felony Murder and Aggravated Assault. Recently I have asked for the opportunity to represent another man accused of the same combination of offenses. These are the same offenses for which the McMichaels have been arrested in the Arbery case. Some of the same defenses that may appear in the Arbery case were involved in the case I handled last year. Even more recently I won a jury trial in which my client was accused of fleeing to avoid being detained by law enforcement officers. I have been credited at least once with being a key factor in the removal of an abusive officer from a police department. I believe all this experience both informs my view of the Arbery case as well as making it perhaps more difficult to avoid certain bias.

Outside my legal practice my life has of course been dramatically affected by other experiences dealing with race. I am an American who has never lived outside the Mason-Dixon line, a graduate of an all white male military high school, a graduate of Emory College in Atlanta when it was all white and Emory Law School in the first class that included a few token African American male students. In 1963 I attended Harvard College for the summer quarter, and was disappointed to see not one single African American in the faculty or student body.

On the other hand, earlier postings on this blog have related certain experiences in 1963 and 1968 which dramatically altered my views and emotions on the subject of race, as well a my willingness to act on those new revelations. I have studied the history of slavery and racism as a part of my study over the years of American history. Many of my closest associates since 1968 have been African Americans. Beginning in 1968 I actively worked for several years every conscious hour to learn and to pass on information about the problems caused by white racism and by contempt for the poor of all races. My boss in recent years has been a highly competent and dedicated African American lawyer and defender of the poor. Many of our able fellow workers also have been people of color.

One other note about me before I close this introduction. I believe that I may owe my life to a murderer in Baltimore, a man who had undoubtedly killed a number of other men while serving the interests of certain wise guys, whose identities I never knew. He loved me and helped me at a time when few others could or would have wanted to even try. Finally, when I was ten years old the funeral of a murderer in Milledgeville Georgia set my faith in the gospel truth that my God adores each and every one of us humans, even those who do the most evil deeds!

I will be carrying all of these attitudes and experiences into my postings on the Arbery case. My job as a public defender will continue to be my first concern. But my second will be to be making my best efforts to help you understand as much about this case as I can know and you can learn from me. If you have questions or comments about my writing or the case as you see it, please do not hesitate to express yourself in comments on the FB postings I will be making each day in which i also have a much more extensive comment in this Journal of Public Law.

At the end of each of these postings, I will make a declaration similar to this: absolutely every bit of this posting has been researched, written and edited by me. My employer on my day job was not consulted about whether this blog was a good idea. She has certainly not been asked to edit or to even comment on the contents of the blog in general or this posting in particular. I have not received any compensation for anything I write on this blog. And I do not anticipate ever accepting a dime for any of it. I like to write about subjects that interest me, and I enjoy the fantasy that others who read my writing may actually benefit from taking the time to read what I have written. Those are my sole motives for what you see here.


Mam 4, 2020 KELLEY KIDD This blog has already referred to nonviolence several times. There will be a strong emphasis in the blog’s future on nonviolence as a way of life and as a strategy for social, political and economic change.

In a previous posting I have tried to tell the story of how i became committed to nonviolence through the life nd death of Martin Luther King Jr. I have not explained what I mean by “nonviolence”. Dr. King explained his concept of nonviolence on numerous occasions. He usually laid out five interrelated elements. I will follow that prescription here. At some points I will also add my own observations about the origins and the continued relevance of these fundamental elements of a way of life. My purpose is to provide a necessary continuing reference for future analysis and narrative.

  1. The first principle of nonviolence is to resist the wrong. Nonvioence is certainly NOT a philosophy for those who shrink from confrontation. Nonviolence is confrontation. Each of us can probably associate this principle with historical or personal experiences of such behavior. Association for Bible readers may be the prophet Nathan confronting the KIng David by leading him into a trap in which he uses David’s own thoughts to show the King that he has committed murder, and a particularly odious murder at that. He then shows the King that he himself has correctly implied that this murder leaves the King subject to the death penalty. No violence is employed of course. But the prophet is fighting the King’s evil directly, and with great skill and courage. Gandhi is certainly the Old World’s most successful practitioner of nonviolence– and the person from whom King derived is concepts of nonviolent strategy. He insisted that his followers be willing to confront and actively oppose the evils of British imperialism and exploitation.
  2. Second is that nonviolence risks violence from he opponent but with the firm decision not to either initiate violence or to retaliate. The freedom riders and sit in demonstrators of the civil rights movement come to mind. They were defying both evil laws and probable beatings from those who were angry about the demonstrators. Of course they refused to either yield or to fight back when attacked. Thoreau’s famous refusal to pay a tax, a refusal which led to a night in jail, is another older incident that illustrates the principle. I have always believed that the civil rights movement eventually lost its transformative power when riots and tough guy posturing became visible aspects of the African American push for inclusion and dignity.
  3. Third is that the nonviolent resister aims his or her actions at the behavior he opposes, not at the person who is exhibiting or enforcing what is opposed. Someone said this one sounds too much like “Hate the sin, not the sinner”, a slogan frequently used by people who actively persecute gays and lesbians. But nonviolence is a strategy for changing the oppressive use of power by those who are not in power, but seek to change those who are. So the similarities with the slogans of oppressors are superficial, not the reality of the two very different things. The users of the “love the sinner” language are usually trying to sugar coat hurtful use of authority against the dignity and rights of the “sinner.” On the other hand the nonviolent movement is aimed at changing the behavior and abuse of authority of the powerful. Nonviolence simply cannot work if the practitioner fails to avoid demonizing the people he differs with. The reality of this principle is driven by the goal that the practitioner is pursuing: conversion and reconciliation, not defeat and humiliation.
  4. Four is just that. goal. The object is to win the opponent to your position, to become a friend of justice, instead of oppression. Mandela exemplified the strategy by showing a friendly and even loving attitude to his white oppressors, who later acquiesced in his party becoming the dominant political party in South Africa. Dr. King was fond of pointing to India as a nation governed by Gandhi disciples who nevertheless were voluntarily a permanent member of the British Commonwealth. And the civil rights movement did not seek to subject the white folks who had been the oppressors. Instead the movement aimed at sharing power and dignity on a par with and in loving partnership with those same white folks.
  5. Five and finally the willingness to endure suffering without hate and without yielding to despair. That willingness obviously is grounded in the belief that the future belongs to justice and the end of the suffering. Pessimism about the final outcome would produce either despair or habitual masochism. Nonviolence ultimately depends upon the practitiner’s deep faith that he is doing the work of God or the similarly strong faith that ultimately history is so constructed that “the long arc of the universe bends toward Justice.”


April 2020 Kelley Kidd Doctor Martin Luther King Jr’s death hit me harder than any event in my adult life. I started crying when I heard the news and I cried for most of the following month. His body was brought back from Memphis to Atlanta within twenty four hours of his murder. The streets of many American cities were filled with angry Black folks and there were riots in some. Atlanta braced for violence.

A curfew was imposed in Atlanta and Atlantans were told by orders of the Mayor and the Governor of Georgia to stay at home after 8pm. But it was also announced that his body would be available for viewing around the clock until his funeral, which had been scheduled for a few days later. The viewing was in Sister’s Chapel at Spelman College on the Atlanta University Campus. West side of the City. I lived in Decatur on the East Side, and had never been to the University.

I could not sleep on the first night Doctor King’s body was in Sister’s Chapel. About 3am I got up and left my home with the single minded determination to reach that Chapel and to pay my respects to the man who had changed my inner attitudes profoundly five years before with his famous speech at the March on Washington. I went to and then crossed Peachtree Street,the line between East and West Atlanta, crossed it and began looking for someone one the street that could tell me how to get to the Atlanta University. I knew that the chapel was somewhere on that campus. Several times I stopped to question a law enforcement officer, heedless of the fact their job was to enforce a curfew I was violating. Each time the officer gave me some directional help without even mentioning the curfew. I believe the officers could see from my tears that I was on a mission more important to me than avoiding arrest.

Finally I got to a place to park near the chapel, went inside and stood back the casket. I gazed for a long minute or two at the man whose words had converted me to his cause of militant nonviolent action to end discrimination. My guilt was overwhelming. I had done nothing in the five years since my inner transformation in 1963. I silently vowed that my days of inaction were over. From that moment on I would do everything in my limited power to devote my life to the cause of the victims of discrimination and poverty. More than half a century later, that commitment remains central to what I do, and that commitment has been accompanied by a commitment to nonviolence as strategy and as lifestyle. Sometimes my actions have briefly lost sight of that commitment, but it remains central.

Martin Luther King Jr. and Post Biblical Prophecy

April 2020 Christian Sunday School in Georgia during my youth taught theology, Bible stories and the importance of certain behavioral norms. The ten commandments and the duty to support evangelical and church ministries were especially emphasized as activities when the subject of concern was current obligations. The old testament prophets were seen by my teachers as predictors of the coming of Jesus Christ and as denouncers of the worship of graven images. There was nothing memorable in my highly religious upbringing that signaled to me that Jesus or the prophets were social critics whose message would have likely challenged the status quo in my own society, whether one looked at that society from the regional or national level. The exception had come unexpectedly at a graveside funeral when I was ten years old.

I have told the story elsewhere. My experience at the funeral of my home town’s most hated citizen had left me with at least a strong suspicion that each and every human being was loved by a deity who had also created them. The leader of the funeral, the funeral director, had sobbed in sympathy with our heavenly father who he was convinced was in grief over the crimes and death of the murderer whose funeral he was directing. I had sobbed as well, and I never forgot the overwhelming conviction that the funeral director saw life and God more clearly than those of us who had come to the funeral with our much more traditional hatred for the killer we were burying. We had all been taught that God loved believing Christians, especially good ones. A usually unspoken corollary of that belief had been the assumption that God hated evil men. The funeral director empathized with his God, who had brought each of us into the world out of love, and who was heartbroken over our sins and our deaths.

But this funeral epiphany was an anomaly in an early life that taught more by the values of those around me than by explicit lessons from all sources of intentional teaching. I believe most people learn from the examples of those around them. Everyone I knew practiced their parts in a play that they accepted as the script for the way things were and ought to be. And that script did not call for critically looking at the social system or its values.

I did not approve of the racial caste system or the economic class system that was just as real. Neither did I approve of the weather or the calendar. All of these features of my boyhood reality were simply that–reality. I never stopped to consider very seriously whether the injustices I accepted were condemned by the God I worshipped.

Despite the near totalitarianism of the prevailing regime, there were a few influences which were contradictory. And these came primarily from my protestant Christian religion.

A song from summer Bible school seemed diametrically opposed to any notion that some races were of lesser worth than others.”Jesus loves the little children Little children of the world Red and yellow, black and white All are precious in his sight Jesus loves the children of the world”

And did not the revered founders of the country proclaim that “All men are created equal? And endowed them with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” These suggestions were given lip service by the same people who made sure that nonwhites stayed subservient and that the advantages of the rich were maintained even at he expense of the suffering of the poor.

Perhaps even more important of these contradictions were some of the teachings of Jesus as recorded in Matthew and Luke. His birth in a stable and the socially low position of his followers seemed to fit the teachings of this savior who was hated by the ruling economic and religious elite. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke portrayed Jesus as a charismatic Jew who was on the side of the poor and despised against the pretensions of the ruling elites. But again that was then, and these were different times. No one ever presented Jesus as a critic of the society I lived in.

As I entered college my vision of politics was about as conventionally Southern moderate as my upbringing would have predicted. It was 1960 and the Democratic nomination had just gone to John Kennedy. During the summer I had spent in the office of Senator Richard Russell I had been a follower of the campaign of John Kennedy. Although Kennedy was of course much more left than Russell, the dean of the Southern Caucus, he never advocated the civil rights cause until he was pushed in 1963 by the events in the streets of Birmingham. But virtually all Southern whites were still Democrats. I was a staunch anti-communist and very suspicious of both labor organizations and civil rights agitators. I suspected organized labor of being susceptible to communist and mafia infiltration, and I suspected civil rights activists for many other reasons which had been handed to me by my Southern culture.

Then I enrolled in the obligatory Bible class that Emory required every undergraduate to take. It was team taught by the Bible department. But several days each week included a meeting of only some of the total enrolled students with one of the faculty, small groups split off from the larger class. My good fortune was to get an old fellow named Hebe Reese.

The “Hebe” was not his christened name, but a nickname earned by his youthful enthusiasm for the Hebrew Bible, an enthusiasm that had not waned with age. He was well respected by men like my Father, who had known him since they were Emory undergraduates. In an all white institution for middle and upper class bunch boys, he had been the Dean of Men for many years. He was gentle, direct and engaging. And he taught what he loved best–the Hebrew prophets, about whom I knew very little. Before I finished that course Hebe had showed me a side of the prophets that was beyond predicting Jesus. The prophets he talked about were convinced their God demanded justice for the poor and the unfortunate, that He was not extremely interested in animal sacrifice or temple attendance, and that He loved all of humanity and demanded that we love each other.

Our classroom for these group meeting was separated by several hundred yards from the main campus area. One day after group I walked with Hebe from our class building back to that main campus area. I asked a question that had been on my mind for several days: what would a modern American prophet look like if there were such a person? Hebe answered almost immediately: consider the possibility that Martin Luther King Jr. is such a person. I found that response so far fetched I dismissed it immediately. I only knew what I had heard about King. So to me he was an agitator who had been making unreasonable demands for. desegregation. It was the spring of 1961. Despite my scepticism the suggestion got stuck somewhere in the back of my mind.

During the next few years I did well enough in school to be presented during my Junior year with an opportunity to go on scholarship to Harvard University for summer courses in 1963. I took my opportunity. So i spent the period the civil rights movement called “Freedom Summer” at America’s most famous liberal institution of higher learning.

You might suppose that a Southern moderate in these circumstances would find himself being influenced to completely re-evaluate his conservative outlook on the issues of the times. But that supposition would be inaccurate. Harvard had as few Black college students that summer as Emory back in Georgia, i.e., none. One of my professors told his class that he had never visited any Southern state and did not want to. He cracked that he would be pleased if bulldozers scraped those states into the Gulf of Mexico. I was horrified, and certainly not moved by Harvard in the direction of sympathy for the forces of change. I returned to Georgia in late August as convinced as ever that no significant change was going to happen for a very long time. I felt no sense of any urgency to end racial discrimination and segregation.

One afternoon I stop trying to play outside because of the heat. My friend Hugh Thompson and I watched The March on Washington on television. We watched many thousands listen to speeches at the Lincoln Memorial in D.C. King was to speak last, and I remember enduring what to me were very unconvincing efforts to urge civil rights legislation. Then he spoke.

Marin Luther King’s speech at the March on Washington is justifiably one of history’s most famous. It certainly deserves to be. Its content includes eloquent appeals to brotherly love and for forgiveness of those who fail to live up to both the call of the ancient prophets and those of the idealists who founded the United States. It eloquently describes the aspirations of African Americans and the poor of all races. It also embodies the ideal of universal harmony and fellowship, the love of parents for their small children, and the faith in the future that endures present hardship for eventual triumph. Through his words and demeanor I was moved within a few minutes to feeling enormous sympathy for his cause. I sat down that afternoon one man and got up another. I had encountered the power of prophecy from this Black Christian preacher. Hebe had been right on target.


A partial draft for JJ (April 19 10: 40 am)

OVERVIEW In the first quarter of 2020 two developments highlight the continuing need for a new progressive movement in America. First, the rise and fall of the Sanders presidential campaign. Second, the political and economic response to the COVID19 epidemic. The first elucidated the principal issues that concern American progressives. The second revealed much about the terrible weaknesses of the present political and economic systems in America. This small essay will try to do two things: (1) outline some basic deficiencies in our present systems (2) declare the most important changes needed (3) call for a new democratic movement focused on educating about these matters.


(a) Dishonest separation of political and economic issues.There is a false division of our social system analysis that separates economic and political issues into economic and political. Actually they are so closely related that the separation leads almost inevitably to partial and inaccurate analysis and action. Effective social change requires orientation to see the two systems as interdependent.

(b) Extreme inequality between rich owners and poor working families and individuals.

(c) Lack of needed economic and political policies to support the basic needs of the people in at least the following areas: health, education, environment, child care, freedom of expression.


(a) universal health care