≡ Menu

Review: Yeates’s new lawyer-military-terrorism thriller

Bay of One Hundred Fires by J. Lanier Yeates, Brazos Valley Press, 256 pp, 2004, $24.95
Reviewed by N. Stephan Kinsella

For readers looking for the next Tom Clancy or John Grisham, or for the perfect beach novel for 2005, the new thriller by first-time novelist and prominent Houston lawyer Lanier Yeates is for you. Bay of One Hundred Fires is an intriguing blend of geopolitical intrigue, Naval intelligence, high-tech weaponry and colorful Southern culture. Scenes replete with local color carry the reader from antebellum homes along the Mississippi River to storied venues in New Orleans, including a charitable gala at Audubon Park, aptly called the Zoo-to-Do, and dinner at the famed Rex Room at Antoine’s in the French Quarter.

Bay is a lawyer-military-terrorism thriller centered on an imaginative and interesting terrorist attack on America. The tale begins, innocently enough, at the modest home of a Cuban family of four in the picturesque city by Cienfuegos Bay—the Bay of One Hundred Fires. The stage for intrigue and action is set when the father and son, while fishing in a remote spot in the bay, are strafed by a Cuban MiG because the Cuban government thinks they might have seen something they are not supposed to see. And that could threaten a clandestine operation at the big base near Cienfuegos, where a suspiciously enormous low-flying transport aircraft frequently arrives near a supposedly abandoned nuclear power plant.

While the father is killed, the son, Juan, is rescued by a US Navy chief petty officer sailing from Guantanamo Bay to Pensacola. Juan, a reserve Cuban Naval officer, is handed over to interrogators at the Office of Naval Intelligence, who, along with the CIA, quickly become interested upon hearing his description of the aircraft.

The focus then shifts to the other major characters and plot threads—Bay is Clancyesque with its multiple, converging plot lines and characters—including Juan’s beautiful sister, Marilisa, a Press Attache for the Cuban National Sports Authority, stationed in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Navy Lieutenant Commander Fletcher Smith. Smith, in Halifax during a port visit by his ship, the nuclear-powered guided-missile cruiser USS California, ends up meeting Marilisa, who has just learned of her father’s death. With emotions running high, Smith and Marilisa quickly become lovers. Other key characters include maverick CIA analysts, a self-made oil explorer and Hoss Mueller, Captain of the California.

The story centers on an alliance between a Cuban dictator, a new despot in Venezuela, and Middle Eastern terrorists, funded by Arabian oil profits and employing rogue scientists to develop horrible weapons to be deployed to the alliance’s enemy states around the world. The Cuban dictator’s facilities and fleet of nuclear missile firing submarines play a key role in this scheme. (Yeates amusingly refuses to refer to certain distasteful characters by name: Castro is sarcastically referred to as “El Presidente”; the Clinton administration is only referred to as the “previous” administration, and so forth.)

Without giving too much of the plot away, one of the novel’s most imaginative evil schemes can be touched on—a plan involving used automobile tires impregnated with deadly Sarin gas to cause unprecedented carnage at a southern university sporting event where alert scientists at the university race against time to stay one step ahead of the deadly scheme. Bay also spins an intriguing possibility as to what Saddam Hussein might have done with the deadly weapons many believed he had—send them to Castro by way of Syria just before the American-led coalition invasion of Iraq. The nuclear material could then be processed in Cuba and sent to Venezuela where it would be developed into nuclear weapons for distribution to a global terrorist network. Also part of the scheme are submarines at a secret base at Cienfuegos, bought by the North Koreans from the bankrupted ex-Soviet republics, to be armed with nuclear missiles.

As the multilayered novel unfolds and the nefarious schemes of the worldwide network of terrorists is revealed, US Naval Intelligence works to unravel these mysteries stemming from Juan’s revelations. The California and its crew are central to the response provided by US intelligence.

Interestingly, Yeates, a graduate of Louisiana State University and LSU Law School, served in the Navy during the ’70s and actually served aboard the real USS California, as a member of its first crew. Some of the ideas for this book arose when, while the California was stationed in Guantanamo Bay for refresher training, Yeates heard from public media sources about the Soviet base at Cienfuegos. It was during the early 70’s that terrorism was becoming recognized more and more as a serous threat, and thus it was coming to the fore in international relations. By the mid-1980’s, terrorism was quite prevalent as the Cold War wound down at the end of the decade with the self-demise of the Evil Empire – so labeled by President Ronald Reagan. Therefore, for the early 70’s, Yeates is a member that generation of Americans who served on active duty with the Navy during the Vietnam War. This generation included John McCain, John O’Neill – and, of course, John Kerry.

Yeates was at the helm when the California went to sea for the first time in 1974, and again in 1998 when it sailed to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard to be scrapped. Yeates’s military experience and obvious mastery of military technology and operations infuses the novel with a sense of realism not usually seen in somewhat fantastically premised thrillers. I became fascinated by Yeates’s diverse development of his characters, and his minute detail in describing Halifax and New Orleans, including the romantic ambience of their top-of-the-line hotels and restaurants. He spun an incredibly entwined drama around a sinister plot portending dire apocalypse. His writings are deeply imaginative as he spins a tale of intrigue and fictional action. Nevertheless, he subtly, and perhaps somewhat subliminally, posits a penetrating view of what he believes to be the primary threat to our national security in the 21st century, to wit: world-wide terrorism.

In sum, Yeates’s first novel is an absorbing page-turner—one that takes today’s headlines and turns up the octane to deliver a frighteningly realistic geopolitical thriller that cannot be put down. The fascinating descriptions of military technology and operations as well as political and legal maneuvering, colorful characters and background, and the deft, sure prose of Bay of One Hundred Fires will leave the reader wanting more. This novel promises great things to come by this impressive new author.

* * *

N. Stephan Kinsella is General Counsel of Applied Optoelectronics in Houston and author of International Investment, Political Risk, And Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide and Digest of Commercial Laws of the World. www.KinsellaLaw.com.

{ 0 comments }

Intravaginal stimulation apparatus

Interesting patent, No. 6,899,671 (PDF version can be obtained here). No comment necessary.

{ 0 comments }

Google calculator and constants

By accident, I discovered that if you type “e” into Google, the Google calculator is invoked and shows you e = 2.71828183, the transcendental number that is the base of the natural log. I’ve also found that it will pop out answers for pi, k (the Boltzmann constant), c (speed of light), and h (Planck’s constant).

You can also type in calculations such as 700*55.31 to use Google as a calculator.

{ 1 comment }

Confessions of a Law School A**hole

Going paperless, scanning and chunking, I came across this oldie but goodie from a patent lawyer buddy of mine, Steve Mendelsohn.

{ 0 comments }

Re: “Doctor” Lawyer?

Previously I whined (2) about lawyers using the title “Dr.” simply because they have a JD degree. As I noted,

More annoying than “attorney-at-law” is the practice of some attorneys of using the title “Doctor.” Although there is apparently some dispute over this, I view it as misleading, cheesy, unseemly, and self-embarrassing for a lawyer to refer to himself as “Doctor” such-and-such. In addition, the law degree is usually a Juris Doctor (J.D.), yet many lawyers insist on calling it a a “Juris Doctorate”, I suppose out of ignorance or to make it sound more impressive. (Note: a few law schools apparently do use “Juris Doctorate” on their diplomas—improperly, in my view.)

Some dude alerted me to this May 2004 opinion of the Professional Ethics Committee of the Supreme Court of Texas, which considers the question,

May a lawyer use, in connection with his or her name, the titles “Doctor,” “Dr.,” “Doctor of Jurisprudence,” or “J.D.” in social and professional communications?

The Committee says that previously, in 1968, the Committed “issued an opinion concluding that a lawyer in most circumstances could not ethically use titles such as “Doctor,” “Dr.,” or “J.D.” “… orally or in writing, professional or otherwise ….” because such use was self-laudation prohibited by Texas Canon 24 ….” In other words, you couldn’t say “Dr. Kinsella” because it was too crass.

But now that the bar approves legal specialization and lawyer advertising, “the stated basis for Opinion 344 no longer exists.” So, calling yourself “Dr.” might still be crass and it might still “tend[] to lower the tone of the profession,” but this is simply no longer prohibited.

The Committee goes on to ask whether the use of Dr. as a title for a lawyer is contrary to rules “that prohibit any form of communication that is false or misleading.” The Committee concludes that

the use of the title “Dr.,” “Doctor,” “J.D.” or “Doctor of Jurisprudence” is not, in itself, prohibited as constituting a false or misleading communication. The Committee recognizes that other professions, such as educators, economists and social scientists, traditionally use title “Dr.” in their professional names to denote a level of advanced education and not to imply formal medical training. There is no reason in these circumstances to prohibit lawyers with a Juris Doctor or Doctor of Jurisprudence degree from indicating the advanced level of their education.

They do say that in some contexts–e.g., where a lawyer is advertising “for legal services in connection with medical malpractice”, then the use of the title “Dr.” might be misleading if it implies that the lawyer is a medical doctor. But in general, since the lawyer does have a Juris Doctor, and since most people would not think “Dr. Smith” implies an M.D. (since many non-M.D.’s, such as Ph.D.’s, are referred to as “Doctor”), it is not misleading for a lawyer to use the title Doctor.

Now, I do not disagree with this. I still believe it is cheesy, unseemly, self-embarrassing, pompous, and pathetic–it is just that these things are not prohibited by lawyers’ ethical rules, nor should they be. I suppose I agree that it is not misleading; when I said previously I think it’s misleading, I meant that I believe it implies the lawyer has a post-JD degree–a “real” legal doctorate. The Committee apparently did not consider this possible issue, but whether “Dr.” is misleading in implying medical specialty.

Update:

Update: From Bryan Garner’s twitter:

Bryan A. Garner ‏@BryanAGarner

@UHLawSchool: I learned that JD is an abbreviation for Juris Doctor. I see Juris Doctorate everywhere. Is this variant correct?” No.

And this post:

JD is the degree

by  Zearfoss, Sarah  on 7/18/2011 10:30 AM

One of life’s great indulgences is the cognoscente’s feeling of smug superiority when others get some inside-baseball bit of information wrong. It’s a heady amalgam of emotions—lamenting how the world is going to hell while simultaneously assuring yourself that it is, at any rate, not YOUR fault. And I have noted in my own case that the impulse is exacerbated when I learned the key bit of information relatively late in life. I suppose the increased degree of smugness is borne of overcompensation. There are things that I can actually remember learning as an adult, and yet they still elicit a quick, happy disdain in my heart when someone else gets them wrong.

I’m not alone in this, I’m sure. Once, while out of town for a law school conference, I had dinner with a faculty member—let’s call him Professor Black—who might reasonably be described as combative; he also invited someone from another law school. At dinner, Professor Black told a little story using the term “schadenfreude”; when our dinner companion chuckled, Professor Black challenged him, gleefully: “Do you even know what schadenfreude means?” No, the dinner companion was compelled to confess; he did not. It is hard to describe the level of exultation this confession elicited in Professor Black—the word “cackling” comes to mind. Meanwhile, I contemplated stabbing myself in the eyes with my dinner fork. My bystander-mortification didn’t stop me from retailing this story as soon as I returned to Michigan, mind you. And that’s how I learned, from the first person I told (we’ll call him, let’s see, Professor Schmiller), that he had introduced Professor Black to the word schadenfreude a mere week or so before. I’m happy to report that Professor Schmiller’s resulting glee and exultation in learning of his colleague’s behavior surpassed even Professor Black’s at the time of the incident.

Hilarious though it may be, this behavior is not attractive. Clearly, we should all struggle to better ourselves and overcome such impulses. But I haven’t reached that plane of development. I’m a flawed individual, and this flaw happens to be right up my alley. While I aspire to self-improvement, it just hasn’t happened yet. (Let’s be honest; it may never come. I don’t try as hard as I ought.)

So let me throw up my hands and share with you a mistake that elicits an unbecoming smirk in me. The degree people get when they graduate from law school is a JD. What does it stand for? Juris doctor. It does NOT stand for juris doctorate. “Juris doctorate” is not an actual thing.

The fact that many people get this wrong has been striking me forcibly of late, as I am involved in three separate searches for administrative positions to be filled at the Law School. The number of job applicants who erroneously identify themselves as possessing “juris doctorates” has been astonishing—although somewhat less astonishing than the fact that if you Google the term “juris doctorate,” you will find webpages of multiple law schools touting that degree.

But now I have performed a small public service, perhaps decreasing the number of people who might have made that mistake, which in turn might lead to fewer instances of bad behavior on my part. And who knows? Maybe someday I will actually improve my fundamentals.

-Dean Z.
Assistant Dean for Admissions
and Special Counsel for Professional Strategies

{ 0 comments }

communications problem

I recall we had this problem in one of my electrical engineering courses, studying packet communications between computers. Unfortunately, I’ve forgotten the answer and it’s driven me nuts for years. If anyone knows, email me.

You have 2 armies, on opposite hilltops. They are allied against an enemy army in the valley between them. Sometimes the 2 armies send runners to send messages to each other. The runners sometimes get killed–say, 1% of the time. So you can’t be 100% sure a message makes it to the recipient.

Now say they 2 armies can defeat the enemy if they attack togehter, but if attacking alone, eihter one will lose. Army 1 wants to attack at sunrise. So they send a runner to 2. But the dilemma is, Army 1 needs to get a message back knowing Army 2 got the message and will attack too. Army 1 can’t assume 2 gets the message since the runner might be killed.

Now Army 2, even if it gets the first message, and wants to attack, wants to be sure 1 got the reply, so 2 does not attack alone.

The question was: is it possible to arrange a communication scheme, given a less than 100% chance of message success, so that they can both attack?

It seems to me NO, but I wonder. It seems to me that to attack you have to have 100% certainty your message made it, and so does the other guy. This must be impossible. You can have an arbitrarily high confidence if you do enough handshaking, I suppose, but you can never be sure. Anyone know if I’m right?

{ 0 comments }

There’s No Such Thing as a Free Patent

My latest IP article: There’s No Such Thing as a Free Patent, Mises.org, Mar. 7, 2004.

{ 0 comments }

Daddy’s Latest Patent

6,859,481: Optically-pumped multiple-quantum well active region with improved distribution of optical pumping power.

{ 0 comments }

test

test ignore

{ 0 comments }

Re: “Doctor” Lawyer?

Some email from an old post about lawyers using the title “doctor”:

—–Original Message—–
From: Stephan Kinsella [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:20 AM
To: ‘David Janson’
Subject: RE: Sorry-JD
Importance: High

Thanks for your comments.

Some of your points are good ones; some of my arguments are kind of silly, like the “doctor doctor” one. However, your extended argument is futile; it’s like trying to argue a word “should” have a certain defintion; but it does not work this way; words DO have certain meanings by common usage and convention. Likewise, no matter what you say, it is just “not done” to call a lawyer a doctor. If any lawyer calls himself a doctor he is just an insecure, pretentious weirdo, in my view. PhD’s can barely get away with it; medical doctors are the common usage. But JD–no way.

I agree w/ you that many PhD’s now are a joke, but that is a sign of the times. Just b/c you can get a PhD in stupid things now does not mean that law ought to just be folded into the word.

It’s just not gonna happen.

” The Supreme Court of Texas has said a lawyer can use the title “Doctor””

Where is this? I would be curious to see it.

” You say you consider it vain and even embarrassing for a lawyer to use the term “Doctor”. You have your opinion,”

Correct. It’s my view. It still is.

” and thats great, but
I on the other hand DO THINK the profession needs the recoginition it deserves.”

Oh, I don’t. Lawyers are by and large pretentious assholes, don’t you agree?

” I am sure you have noticed all the garbage which is said about lawyers being unethical, and that they are liars who only want money.”

That is true for some of them; but I don’t think it’s really the main problem. the main problem is they are greedy, selfish, workaholic bullies. Lots of them, anyway.

” I dont know about you, but I do not like the jokes and the stereotypes.”

Honestly, I don’t really care. I have thick skin. Being a libertarian makes you develop one!

“This profession was a noble one, and people like you help to take that away.”

This is unfair. I’m a good attorney–a competent and honest and decent and nice one. Just because I *recognize* the current disrepute into which laywers *have fallen*–due to the actions of the slimes and jerks–does not mean it’s my fault. You are blaming the messenger.

” The jokes and stereotypes are usually by ignorant people who dont know anything about the profession or how the legal system works, the difficulties a lawyer faces, and the ethics involved. Lawyers in fact need to be pretty strict in their ethics or they can easily be disbarred due to the strict ethical rules they must follow.”

Yes, I do agree with this. I often tell people lawyers are much more ethical than they realize; and also, much of the bad rap lawyers get is because clients are pigheaded and insiste on suing etc., even when the lawyer tries to talk them out of it. I do not disagree with you at all. But I think there is nothing wrong with jokes and stereotypes; this is natural and normal human behavior.

” I am not saying lawyers should be able to be called
doctor just because the profession needs the respect;
I am saying they can be called doctors because they do
have doctorates,”

Law degrees say “Juris doctor”, not “juris doctorate”, I believe. I don’t think they are doctorates. A long time ago it was an LL.B. Just because the decided to change the NAME of the degree does not all of a sudden make it a doctorate. That’s my view. Anywya, it does not matter. Any lawyer who calls himself “Doctor” sounds like a pretentious fop. Do you not agree with it?

” and collaterally, the profession
certainly could use the bolster in respect which MAY
come from it. “

I really do not know why people say this. What do you mean the profession “needs” a bostering of respect…? Why? Do we need more money? or what? What exactly are you saying? I am serious, I am not being combative. I don’t know what you mean. Are you saying lawyers are miserable because of this… that we don’t attract enough potential law students? That we have a shortage of lawyers? What?

” A JD is a degree which is conferred after a B.A.
Yes, a BA in anything, but as noted, one can obtain
doctorates in many fields without undergraduate
training in the same field. Maybe you are not proud
of the school you went to and/or the education you
received. Unlike you, I am, and I dont consider it to
be vain or embarrassing. Just as any other person who
has a doctorate is not considered vain when he uses
the term “doctor”, neither should a lawyer. “

I’m proud of it, sure. But I realize I had a lot of idiots as fellow calssmates. What do you call someoen who graduates at the bottom of his class in law school? A: a lawyer.

I know that my degree in EE was mcuh more difficult. You have to be pretty sharp to get that. Law is not that special. Lawyers want to be seen as special.

” A JD is not obtained more easily than a PH.D., or
more easily than most other doctorates for that
matter. Not that a JD is terribly hard to get, but
neither are many doctorates.”

You could be right… but I think it’s easy to just put your 3 years in and get a JD. A PhD is different. but they are being diluted now, I agree.

” As far as lawyers “vain
attempt” to garner recognition, as a lawyer, you
should support such efforts, and recognize the
advanced education of a J.D.”

Why? Seriously, why should we support efforts to gain recognition? What is the reason yo usay this, what is the purpose of it? Why is there a glaring need? PLease explian to me where you are coming from.

” If not, do us all a
favor and pursue something else. (Talk about vain! YOU
have a picture of yourself on your site which one can
click on for it to be greatly enlarged! Thats
funny!!!) “

come on, don’t get silly or personal. Why would I do you afavor and pursue something else? I’m a good attorney ,an excellent one. Why would I muzzle myself and keep my opinions to myself? FUrther, it’s not vain to have my PR pic up there, I write a lot and often publishers want to see a high-res portrait, so it’s available. It’s not vain at all. I am not good looking enough to be vain!

Best, Stephan

—–Original Message—–
From: David Janson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:00 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Sorry-JD

A J.D. is defined as being a professional doctoral degree/doctorate, similar to a M.D. Just as Medical Doctors can use the term Doctor, therefore, a lawyer who has been conferred a JD can also use such a title.

You ask if a person who has a JD and subsequently
obtains a SJD is a “Doctor Doctor”. Umm, NO, he is
still addressed as “Doctor”, just as a person with a
JD and and MD or a person with two Ph.D.s is still
called “Doctor”. You obviously dont call a person
with two Doctorates, whether they are Ph.D.s or
whatever, “Doctor Doctor”. I submit, therefore, that
your question on that matter is a silly one.
You also indicate that since a lawyer can have an
undergrad degree in anything, he should not be able
to indicate that he has a doctorate (as if to say
other doctorates necessitate undergrad training in a
discipline related to the doctoral discipline). Here
too, you are ignorant. As a former academic advisor,
I can assure you there are many fields one can pursue
and obtain a doctorate in (an
d use the title “Doctor”) regardless of his undergrad degree; business is one of them. One need not have a BBA to obtain either an MBA or to go directly into a DBA or Ph.D. program in business.
In addition, hours required toward the JD and Ph.D.
and other doctorates are similar. As you know, JDs
take 15 or so hrs a semester, while other grad
students consider 9 hrs full time study. As for the
doctoral dissertation, many doctoral programs do not
require one, such as the DBA (Doctor of Business
Administration) for one.
The Supreme Court of Texas has said a lawyer can use
the title “Doctor”. You say you consider it vain and
even embarrassing for a lawyer to use the term
“Doctor”. You have your opinion, and thats great, but
I on the other hand DO THINK the profession needs the recoginition it deserves. I am sure you have noticed all the garbage which is said about lawyers being unethical, and that they are liars who only want money. I dont know about you, but I do not like the jokes and the stereotypes. This profession was a noble one, and people like you help to take that away. The jokes and stereotypes are usually by ignorant people who dont know anything about the profession or how the legal system works, the difficulties a lawyer faces, and the ethics involved. Lawyers in fact need to be pretty strict in their ethics or they can easily be disbarred due to the strict ethical rules they must follow.
I am not saying lawyers should be able to be called
doctor just because the profession needs the respect;
I am saying they can be called doctors because they do
have doctorates, and collaterally, the profession
certainly could use the bolster in respect which MAY
come from it.
A JD is a degree which is conferred after a B.A.
Yes, a BA in anything, but as noted, one can obtain
doctorates in many fields without undergraduate
training in the same field. Maybe you are not proud
of the school you went to and/or the education you
received. Unlike you, I am, and I dont consider it to
be vain or embarrassing. Just as any other person who
has a doctorate is not considered vain when he uses
the term “doctor”, neither should a lawyer.
A JD is not obtained more easily than a PH.D., or
more easily than most other doctorates for that
matter. Not that a JD is terribly hard to get, but
neither are many doctorates. As far as lawyers “vain
attempt” to garner recognition, as a lawyer, you
should support such efforts, and recognize the
advanced education of a J.D. If not, do us all a
favor and pursue something else. (Talk about vain! YOU
have a picture of yourself on your site which one can
click on for it to be greatly enlarged! Thats
funny!!!)
Perhaps youll consider putting this on your site to
show both sides.

Respectfully and Sincerely,
David Jansen, J.D.

{ 0 comments }