1.  Child Support.  Sooner or later most of us will either pay it, receive it or benefit in some way from it.  Is child support fairly determined, i.e. does it favor the payor parent, the payee parent, or is it appropriately calculated based on the needs of the children?

2.  Miranda Warnings.  The Miranda decision - you know "You have the right to remain silent; anything you say ... yada, yada, yada..." - has been increasingly criticized by law enforcement and the courts alike.  The U.S. Supreme Court, this term,  is expected to decide major changes in the application of that law (the smart money is on greatly emasculating its application).  What changes, if any, are warranted?

3.  Physician-Assisted Suicide.  Much ado has been made of Dr. Jack Kevorkian; however, the "national debate" on euthanasia which "Dr. Death" hoped to trigger by his highly publicized "treatment", trial and eventual homicide conviction has never come to pass.  Does a person have the right to dictate the time, conditions and dignity of his own death, or are the courts protecting the public by enforcing the ban on physician-assisted suicide?  How should this issue be handled?

4.  Fee/Cost Reimbursement.  From the "McDonald's hot-coffee-in-the-lap-lady" to a five-year-old's parents suing her grammar school and the parents of her five-year old classmate for sexual harassment stemming from his kissing her on the cheek, some say our legal system has gone too far.  Would it be prudent for our legal system to go the way of British jurisprudence and allow compensation for attorney's fees and costs payable by the losing party to the prevailing party.  Such is already the law in California under certain (sparingly applied) statutes and in certain contract actions, but should we expand that rule to the more lucrative, high profile, personal injury/negligence cases?  Does the purported benefit of such change outweigh its chilling effect which might ultimately frustrate the enforcement of one's rights under our judicial system?

5.  D.O.J. vs. Microsoft.  Is there a resolution?  Judge Jackson has found (preliminarily) that Microsoft's actions amounted to a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in that the result of their "predatory practices was to quash competing products, stifle innovation, and harm consumers, all in the interest of protecting its dominant market position."

Herein lies our three part survey question, neither part of which can truly be answered without consideration of the other.

First, has Microsoft engaged in predatory practices, as alleged by the Dept. of Justice, which have amounted to anti-trust violations?

Second, has the sheer enormity and pervasiveness of Microsoft in the marketplace created a boon or bane to the computer consumer?

Third, if the court (and the various appellate processes) determine that Microsoft has, indeed, violated anti-trust laws, what remedy (punishment) should be meted out?  To that end: Should Microsoft be divided into three separate companies ("mini-Microsofts" or "baby Bills") - one dealing in operating systems (e.g. "Windows") one in desktop applications (e.g. "MS Office") and one in internet/web products and services (e.g. "Internet Explorer" and "MSN"); or should Microsoft be required to make its source code available to other software developers (so called "open source code"); or should Microsoft be broken up into three (?) separate companies - each selling the full range of Microsoft products (much like AT&T or Standard Oil).

I am particularly interested in your responses hereto - there is definitely a "Musings" column in here somewhere!

6.  Our Greedy Government.  With its hand outstretched, ever at the ready to take our money, our government is talking "internet taxation".  Thus far, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Quill v. North Dakota has succeeded in averting taxing e-commerce, but with e-commerce expected to achieve annual sales of $100 billion by 2003 (it's already at $30 billion), can the outstretched coffers of the government be far behind?

Lend your gray matter to these knotty problems:  Will this stifle e-commerce?  Is it unfair competition for conventional commerce?  How can local taxation be reconciled with global e-commerce?  If we do allow taxing e-commerce, how do we regulate and collect, with nearly 7,500 taxing authorities in the U.S. alone, and 600 changes in the tax structure annually?

7.  Strohmeyer.  The parents of Jeremy Strohmeyer (now serving a life sentence for the Nevada murder of a 7-year-old girl) have sued the County of Los Angeles, alleging that the county's adoption procedures failed to disclose that the mother of the boy  whom they adopted in 1980 had been diagnosed a a chronic schizophrenic.

Do you believe this suit has, on its face (i.e. without further information) should be allowed to be brought?  I.E. do you believe that, if all facts are proven in favor of the plaintiff, that this is the proper subject of a lawsuit?