• Justice Anthony Kennedy Letter: May 8, 2002

    Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D. C. 20543
    CHAMBERS OF JUSTICE ANTHONY M. KENNEDY

    May 8, 2002

    Honorable Randy J. Holland
    Supreme Court of Delaware
    P.O. Box 369
    Georgetown, Delaware 19947

    Dear Justice Holland:
    This letter is to thank you once again for using the American Inns of Court to present the Dialogue on Freedom to young people throughout the country. I am anxious to have a report from you on how you enjoyed your own class. Please give me a call any time, and please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any help in your many endeavors to advance the Rule of Law.

    With thanks for your friendship and your continued efforts to advance the Rule of Law, I remain

    Yours truly,
    Anthony Kennedy

  • Randy J. Holland Celebration of Life: “Here I Am, Lord” sung by Jenness Parker with piano accompaniment by Nancy Holland

    I, the Lord of sea and sky
    I have heard my people cry
    All who dwell in dark and sin
    My hand will save
    I have made the stars of night
    I will make their darkness bright
    Who will bear my light to them?
    Whom shall I send?

    Here I am, Lord
    Is it I, Lord?
    I have heard You calling in the night
    I will go, Lord
    If You lead me
    I will hold Your people in my heart

    I, the Lord of wind and flame
    I will tend the poor and lame
    I will set a feast for them
    My hand will save
    Finest bread I will provide
    ‘Til their hearts be satisfied
    I will give my life to them
    Whom shall I send?

    Here I am, Lord
    Is it I, Lord?
    I have heard You calling in the night
    I will go, Lord
    If You lead me
    I will hold Your people in my heart
    I will hold Your people in my heart

    Written by: Dan Schutte

    Categories:
  • Randy J. Holland Celebration of Life: Norm Veasey

    I can’t believe he’s not here in person. I would have expected at any time to be able to pick up the phone as usual and talk with him. Ah, but he is here. He left an indelible legacy and his noble spirit lives on.

    I came to know Randy after he famously went on the Delaware Supreme Court in 1986 as the youngest justice ever. But despite his young age, he was already a polished professional and a distinguished scholar to blend with his gracious persona of a warm human being we all came to know so well.

    In late 1991, there was a probability of an impending vacancy in the office of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Delaware. Names of judges lawyers were rooted about in the political landscape for weeks In late 1991. And early 1992, there was a lot of speculation. Randy Holland’s name was prominently mentioned as a very likely person to be the next Chief Justice.

    I agreed wholeheartedly that he should be the chosen one. Indeed, he would have been a great and historic Chief Justice. So I called him on the phone and urged him to take that position.

    He demurred unselfishly and urged me to accept the appointment as Chief Justice. The rest is history. Randy and I served together on the court in harmony with the other justices, during my 12 year term from 1992 to 2004.

    Randy had a glowing reputation as a mentor to young lawyers shaping their careers. Actually, Randy was a mentor to me. As Chief Justice.

    I was a rookie. Everything I knew about being a Chief Justice of the five member appellate court, stemmed from my being involved as an advocate for 34 years. I did not know anything about the inner workings of the Supreme Court.

    Soon after I was sworn in as Chief Justice in 1992, I asked Randy to sit down and give me a tutorial on how to function as Chief Justice. And he said simply, Norm, you don’t need a tutorial. You know, there are five justices, and you just need to be able to count to three.

    This was an example of Randy’s extraordinary sense of humor that blended in nicely with his brilliance as a judge and his kindness to everybody. He was well loved by everyone with whom he interacted. And this can clearly be attributed to his brilliance, hard work, unselfishness, and kindness.

    Aside from his many other attributes, he was an extraordinarily gifted public speaker whose delivery and articulation, usually without any notes was brief, solid, and persuasive.

    Randy served seemingly without trying as the intellectual and political glue to bring the three branches of government in Delaware together.

    He was appointed to the court in bipartisan fashion for over 30 years by three governors from both political parties. He was confirmed unanimously by senators of both parties. Indeed, we need only to witness the sincere tributes from the leaders of the branches of government following his passing.

    For the judicial branch, Chief Justice Seitz, who served on the Supreme Court as a colleague during Randy’s final two years on the court, said Randy. This is a quote. “Randy served on the Delaware Supreme Court for over 30 years. He wrote cogent and authoritative opinions in all areas of the law that have withstood the test of time. He championed the highest ethical standards for Delaware lawyers and judges. As president of the American Inns of Court, he worked to further its nationwide mission to improve the skills, professionalism and ethics of the bench and bar.” End of quote.

    One of the most gracious things about Randy came from the legislative branch at the request of the Delaware Senate Majority Caucus. Randy consulted with the Caucus about the application of a novel and challenging provision of the state constitution.

    The Caucus said, and I quote, “We were blessed to work alongside Justice Holland for the last five months of his life as he guided us through unexplored sections of the Delaware Constitution. During that time, we discovered Justice Holland’s reputation was well-deserved, but also somehow fell short of capturing his kindness, humor and grace that he brought to every meeting and phone call. In an area in which impressive resumes are the norm. Justice Holland stood out in every respect. He was a true icon of judicial excellence. One of the most respected constitutional law experts in Delaware. Justice Holland was also a champion of the vulnerable and underprivileged. A mentor to generations of young lawyers and a model professional ethics and good.”

    For the executive branch, Governor Carney said eloquently about Justice Holland, “He had a deep knowledge of the Constitution and Delaware’s unique history. His books on the Delaware Constitution have served as a guide for countless public officials in our state. I have personally sought his counsel many times during my terms in office. He was a thoughtful model jurist and will be greatly missed.” End of quote.

    In my opinion, he was, this is back to me again. In my opinion, he was a unique blend of all that was good and worthy. He was truly a good man.

    His son Ethan said about him, quote, “He was a very tender man, and he believed in people. He was genuinely kind.” End of quote.

    We all were honored to have known Randy as a family member, colleague and friend. We have gathered here personally and virtually to express our collective memories of Randy Holland’s great career and to express also our collective and deepest sympathy to Ilona, Ethan, Jennifer, Rori and Chloe on their irreplaceable loss.

  • Justice Anthony Kennedy Letter: April 3, 2002

    Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D. C. 20543

    CHAMBERS OF JUSTICE ANTHONY M. KENNEDY

    April 3, 2002

    Honorable Randy J. Holland

    Supreme Court of Delaware P.O. Box 369

    Georgetown, Delaware 19947

    Re: American Inns of Court Dinner – October 11, 2003

    Dear Randy,

    Thank you for your leadership on the Dialogue

    of Freedom.

    Regarding the American Inns of Court, this letter is to confirm that all of the major rooms in the Court have been reserved for the American Inns of Court dinner on October 11, 2003.

    Sincerely,

    Anthony Kennedy

  • Randy J. Holland Celebration of Life: Professor Chen-En Ko Remarks

    Dear Ilona, family and friends of Justice Randy Holland.

    On behalf of the Taiwan Corporate Governance Association and Randy’s many friends in the academic, professional and government communities in Taiwan, I’d like to express our most sincere condolences to Ilona and family.

    Randy began his friendship with us in 2007, when he accepted our invitation to give a keynote speech in our International Conference of Corporate Governance with the support of the Delaware State Government.

    Since then, Randy, together with Ilona, taking many 8000-mile flights to Taiwan to volunteer his service annually for 13 consecutive years until the pandemic started. Over the years. Randy became our teacher and mentor by sharing with us his intellectual knowledge and insightful experiences accumulated through his long legal career. Randy also provided valuable advice to several important institutions in Taiwan, including the Judicial Yuan Academy of Judges, Financial Supervisory Commission, Taiwan Stock Exchange, the National Taiwan University, etc..

    With his assistance and encouragement, the Judicial Yuan sent a team of judges to visit Delaware and to study its court system in 2015 and eventually established a specialized Court for Intellectual Property and Business in 2020. When Randy retired from the Supreme Court of Delaware in 2017, the Taiwan Corporate Governance Association translated and published a collection of his speeches and awarded him the honor of being the first Fellow of the Taiwan Corporate Governance Academy.

    We are indebted to Randy’s tremendous support and guidance. Thank you, Randy. You have left us a legacy that inspires us to persist in improving our legal infrastructure in a democratic society. Indeed, Randy is the embodiment of the American spirit of generosity and unceasing willingness to help others. Delaware and the Holland family have given Taiwan a great gift.

    And gave me a great friend. While we mourn the loss of this amazing person, we cherish his wisdom and memories. Randy, you will be missed by all of us. May you rest in peace.

  • Anthony Kennedy Letter- March 19, 2002

    CHAMBERS OF JUSTICE ANTHONY M. KENNEDY

    Supreme Court of the United States
    Washington, D. C. 20543

    The Honorable Randy J. Holland
    Supreme Court of Delaware
    P.O. Box 369
    Georgetown, Delaware 19947

    Re: Dialogue on Freedom

    March 19, 2002

    Dear Justice Holland:

    Thank you for your important and most welcome letter of March 15, indicating that both the Delaware State Bar and the American Inns of Court are interested in participating in the Dialogue on Freedom. I called Bob Stein of the American Bar Association today to tell him this excellent news. He will contact you very soon.

    The Dialogue on Freedom is open to refinements and improvements, but for now it has a rather simple outline. The plan is for judges, law professors, and attorneys to visit high school students on Law Day. A skilled and experienced instructor can conduct the class by him or herself, but my recommendation is that a team of two or three members of the Bench and Bar visit each high school class. To give the dialogues a common theme, we have prepared a case study, which should be given to students a few days in advance of the class. The hypothetical asks the students to engage in a series of conversations in the nation of Quest. Parts I through III of the hypothetical set forth the basic framework for the dialogue. My own experience has been that Part I alone can sustain an hour and a half of excellent discussion. Parts II and III may lead to a discussion of sensitive issues concerning how other countries view American foreign policy and whether our policies are sufficient to answer those concerns. Even though broader issues of our mission and purpose in global affairs, rather than specific policies, should be the emphasis of the Dialogue on Freedom, this line of discussion can prove most constructive. As a member of the Third Branch of the national government, I must be somewhat cautious in this particular area; but other participants and members of the Bar likely will not be so constrained.

    To illustrate the ancient foundations and origins of our culture, Parts IV and V ask students to prepare a timeline with significant events in the heritage of freedom. Students then share the names of three books and three movies that they could leave behind with their new acquaintances in Quest. At the end of the session, the instructors should request that the class as a whole compile a list of 15 books and 15 movies, and refine and expand the timeline so that it shows the 15 most significant historical events in the history of freedom. This would be a collegial exercise. The students should submit their list to the ABA within a week or so, say by May 8. The ABA would announce around May 15 the 15 most popular choices in each category and identify the high schools that came closest to submitting the most popular list. The ABA’s announcement would give something of a conclusion to the initial phase of the dialogue.

    The Dialogue on Freedom is not intended to be a series of debates on contemporary issues concerning, for instance, military tribunals or the merits of televising courtroom proceedings. Those discussions are important, indeed necessary, for an informed citizenry; but debates on specific issues should not be the whole content of our public discourse. The events of last September 11 underscore the necessity to reflect upon some of the basic values and principles that underlie our heritage of freedom. The Dialogue on Freedom provides us with a chance to restate those first principles on which our country was founded.

    The reason for enlisting the legal profession in the initiative should be evident. The profession has always demanded that lawyers dedicate their talents towards the public good. Judges, law professors, and attorneys who are skilled advocates and well-versed in the history and evolution of free institutions would be ideal participants. Now lawyers must use their skills of advocacy to inspire Americans, especially young Americans, to examine first principles. There is also important, symbolic significance in having members of the Bench and Bar go to the high schools. Their efforts will demonstrate both an outreach by our profession and a commitment that the discussions will not be one-sided or dominated by some government point of view. When the legal profession commits its resources and energies to help the Nation set a proper course, we act according to our own best traditions and reaffirm that our first mission is to safeguard first principles.

    There can be additional aspects to the Dialogue on Freedom. One would be to create a film containing some of the most interesting dialogues from different classes. We already have films of five classes. Whether a master film should be distributed before May 1, or whether production should be delayed so that it may contain more segments from the Law Day discussions, is a question that a steering committee should resolve. If the film were of sufficient quality, it might be translated into other languages. These suggestions are yet to be explored and resolved. Other possibilities including posting outstanding student contributions on the Dialogue on Freedom web site at http://www.DialogueonFreedom.org. If any of these suggestions seem too complicated, the program is still self-sufficient in its present form.

    In anticipation of the Law Day events, it would be helpful to have a master list of discussion participants and high schools to ensure the high quality of the visits and to make it possible to coordinate the results of the sessions. This may be an area in which the American Inns of Court could be especially helpful.

    Bob Stein soon will have in place a steering committee, consisting of judges, law professors, and attorneys, who can give further coordination and direction to the Dialogue on Freedom. Some who are interested are United States Circuit Judge Myron Bright; Professor Clark Kelso, who taught one of the classes with me; and one or more state bar presidents. Professor Arthur Miller can be contacted for his comments. I had the privilege of conducting a class with him in New York, and he is most supportive. I need to take a secondary role, and remaining decisions about the Dialogue should be made by the steering committee. Of course, I would be pleased to comment. One of my law clerks, Alex Willscher, has been working on this project. He will be pleased to help me answer further questions.

    The participation of the American Inns of Court will be of great importance, and we are most appreciative of your interest. With repeated thanks for your communication and your strong support, I remain

    Yours truly,
    Anthony Kennedy

    Enclosure
    CC:
    Honorable Myron Bright Mr. Robert E. Hirshon
    Prof. Clark Kelso
    Prof. Arthur Miller
    Ms. Mary Ann Peter
    Mr. Don Stumbaugh

    ENCLOSURE TEXT

    DIALOGUE ON FREEDOM

    The Nation of Quest (an imaginary place) is a poor country. Many of the people are not employed, and those who do have jobs often earn $2 a day or less. Quest has a written constitution, but its promises are not carried out in practice. The country has elections which are not really competitive and are often corrupt. The leadership consists of an old guard, which rules with the half-hearted support of the military. Corruption is pervasive throughout government and the economy.

    Drummer, a man in his early 30’s, lives in Quest. He is a charismatic speaker and preaches hatred of the United States and the necessity to destroy American power and influence. There is a religious component to Drummer’s doctrine, and he proclaims that the United States is evil. The government often arrests its opponents, but it is reluctant to detain Drummer or be too hard on him because of his popularity, particularly among the poor.

    You start out on a trip to a popular tourist destination, but your plane has engine trouble. You make an unscheduled landing in Quest and find that you must remain there for three days while the repairs are completed. During the time you stay in Quest, you have the following encounters.

    I
    You meet a young woman named W. W tells you that what is wrong with Quest and many other less-developed countries is the influence of American culture. She says American culture is decadent, that it has led to the corruption of life in the West, and that it ought not to spread to Quest. W thinks Quest should follow some sort of movement which resists American culture.
    What do you tell her?

    II
    W tells you that she admires Drummer’s teachings. W says the people should install someone like Drummer as the leader of the government and give him close to absolute authority. She knows Drummer wants a society controlled by men and that she would have a subordinate role, but she thinks women should accept that position until things improve. She tells you Drummer and his followers can be trusted to bring about a better living and a better society for all the citizens of Quest and that, at least for now, democracy is not worth pursuing.
    What do you tell her?

    III
    You take a ride around the major city with some friends and end up in an industrial area. There you meet M, a young man of 14 or 15 years of age. He stands in the bottom of a pit, using a sledgehammer to pound scrap iron into thinner sheets for transport. It is hard, laborious work, for which he is paid just $10 a week. M needs the money to help support his family. He has few prospects for a different or better job. For all M knows, he might spend most of his life doing this kind of work at a low wage. His work day ends, and you introduce yourself. The subject of the terror attacks in New York and Washington comes up. He remarks “Why should I care what happens in New York or Washington?”
    What is your answer?

    IV.
    If you could leave three books and three movies with W and M that best capture what America means to you, what would they be?

    V.
    If you were making a timeline called “Great Events in Freedom,” what events would you include? How far back would your timeline go?

  • Anthony Kennedy Letter – March 18, 2002

    Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D. C. 20543
    CHAMBERS OF JUSTICE ANTHONY M. KENNEDY

    March 18, 2002

    The Honorable Randy J. Holland
    Supreme Court of Delaware
    P.O. Box 369
    Georgetown, Delaware 19947

    Dear Justice Holland:

    Arrangements have been in place for some time now for me to be in New York and Washington for speeches on the week of May 1st, and so my schedule will not permit me to be with you in Delaware this spring. It would have been my pleasure to acknowledge in some way your many courtesies to me, so it is with regret that my schedule requires me to decline. Would you please thank the President of the Delaware State Bar and your colleagues for the honor of this invitation?

    A separate letter discusses the exciting news that both the Delaware State Bar and the American Inns of Court are interested in the Dialogue on Freedom. No doubt we will be talking again soon. Until then, I send repeated thanks and expressions of highest regard.

    Sincerely,
    Anthony Kennedy

  • Anthony Kennedy Letter- April 14, 1997

    Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D. C. 20543
    CHAMBERS OF JUSTICE ANTHONY M. KENNEDY

    April 14, 1997

    The Honorable Randy J. Holland Supreme Court of Delaware
    P.O. Box 369
    Georgetown, DE 19947

    Dear Justice Holland:
    Many thanks for your letter of April 11. I regret that I am not available for the luncheon on Monday, April 28, but of course extend you best wishes for a most successful visit here.

    Sincerely,
    Anthony Kennedy

  • Anthony Kennedy Letter – October 29, 1996

    Supreme Court of the United States
    Washington, D. C. 20543

    CHAMBERS OF
    JUSTICE ANTHONY M. KENNEDY

    October 29, 1996

    Justice Randy J. Holland
    Supreme Court of Delaware
    P.O. Box 369
    Georgetown, Delaware 19947

    Dear Justice Holland:
    Thank you for your letter of October 25, 1996.
    I regret that I will not be available to address the Delaware Bench and Bar on the evening of June 4, 1997. June is an extraordinarily busy busy time around here, So I must decline your gracious invitation.
    I appreciate your writing to me and send my best wishes for a splendid evening.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony Kennedy

  • Anthony Kennedy Letter- May 30, 1991

    CHAMBERS OF JUSTICE ANTHONY M. KENNEDY
    Supreme Court of the United States
    Washington, D. C. 20543

    May 30, 1991

    Honorable Randy J. Holland Supreme Court of Delaware 208 Courthouse
    P.O. Box 229
    Georgetown, DE 19947

    Dear Justice Holland:
    As you so well know, the selection of clerks is of critical importance to the operation of the Chambers and I most appreciate that you have taken the time to write such a careful letter of recommendation on behalf of Richard C. Pepperman. I will be writing directly to the applicant soon and you may be assured I will give very careful weight to your recommendation.
    Thank you again for your assistance in this matter.

    Sincerely,
    Anthony Kennedy

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com