Status conferences are used simply to schedule dates and events for the trial, so I was not expecting anything too exciting. However, the defendant never showed up, which gave me even less material to work with.

So instead, I asked the lawyers for Chanel if they would speak with me briefly. Attorneys Rebecca Stempien and Paul Grandinetti agreed.

I’m astounded by how helpful every person I contacted or talked to was. Everyone has gone out of his or her way to assist me, and I’ve learned so much from each one of them. The lawyers I spoke to today were among the best.

The main idea I wanted to cover with Stempien and Grandinetti was the Internet and its role in crime, especially since the case they are working on now concerns selling products on websites.

They gave me a lot of insight into counterfeit crimes, especially things I had never thought of before, such as the dangers presented when people sell counterfeit electronics and machines. And Grandinetti pointed out that if someone were willing to sell counterfeit purses, he would be willing to sell anything that is fake.

The greatest part of today, though, was the lawyers’ direction and lessons. Grandinetti, who was a bit older and had been in the business longer, started off by telling me to never apologize for being new to a job and that everyone had to start somewhere, and then he proceeded to point out small things that I had forgotten or didn’t know to do.

From his comments, I think I learned more about conducting interviews than I learned about the questions I was asking, which is great because the purpose of coming to D.C. was to learn these things.

I was so nervous at the beginning of the interview. More than a little part of me was hoping that the lawyer would tell me he couldn’t go on-camera (that’s what most of them had told me), but instead he was completely willing to go along with whatever I wanted to do, so there wasn’t really any getting out of it.

I was mostly nervous about thinking of questions to ask. I had no idea where to even begin, and I was terrified I would get in front of the camera and not come up with anything. Luckily, Prof. Locy was there and gave a short run threw of the kinds of things I would be asking, so that gave me a good starting point. The most helpful part, though, was the answers the lawyer gave. They were very in depth and helpful, and covered some questions that I wouldn’t have thought to ask.

As the interview progressed, coming up with questions became easier. I started remembering details about the case that led to questions, and some of his answers prompted more questions, so the interview came together really well, much better than I thought it would. And the best part is that I loved every moment of it. Once we started, the whole process was an exhilarating rush. I can’t wait to do it again.

At first, the plan was to just do the interview and then use it to write my story, but it ended up going really well, so Prof. Locy decided that I should just make the video my assignment for the day. After some editing of the video (Thanks Michael!), we put together a little script for me and recorded that to use as an introduction for parts of the interview.

Each segment that I did on camera was a couple of sentences long, but reciting them in front of a camera is harder than it seems. I was incredibly, and needlessly, nervous to begin and we had to do numerous practice runs before I could get both my lines and the way to say them down right. But it all came together really well and the video looks good.

I would definitely say that everything I did on-camera yesterday has been my favorite part of the week.

Now, usually the law frowns upon this act, but for this case the judges seem to be leaning in CAIR’s favor. The lawyer for the other side seemed to be having a lot of trouble focusing his thoughts.

I first got to the courtroom a little early, and there was another argument going on. I couldn’t really tell what the case was about (a lot of legal jargon), but I was instantly impressed with the lawyers’ composure and their ability to think on their feet when standing in front of the judges.

The lead attorney stands at a podium directly in front of the panel of three judges and argues his case. Now, the judges don’t just sit there and let him do his thing. They jump right in and question every statement he makes, and he can’t stop, he can’t stutter. He has to respond to every one of their inquiries as though he were expecting it. It’s hard to get across this seriousness in writing, but it was nerve-wracking. I couldn’t imagine doing what they were doing.

The lawyer for my case appeared slightly less composed than the guys for the previous case, although the judges seemed to turn up the heat on him. The judges questioned whether his argument for the day was different than his formal complaint for filing the case. From my point of view, the judges appeared frustrated with the difficulty the lawyer was having in getting his points across. He looked lost as he flipped through pages searching for an answer.

When it came time for the CAIR lawyer stand up to give his side of the argument, the chief judge told him to sit down. He didn’t need to make an argument. Doesn’t sound too promising for the side pressing charges against CAIR.