The
residents
raised
the
matter
during
a
recent
community
feedback
meeting
convened
by
the
Bulawayo
Progressive
Residents
Association
(BPRA).
The
community
has
a
number
of
children
who
have
been
benefiting
from
proceeds
from
the
Hualin
Quarry
mine
through
a
corporate
social
responsibility
scheme.
Residents
complained
that
there
is
no
longer
transparency
in
the
selection
criteria
of
children
listed
as
beneficiaries
of
the
scheme.
They
alleged
that
some
beneficiaries
are
directly
linked
to
members
of
the
selection
committee
and,
in
some
cases,
are
double-dipping
by
receiving
assistance
from
both
the
Hualin
Quarry
mine
and
the
Better
Education
Assistance
Module
(BEAM).
Addressing
community
members,
Ward
17
councillor
Sikhululekile
Moyo
said
the
ward
development
committee
was
working
together
with
the
mining
company
and
the
Child
Protection
Committee
(CPC)
to
select
vulnerable
children.
However,
a
CPC
representative,
Admire
Chikomana,
disputed
the
claim,
saying
the
committee
had
not
been
involved
in
the
selection
of
beneficiaries.
“I
would
like
to
clarify
that
as
the
CPC,
although
we
are
supposed
to
be
working
with
the
selection
committee,
we
have
not
been
directly
involved,”
said
Chikomana.
BPRA
provincial
secretary
for
health,
Thembelihle
Ndlovu,
said
the
CPC
must
take
action
to
verify
whether
the
children
currently
benefiting
from
the
scheme
genuinely
qualify
and
are
not
receiving
assistance
from
other
programmes.
“CPC
is
the
one
that
was
supposed
to
come
up
with
the
list
of
names
of
beneficiaries
but
in
this
case
that
is
not
what
happened.
We
now
want
CPC
to
go
back
to
their
office
and
say
they
are
failing
to
get
access
to
the
current
beneficiaries’
names
so
that
they
can
assess
whether
they
rightfully
deserve
the
assistance,”
Ndlovu
said.
“We
have
other
children
who
have
dropped
out
of
school
who
should
return,
but
they
are
failing
to
get
that
opportunity
because
of
the
corruption
that
is
going
on.”
Participants
at
the
meeting
demanded
that
community
leaders
investigate
the
matter
and
name
those
allegedly
mismanaging
the
system
for
the
benefit
of
a
select
few.
“We
want
the
people
to
be
named
so
that
this
matter
can
be
addressed.
If
it
means
a
commission
must
be
set
up
then
so
be
it.
We
have
to
get
to
the
bottom
of
this,”
one
participant
said.
“This
is
corruption
at
its
best
and
you
cannot
fight
it
alone
as
a
committee.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
everyone
joins
in
the
fight
against
this
form
of
corruption.
Give
us
those
names
of
the
people
that
are
doing
this
and
we
will
deal
with
it
as
a
collective,”
another
participant
said.
In
a
statement,
ZRP
spokesperson
Commissioner
Paul
Nyathi
said
the
suspect
was
arrested
in
connection
with
cases
of
fraud
and
externalisation
of
funds,
in
which
another
foreign
investor
was
allegedly
duped
of
US$1.5
million
in
a
mining
investment
deal.
According
to
police,
the
suspect
was
arrested
on
14
March
2026
at
Norton
Tollgate
while
travelling
in
a
black
Lexus
SUV
with
three
other
people.
Added
Commissioner
Nyathi:
“Upon
arrest,
police
conducted
a
search
into
the
vehicle
leading
to
the
recovery
of
prepared
dagga.
“A
subsequent
search
at
the
suspect’s
residence
in
Borrowdale,
Harare,
led
to
the
recovery
of
approximately
10
grammes
of
suspected
gold
nuggets.
“The
police
are
currently
verifying
whether
the
suspect
has
the
relevant
permit
for
possession
of
the
recovered
gold.
“The
Zimbabwe
Republic
Police
urges
members
of
the
public,
particularly
investors,
to
conduct
thorough
due
diligence
and
verify
ownership
of
mining
claims
with
relevant
authorities
before
entering
into
any
transactions.”
Baker
McKenzie
Scales
Back
Even
Further:
Restructuring
has
its
consequences.
Jeanine
Pirro
Does
It
Live!:
Catch
up
on
her
meltdown
here.
Judge
Newman
Petitions
The
Supreme
Court:
Will
they
affirm
her
dissenting
opinion
once
again?
Is
The
Better
Place
In
The
Room
With
Us?:
John
Lauro’s
take
on
the
DOJ
is
hard
to
believe.
Legal
AI
is
usually
framed
as
a
model
problem.
Better
models.
Larger
models.
More
capable
models.
The
assumption
is
that
if
the
technology
is
powerful
enough,
usefulness
will
follow.
The
empirical
evidence
suggests
a
different
conclusion.
Legal
AI
does
not
fail
because
models
are
insufficiently
advanced.
It
fails
because
the
dominant
metaphor
is
wrong.
The
most
effective
legal
AI
behaves
less
like
an
automated
system
and
more
like
a
mentor.
This
insight
emerged
during
a
series
of
empirical
classroom
pilots
run
through
Product
Law
Hub
using
an
AI-based
legal
coach
called
Frankie.
The
pilots
were
designed
to
observe
how
users
develop
judgment-based
legal
skills
when
working
alongside
AI.
The
findings
draw
on
quantitative
engagement
data
and
qualitative
interviews
conducted
throughout
the
course.
What
consistently
produced
better
learning
outcomes
was
not
authority,
speed,
or
completeness.
It
was
collaboration.
Automation
Is
The
Wrong
Aspiration
Much
of
legal
AI
development
is
oriented
around
automation.
Reduce
effort.
Eliminate
steps.
Deliver
answers
faster.
That
framing
works
for
clerical
or
repetitive
tasks.
It
breaks
down
when
the
task
is
judgment.
Judgment
cannot
be
automated
without
being
diminished.
It
requires
context,
prioritization,
and
explanation.
When
AI
systems
attempt
to
replace
those
processes
with
outputs,
they
strip
away
the
very
work
that
produces
expertise.
In
the
classroom
pilot,
authority-driven
interactions
exposed
this
limitation
quickly.
When
the
AI
behaved
like
a
tool
that
delivered
conclusions,
engagement
dropped.
Users
deferred
rather
than
reasoned.
Learning
slowed.
The
model
was
capable.
The
interaction
was
wrong.
Mentorship
Is
How
Lawyers
Actually
Learn
Lawyers
do
not
develop
judgment
by
being
handed
answers.
They
develop
it
through
guided
struggle.
A
senior
lawyer
asks
questions,
challenges
assumptions,
and
explains
why
something
matters.
They
do
not
solve
the
problem
for
you
unless
it
is
necessary.
The
most
effective
AI
interactions
in
the
pilot
mirrored
that
dynamic.
When
the
system
asked
clarifying
questions,
surfaced
tradeoffs,
and
prompted
users
to
articulate
reasoning
before
responding,
engagement
increased.
Quantitative
data
showed
longer
sessions
and
more
iterative
exchanges.
Interviews
revealed
greater
confidence
and
stronger
retention.
The
AI
did
not
become
smarter.
It
became
more
mentor-like.
Authority
Shuts
Learning
Down
One
of
the
clearest
contrasts
in
the
data
was
between
collaborative
and
authoritative
modes.
When
the
AI
asserted
answers
early
or
framed
guidance
as
definitive,
users
disengaged.
They
moved
faster
but
learned
less.
This
is
not
surprising.
Authority
short-circuits
curiosity.
Once
an
answer
is
presented
as
final,
there
is
little
incentive
to
explore
alternatives
or
test
assumptions.
In
contrast,
when
the
AI
withheld
judgment
and
instead
invited
reasoning,
users
stayed
cognitively
involved.
They
treated
the
interaction
as
a
conversation
rather
than
a
transaction.
Legal
AI
that
defaults
to
authority
undermines
its
own
value.
Collaboration
Scales
Better
Than
Control
There
is
a
temptation
to
believe
that
authoritative
AI
is
safer.
Clear
answers
feel
controllable.
Collaborative
systems
feel
messy.
The
pilot
suggests
the
opposite.
Collaborative
AI
produced
more
durable
learning
and
more
trust.
Users
were
better
able
to
explain
their
reasoning
and
adapt
it
across
scenarios.
Control
may
reduce
short-term
risk.
It
increases
long-term
dependence.
Mentorship
builds
capability.
This
distinction
matters
as
AI
becomes
embedded
in
training
and
workflows.
Systems
that
act
as
authorities
create
passive
users.
Systems
that
act
as
mentors
create
better
lawyers.
Why
Models
Keep
Getting
The
Metaphor
Wrong
Part
of
the
problem
is
language.
We
talk
about
models,
not
relationships.
We
optimize
for
outputs,
not
interactions.
We
evaluate
correctness,
not
growth.
Mentorship
does
not
fit
neatly
into
benchmark
metrics.
It
is
harder
to
demo.
It
takes
longer
to
show
value.
But
it
aligns
far
more
closely
with
how
legal
expertise
actually
develops.
The
Product
Law
Hub
pilot
made
this
visible
by
stripping
away
performance
theater.
Students
did
not
care
how
fast
the
AI
responded.
They
cared
whether
it
engaged
with
their
thinking.
Mentors
Adapt.
Models
Repeat.
Another
insight
from
the
pilot
was
how
quickly
trust
eroded
when
the
AI
repeated
itself
or
applied
the
same
framework
regardless
of
context.
Repetition
signaled
inattention.
Users
disengaged.
Mentors
do
not
repeat
scripts.
They
adapt.
They
notice
what
the
learner
already
understands
and
adjust
accordingly.
When
the
AI
adapted
its
approach
based
on
prior
exchanges,
users
attributed
greater
intelligence
to
it,
even
when
its
substantive
guidance
was
constrained.
Trust
followed
attentiveness,
not
sophistication.
The
Cost
Of
Choosing
The
Wrong
Metaphor
Choosing
automation
as
the
dominant
metaphor
for
legal
AI
carries
a
cost.
It
encourages
tools
that
optimize
for
speed
over
understanding
and
authority
over
engagement.
Those
tools
may
look
impressive
but
fail
quietly
in
practice.
Choosing
mentorship
as
the
metaphor
changes
design
priorities.
It
emphasizes
questioning
over
answering,
adaptation
over
uniformity,
and
explanation
over
assertion.
The
classroom
data
suggests
that
this
shift
is
not
philosophical.
It
is
practical.
What
This
Means
For
Builders
And
Buyers
For
builders,
the
takeaway
is
clear.
Stop
asking
how
much
the
model
can
do.
Start
asking
how
it
behaves
when
a
user
is
uncertain,
wrong,
or
exploring.
For
buyers,
the
question
is
not
how
many
tasks
a
system
can
automate.
It
is
whether
the
system
helps
lawyers
think
better
over
time.
Legal
AI
will
be
judged
not
by
its
outputs,
but
by
its
influence
on
judgment.
The
Future
Of
Legal
AI
Is
Relational
The
most
important
lesson
from
the
empirical
classroom
work
is
that
legal
AI
succeeds
when
it
respects
how
lawyers
learn.
That
learning
is
relational.
It
is
iterative.
It
depends
on
challenge
and
explanation.
Models
will
continue
to
improve.
That
is
inevitable.
What
is
not
inevitable
is
how
we
choose
to
deploy
them.
If
legal
AI
continues
to
chase
automation,
it
will
keep
disappointing.
If
it
embraces
mentorship,
it
has
a
chance
to
become
something
far
more
valuable.
Legal
AI
does
not
need
to
replace
lawyers.
It
needs
to
teach
them
how
to
think.
Olga
V.
Mack
is
the
CEO
of
TermScout,
where
she
builds
legal
systems
that
make
contracts
faster
to
understand,
easier
to
operate,
and
more
trustworthy
in
real
business
conditions.
Her
work
focuses
on
how
legal
rules
allocate
power,
manage
risk,
and
shape
decisions
under
uncertainty.
A
serial
CEO
and
former
General
Counsel,
Olga
previously
led
a
legal
technology
company
through
acquisition
by
LexisNexis.
She
teaches
at
Berkeley
Law
and
is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
the
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics.
She
has
authored
several
books
on
legal
innovation
and
technology,
delivered
six
TEDx
talks,
and
her
insights
regularly
appear
in
Forbes,
Bloomberg
Law,
VentureBeat,
TechCrunch,
and
Above
the
Law.
Her
work
treats
law
as
essential
infrastructure,
designed
for
how
organizations
actually
operate.
I
suggested last
week that,
between
now
and
the
beginning
of
summer,
President
Donald
Trump
will
declare
victory
in
Iran,
end
most
of
the
military
operations,
and
move
on
to
his
next
manufactured
crisis. Trump
could
thus
claim
another
victory
and
not
worry
about
that
nasty
little
war
handing
Democrats
the
midterms. (Other
things
might
yet
hand
the
Democrats
the
midterms,
but
not
the
war.)
We
thus
know
in
advance
that
the
war
will
end
in
victory
for
us,
and
we
know
when
it
will
end,
and
who
cares
about
Iran,
anyway?
On
reflection,
there
are
two
flies
in
this
ointment.
First,
there’s
the
enriched
uranium
fly. Iran
possesses
about
900
pounds
of
enriched
uranium,
which
could
be
made
into
about
10
nuclear
weapons.
What
do
you
do
about
that
stuff
when
you
declare
that
the
war
is
over
and
our
troops
are
coming
home?
If
the
mullahs
manage
to
hold
power
in
Iran,
the
continued
existence
of
enriched
uranium
means
that
Iran
would
remain
able
to
manufacture
nukes
pretty
quickly.
Why
did
we
go
to
war
anyway?
And
if
Iran
collapses
into
sectarian
violence
or
a
failed
state,
the
enriched
uranium
becomes
yet
more
threatening.
Doesn’t
the
U.S.
have
to
do
something
about
the
enriched
uranium?
You
could
bomb
it,
I
suppose,
which
would
result
in
a
contaminated
conventional
bomb
site
(not
a
nuclear
explosion),
but
you
wouldn’t
be
sure
that
you’d
eliminated
the
entire
stockpile.
You
could
decide
to
engage
U.S.
(or
Israeli)
ground
troops
in
Iran,
fighting
their
way
to
Isfahan,
or
Fordow,
or
Natanz,
or
wherever
the
uranium
might
be
today.
But
the
Israelis
might
decline
to
accept
this
task,
and
this
is
the
sort
of
American
commitment
that
Trump
doesn’t
want
to
make
(and
for
which
he
would
pay
a
high
political
price).
Or
you
could
do
a
Venezuela-style
midnight
raid,
sending
in
the
Delta
Force
to
extract
the
900
pounds
of
uranium
under
cover
of
darkness.
But
the
Iranians
know
that
this
type
of
raid
is
likely,
expect
it
to
happen
within
the
next
few
weeks
or
months,
and
are
surely
prepared
for
it.
That’s
not
the
kind
of
Delta
Force
action
that
I’d
like
to
be
involved
in
(for
reasons
beyond
even
the
obvious
ones
of
my
competence,
age,
and
cowardice).
Hmmm.
…
Maybe
Trump
has
to
negotiate
after
all.
The
second
fly
in
the
Iranian
ointment
is
the
Strait
of
Hormuz.
Suppose
Trump
announces
that
the
United
States
has
won
and
the
war
is
over.
Suppose
the
Iranians
say,
“Thank
you
very
much. We’re
pleased
to
hear
that. But
we’re
still
not
letting
oil
pass
through
the
Strait
of
Hormuz. Global
gas
prices
are
high,
and
they’re
heading
higher.”
Protecting
traffic
through
the
Strait
over
Iran’s
objection
would
be
both
terribly
expensive
and
only
partially
effective. Even
with
American
escorts,
the
near-certainty
that
Iran
would
occasionally
destroy
ships
passing
through
the
Strait
would
keep
the
cost
of
insuring
shipments
high
and
the
number
of
shipments
low.
Given
the
location
of
the
Strait,
and
how
narrow
it
is,
the
only
way
to
eliminate
the
Iranian
threat
(without
Iran’s
acquiescence)
may
be
to
send
in
ground
troops
to
protect
the
shores
surrounding
the
Strait.
Again,
that’s
precisely
the
kind
of
war
that
Trump
doesn’t
want.
Hmmm.
…
Maybe
Trump
has
to
negotiate
with
the
Iranians
after
all.
I
don’t
see
any
“unconditional
surrender”
by
Iran
any
time
soon.
And
the
possibility
of
Trump
declaring
victory
and
bringing
home
the
troops
is
a
little
trickier
than
I
originally
thought.
Instead,
the
parties
may
have
to
agree
to
a
ceasefire
and
then
negotiate
about
what
Iran
would
do
to
safeguard
the
enriched
uranium
and
open
the
Strait
of
Hormuz
in
exchange
for
the
United
States
easing
sanctions
or
doing
something
else
to
help
Iran.
Trump
will
surely
declare
victory,
no
matter
the
outcome.
But
isn’t
he
going
to
look
like
a
loser
at
the
end
of
this
mess?
There’s
a
war
in
Iran
upending
the
global
energy
market,
China
is
moving
forces
to
encircle
Taiwan,
and
the
entire
Department
of
Homeland
Security
—
including
TSA,
FEMA,
and
the
Coast
Guard
—
is
in
shutdown
as
Republicans
continue
to
kill
stop-gap
funding
bills
unless
they
include
massive
spending
for
ICE.
With
so
much
on
his
agenda,
the
president
—
who
definitely
is
not
deep
in
the
throes
of
mental
decline
—
hammered
out
nearly
1,000
words’
worth
of
a
Truth
Social
rant
about
how
much
he
hates
the
Supreme
Court.
At
a
quarter
to
11
at
night
on
a
Sunday.
“The
decision
that
mattered
most
to
me
was
TARIFFS!”
he
began,
seemingly
forgetting
that
the
decision
that
actually
mattered
most
to
him
was
when
Chief
Justice
Roberts
invented
a
new
double
secret
immunity
that
allowed
Trump
to
bypass
all
the
federal
criminal
laws
he’d
been
indicted
for
breaching.
After
that
decision
cleared
Trump’s
path
back
to
office,
he
even
told
the
Chief
Justice,
“Thank
you
again.
Thank
you
again.
Won’t
forget
it.”
[Narrator
voice]: He
forgot
it.
“The
Court
knew
where
I
stood,
how
badly
I
wanted
this
Victory
for
our
Country,
and
instead
decided
to,
potentially,
give
away
Trillions
of
Dollars
to
Countries
and
Companies
who
have
been
taking
advantage
of
the
United
States
for
decades,”
Trump
continued,
allowing
that
adverb
to
strain
under
some
crushing
weight.
I
want
to
thank
Justices
Alito,
Thomas,
and
Kavanaugh
for
their
Wisdom
and
Courage
pertaining
to
the
TARIFF
case,
and
for
understanding,
in
addition
to
the
Law,
that
our
“Unfriendly
Competitors”
should
not
be
reimbursed
and
rewarded
for
the
decades
of
Damage
they
have
caused
THE
UNITED
STATES
OF
AMERICA.
I
will
fight
hard
to
make
sure
that
this
does
not
happen!
The
Democrats
on
the
Court
always
“stick
together,”
no
matter
how
strong
a
case
is
put
before
them
—
There
is
rarely
even
a
minor
“waver.”
But
Republicans
do
not
do
this.
They
openly
disrespect
the
Presidents
who
nominate
them
to
the
highest
position
in
the
Land,
a
Justice
of
the
United
States
Supreme
Court,
and
go
out
of
their
way,
with
bad
and
wrongful
rulings
and
intentions,
to
prove
how
“honest,”
“independent,”
and
“legitimate”
they
are.
In
normal
times,
suggesting
that
justices
should
respect
the
presidents
who
nominate
them
over
honesty,
independence,
and
legitimacy
would
be
the
biggest
political
story
going
and
trigger
bipartisan
calls
for
impeachment.
In
2026,
it
doesn’t
crack
the
top
page
outside
of
the
nation’s
finest
legal
news
sources.
Our
Country
was
unnecessarily
RANSACKED
by
the
United
States
Supreme
Court,
which
has
become
little
more
than
a
weaponized
and
unjust
Political
Organization.
The
sad
thing
is,
they
will
only
get
worse!
They
wouldn’t
even
call
out
The
Rigged
Presidential
Election
of
2020,
because
they
said
that
I,
as
President
of
the
United
States,
did
not
have
“standing”
to
challenge
it,
and
now,
with
time,
it
has
been
conclusively
proven
to
be
stolen
Again
with
the
dubious
adverbial
deployment.
This
rant
proved
too
long
for
even
Truth
Social’s
indulgence
and
Trump
followed
up
with
another
one:
The
Courts
treat
Republicans,
and
me,
so
unfairly,
always
seeming
to
protect
those
who
should
not
be
protected.
They
are
highly
politicized.
Cases
don’t
matter,
the
Judge
does!
As
an
example,
how
is
this
absolutely
terrible
Federal
Reserve
Chairman,
Jerome
“Too
Late”
Powell,
not
even
allowed
to
be
investigated
for
the
horrible
job
he
does?
How
is
he
allowed
to
be
Billions
of
Dollars
over
budget,
and
years
behind
schedule,
on
the
simple
renovation
of
the
small
Federal
Reserve
Complex
in
Washington,
D.C.,
where
he
created
an
absolute
disaster
Of
note,
the
Federal
Reserve
itself
wanted
a
more
modest
and
cheaper
renovation.
But
appointees
of
the
first
Trump
administration
rejected
the
modern
glass
and
steel
design
and
demanded
the
more
garish
luxury
marble
plan
that’s
costing
so
much
money.
But
that’s
not
stopping
Trump
and
his
embattled
U.S.
Attorney
for
D.C.,
Jeanine
Pirro,
to
pursue
an
investigation
hoping
to
convince
Powell
to
resign.
Pirro
is
trying
to
spin
Judge
Boasberg’s
decision
shutting
down
these
subpoenas
as
breach
of
the
separation
of
powers,
though
all
he
actually
ruled
was
that
the
Fed
had
more
than
proven
that
this
was
all
a
baseless
abuse
of
the
grand
jury
process.
In
reaching
his
conclusion,
Judge
Boasberg
cited,
you
know,
Trump’s
incessant
social
media
posting
where
the
president
laid
out
his
bad
faith
motives.
As
Judge
Boasberg
wrote,
“The
President
spent
years
essentially
asking
if
no
one
will
rid
him
of
this
troublesome
Fed
Chair.”
He
then
did
Henry
II
one
better
and
“suggested
a
specific
line
of
investigation
into
him,
which
had
been
proposed
by
a
political
appointee
with
no
role
in
law
enforcement,
who
hinted
that
it
could
be
a
way
to
remove
Powell.
The
President’s
appointed
prosecutor
promptly
complied.”
You’d
think
that
might
convince
Trump
to
ease
off
the
posts.
Or
at
least
get
his
staffers
to
put
parental
controls
on
his
socials.
I
strongly
criticized
Jerome
“Too
Late”
for
his
horrible
performance
throughout
his
tenure,
which
is
either
gross
incompetence,
total
dishonesty,
or
both,
and,
in
return
for
this
well
justified
criticism,
get
viciously
and
wrongfully
blamed
by,
as
usual,
a
Wacky,
Nasty,
Crooked,
and
totally
Out
of
Control
Judge,
named
James
Boasberg,
a
man
who
suffers
from
the
highest
level
of
Trump
Derangement
Syndrome
(TDS),
and
has
been
“after”
my
people,
and
me,
for
years.
TDS
will
not
show
up
again
in
the
post.
That’s
some
rookie
lawyer
nonsense.
Much
like
“prosecutor”
Deranged
Jack
Smith,
and
many
others,
Boasberg
is
a
disgrace,
as
was
his
predecessor,
to
our
Legal
Process,
and
our
Highly
Politicized
Court
System,
which
was
just
witnessed
firsthand
by
the
unfortunate
and
unwarranted
TARIFF
decision,
recently
handed
down
by
the
United
States
Supreme
Court,
which
was
a
GIFT
to
Countries
and
Companies
who
have
been
“ripping
off
the
United
States
of
America,”
for
decades,
at
levels
never
seen
before.
Poor
Judge
Howell
just
over
here
minding
her
business
and
got
dragged
into
this
somehow.
It’s
too
easy
to
brush
off
these
posts
as
par
for
the
president’s
combative
brand
of
sundowning,
but
it
shouldn’t
be
normalized.
He’s
doubling
down
on
the
“meddlesome
priest”
logic
that
Judge
Boasberg
just
wrote
about.
At
the
very
least
he’s
laying
the
groundwork
for
more
aggressive
and
explicit
refusals
of
court
orders.
At
worst,
this
is
emboldening
his
troglodyte
militia
to
step
up
the
violent
threats
against
judges.
Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to email her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.
The
American
Bar
Association
recently
convened
a
white
collar
crime
conference
and
had
a
panel
discussion
about
threats
to
the
rule
of
law…
which,
at
this
point,
is
less
an
academic
topic
and
more
of
a
“look
around
you”
situation.
Panelists
gathered
to
discuss
what
many
legal
observers
view
as
a
constitutional
crisis
playing
out
inside
the
United
States
Department
of
Justice
under
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi.
And
then
there
was
John
Lauro.
Lauro,
best
known
for
representing
Donald
Trump
in
his
criminal
matters,
arrived
with
a
take
so
disconnected
from
the
room
that
it
may
as
well
have
been
delivered
via
carrier
pigeon
from
an
alternate
universe.
While
other
panelists
described
unprecedented
pressure
on
the
DOJ
and
the
erosion
of
norms
meant
to
keep
prosecutions
independent
from
political
whims,
Lauro
had
a
different
assessment
entirely.
According
to
Lauro,
the
Department
of
Justice
is
actually
doing
great.
The
DOJ
is
“in
a
better
place”
than
a
year
earlier,
Lauro
said,
“because
I
have
the
unique
experience
of
representing
a
political
figure
who
was
probably
more
abused
by
the
criminal
justice
system
in
America
than
any
other
political
figure
ever.”
“In
a
better
place”?
Like
the
family
dog
you
told
the
kids
went
to
live
on
a
farm?
Come
on,
now
—
that’s
what
you
tell
kids
about
a
pet
that’s
died.
And
perhaps
it
was
more
honest
than
Lauro
intended
—
because
the
rule
of
law
has
indeed
crossed
that
rainbow
bridge
under
Bondi.
Well,
if
Lauro
expected
polite
nodding,
he
misread
the
room.
According
to
reports,
when
audience
member
Mark
Kokanovich,
a
former
federal
prosecutor
in
Arizona,
pressed
Lauro
to
explain
how
the
situation
could
possibly
have
improved,
the
question
drew
applause
from
attendees.
Lauro’s
explanation
did
not
exactly
restore
confidence.
“It’s
very
clear,”
Lauro
said.
“We’re
not
prosecuting
the
leading
political
opponent
to
President
Trump
right
now.”
Easy
there
—
because
it’s
not
for
lack
of
effort.
Under
Trump’s
DOJ,
New
York
Attorney
General
Letitia
James,
former
FBI
director
James
Comey,
and
multiple
members
of
Congress
have
all
been
targeted
and
it
is
only
the,
ahem,
rule
of
law
preventing
the
naked
prosecution
of
political
enemies.
Then
another
attendee,
former
New
Jersey
federal
prosecutor
Mitchell
Epner,
decided
to
skip
the
niceties
entirely.
“I
wanted
to
thank
Mr.
Lauro
for
admitting
the
emperor
has
no
clothes
—
the
rule
of
law
is
dead
because
the
people
in
this
room
and
the
Department
of
Justice
pissed
off
President
Trump,”
Epner
said.
He
continued,
“We
have
a
president
who
can
dictate
what
is
done
and
what
is
not
done.
Thank
you
for
admitting
that
the
dictator
in
place
in
the
White
House
has
killed
the
rule
of
law.
I
really
appreciate
that.”
Yes,
people
clapped.
Lauro
responded
in
a
pretty
juvenile
way.
“I
know
this
has
been
a
therapy
session
for
you,
and
I
hope
that
has
helped,”
Lauro
replied.
“I
know
this
is
an
emotional
time
for
you.”
At
which
point
someone
in
the
audience
said
the
thing
out
loud,
“You’re
a
clown.”
The
pushback
didn’t
just
come
from
the
audience.
It
also
came
from
the
stage.
Moderator
Sandy
Weinberg
of
Zuckerman
Spaeder
has
known
Lauro
for
more
than
four
decades
—
they
were
once
law
partners.
But
familiarity
did
not
translate
into
indulgence.
When
Lauro
defended
the
idea
that
the
president
can
effectively
dictate
prosecutions,
Weinberg
cut
in,
“I
can’t
believe
that
you
think
that
that’s
normal
or
good
that
one
person
can
dictate
who
the
Department
of
Justice
investigates
and
indicts.”
But
Lauro
used
the
Supreme
Court’s
immunity
decision
as
a
shield,
“That’s
what
the
Supreme
Court
said.”
As
if
it
weren’t
already
obvious
enough
that
decision
was
the
nadir
of
the
Roberts
Court.
What
the
exchange
laid
bare
is
that
the
MAGA
legal
worldview
isn’t
really
about
legal
principles
so
much
as
grievance
narratives
wrapped
in
constitutional
vocabulary.
When
the
theory
starts
with
“Donald
Trump
was
the
most
abused
political
figure
in
American
history,”
the
rest
of
the
analysis
tends
to
collapse
into
whatever
conclusion
best
serves
that
premise.
And
that’s
how
you
end
up
at
a
rule
of
law
panel
arguing
that
the
justice
system
is
healthier
than
ever
when
the
reality
—
the
DOJ
rebranded
into
the
president’s
personal
law
firm
and
investigating
his
enemies
on
a
deranged
whim
—
tells
a
different
story.
If
that’s
the
definition
of
a
“better
place,”
then
yes
—
the
rule
of
law
is
absolutely
there.
Right
next
to
that
childhood
goldfish.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].
Court
and
civil
registry
data
revealed
a
notable
rise
in
divorce
filings,
particularly
among
urban,
church-going
couples.
According
to
recent
figures
from
the
country’s
Judicial
Service
Commission,
nearly
4,000
divorce
applications
were
filed
across
the
country
in
2025
—
up
roughly
27%
from
the
previous
year.
Harare,
the
country’s
capital,
led
the
trend
with
more
than
2,300
filings,
followed
by
Bulawayo
and
other
regional
High
Court
stations.
Despite
the
increase
in
filings,
finalized
divorces
actually
fell,
suggesting
a
growing
backlog
in
the
courts
as
more
couples
seek
to
end
their
unions.
The
2025
Zimbabwe
Demographic
and
Health
Survey,
conducted
by
the
Zimbabwe
National
Statistics
Agency
in
partnership
with
the
Ministry
of
Health
and
partners,
reports
that
12%
of
women
aged
15-49
are
now
divorced
or
separated
—
up
from
9%
in
2015.
Over
a
decade,
that
translates
to
nearly
100,000
additional
divorced
or
separated
women
in
this
age
group.
By
contrast,
while
male
divorce
rates
have
also
risen,
they
remain
lower,
climbing
from
4%
to
about
6%
over
the
same
period.
Sociologists
view
this
as
reflecting
not
only
demographic
and
economic
shifts
but
also
changes
in
gender
norms,
legal
access
and
family
support
systems.
Zimbabwe
is
one
of
Africa’s
most
religious
countries.
Christian
communities,
from
mainline
Protestant
and
Catholic
to
Apostolic
groups
and
independent
charismatic
churches,
are
deeply
committed
to
marriage
as
a
sacred
institution.
Yet,
even
as
hundreds
of
thousands
of
believers
turn
up
weekly
in
pews
and
prayer
meetings,
the
ecclesiastical
influence
on
marital
stability
seems
to
be
shifting.
Pastor
Melusi
Moyo,
a
marriage
counselor
and
pastor
based
in
Bulawayo,
said
the
numbers
reflect
not
just
broken
homes,
but
a
spiritual
and
generational
crisis.
“We
are
a
generation
quick
to
quit
and
lacking
the
capacity
to
build,
unlike
previous
ones,”
Moyo
told
Religion
Unplugged,
suggesting
that
the
erosion
of
extended
family
support
and
diminished
respect
for
marital
vows
were
contributing
to
the
breakdown
of
religious
marriages.
Many
religious
leaders
privately
echo
this
sentiment.
During
church
services,
they
point
to
a
growing
preference
for
individual
fulfillment
over
collective
family
wellbeing,
and
increasing
acceptance
of
divorce
as
a
legitimate
choice
rather
than
a
social
taboo.
Various
church
groups
suggest
that
regular
communal
worship,
premarital
counseling
and
adherence
to
faith-based
marital
norms
are
still
linked
to
lower
separation
rates
among
couples
who
practice
them.
Some
denominational
leaders
within
Zimbabwe
argue
that
couples
who
attend
church
services
together
and
engage
in
structured
marital
mentorship
are
better
equipped
to
navigate
marital
challenges,
a
claim
supported
by
global
studies
of
Christian
communities.
Yet,
these
narratives
clash
with
the
hard
realities
revealed
in
the
national
data.
Legal
experts
say
that
the
rise
in
divorce
filings
cannot
be
understood
solely
through
a
moral
or
religious
lens.
Zimbabwe’s
prolonged
economic
challenges,
labor
migration
and
shifts
in
gender
dynamics
also
play
significant
roles.
Many
women
in
Zimbabwe
have
long
faced
persistent
abuse
within
their
own
homes
or
at
the
hands
of
a
partner.
In
2024,
the
World
Bank
reported,
“Approximately
39.4%
of
women
have
been
subjected
to
physical
violence,
and
an
estimated
11.6%
have
faced
sexual
violence.”
The
national
government
and
non-profit
partners
have
worked
in
recent
years
to
inform
women
of
their
rights
and
to
spark
culture-wide
change
for
better
gender
equality.
“Greater
legal
awareness
and
access
to
justice,
especially
for
women,
have
made
divorce
a
more
viable
option
for
those
trapped
in
abusive
or
untenable
unions,”
said
Tichaona
Mahaso,
a
legal
expert
in
family
law.
Economic
strain,
too,
is
a
recurring
theme.
Couples
managing
dual
burdens
of
unemployment
and
the
absence
of
extended
familial
support
often
find
that
stress
compounds
pre-existing
fissures
in
relationships,
a
reality
that
church-based
marital
enrichment
programs
struggle
to
address.
“Looking
at
women
in
particular,
growing
financial
independence
and
awareness
of
their
legal
rights
have
translated
into
a
social
empowerment
that
challenges
traditional
expectations
of
marital
permanence
at
all
costs,”
Mahaso
added.
While
faith
communities
have
historically
championed
union
longevity,
this
shift
has
forced
many
religious
institutions
to
reassess
how
they
support
members
through
conflict,
separation
and
post-marital
life.
In
response
to
the
rising
divorce
figures,
many
churches
in
Zimbabwe
are
intensifying
counseling
and
mentorship
programmes.
Some
megachurches
in
Harare
and
Bulawayo,
particularly
charismatic
and
pentecostal
congregations,
now
run
mandatory
premarital
counselling
courses
before
couples
can
be
married
in
their
churches
and
offer
marital
retreats
designed
to
equip
couples
with
communication
skills
and
spiritual
frameworks
for
enduring
partnership.
“Marriage
is
not
just
an
event,
it’s
a
lifelong
dedication,”
said
Kudakwashe
Tozoona,
pastor
of
a
local
church
in
Harare.
“We
have
seen
too
many
couples
marry
without
serious
preparation,
only
to
realize
later
they
never
built
the
foundation.”
Others
stress
that
these
programs
must
evolve
beyond
spiritual
exhortation
to
include
practical
financial
counselling
and
mental
health
support.
Religious
organisations
are
also
exploring
gender-sensitive
approaches
to
marital
health,
recognising
that
women
navigating
divorce
face
distinct
challenges,
both
economic
and
social.
Some
church
groups
have
partnered
with
civil
society
organizations
to
offer
legal
advice,
counseling
and
community
support
for
separated
or
divorced
individuals,
a
model
of
religious
engagement
that
blends
spiritual
care
with
practical
empowerment.
“The
church
cannot
pretend
marriage
is
unaffected
by
wider
social
pressures,”
Tozoona
said.
“But
it
can
be
a
place
where
healing,
restoration
and
new
beginnings
are
offered
with
compassion.”
Calvin
Manika
is
an
award-winning
international
journalist
based
in
Zimbabwe.
Kathryn