JONATHAN TURLEY
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, the University of Chicago, and other schools. He is a New York Times best-selling author of The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage (available here) and “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution” (#2 on NY Times Bestseller List).
After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In 2024, a G.W. alum endowed a fellowship after him, “The Professor Jonathan Turley Public Interest and Public Service Summer Fellowship.”
In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades including the representation of whistleblowers, military personnel, judges, members of Congress, and a wide range of other clients. He is also one of the few attorneys to successfully challenge both a federal and a state law — leading to courts striking down the federal Elizabeth Morgan law as well as the state criminalization of cohabitation.
In 2010, Professor Turley represented Judge G. Thomas Porteous in his impeachment trial. After a trial before the Senate, Professor Turley (on December 7, 2010) argued both the motions and gave the final argument to all 100 U.S. Senators from the well of the Senate floor — only the 14th time in history of the country that such a trial of a judge has reached the Senate floor. Judge Porteous was convicted of four articles of impeachments, including the acceptance of $2000 from an attorney and using a false name on a bankruptcy filing.
In 2011, Professor Turley filed a challenge to the Libyan War on behalf of ten members of Congress, including Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md); Dan Burton (R., Ind.); Mike Capuano (D., Mass.); Howard Coble (R., N.C.); John Conyers (D., Mich.); John J. Duncan (R., Tenn.); Tim Johnson (R., Ill.); Walter Jones (R., N.C.); Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio); and Ron Paul (R., Tx). The lawsuit was before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
In November 2014, Turley agreed to serve as lead counsel to the United States House of Representatives in its constitutional challenge to changes ordered by President Obama to the Affordable Care Act. The litigation was approved by the House of Representatives to seek judicial review of the claims under the separation of powers. On May 12, 2016, the federal court handed down a historic victory for the House and ruled that the Obama Administration violated the separation of powers in ordering billions to be paid to insurance companies without an appropriation of Congress.
Other cases include his representation of the Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada; the nuclear couriers at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado; Dr. Eric Foretich, the husband in the famous Elizabeth Morgan custody controversy; and four former United States Attorneys General during the Clinton impeachment litigation. In the Foretich case, Turley succeeded recently in reversing a trial court and striking down a federal statute through a rare “bill of attainder” challenge. Professor Turley has also served as counsel in a variety of national security cases, including espionage cases like that of Jim Nicholson, the highest ranking CIA officer ever accused of espionage. Turley also served as lead defense counsel in the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. Turley also served as defense counsel in the case of Dr. Tom Butler, who is faced criminal charges dealing with the importation and handling of thirty vials of plague in Texas. He also served as counsel to Larry Hanauer, the House Intelligence Committee staffer accused of leaking a classified Presidential National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times. (Hanauer was cleared of all allegations).
Among his current cases, Professor Turley represents Dr. Ali Al-Timimi, who was convicted in Virginia in 2005 of violent speech against the United States. (He was ultimately cleared of all charges in 2026). In 2020, the federal court found that there was merit in the challenges raised by Professor Turley and his co-counsel Tom Huff. Accordingly, the judge ordered his release to protect him from Covit-19 while the Court prepared a decision on the challenges. Pursuant to a court order, Dr. Al-Timimi was released from the Supermax in Colorado and the two drove across the country so that he could be placed into home confinement. He also represented Dr. Sami Al-Arian, who was accused of being the American leader of a terrorist organization while he was a university professor in Florida. Turley represented Dr. Al-Arian for eight years, much of which was in a determined defense against an indictment for criminal contempt. The case centered on the alleged violation of a plea bargain by the Justice Department after Dr. Al-Arian was largely exonerated of terrorism charges in Tampa, Florida. On June 27, 2014, all charges were dropped against Dr. Al-Arian. He also represented pilots approaching or over the age of 60 in their challenge to the mandatory retirement age of the FAA. He also represented David Murphee Faulk, the whistleblower who disclosed abuses in the surveillance operations at NSA’s Fort Gordon facility in Georgia.
Professor Turley also served as an expert defense witness in the extradition proceedings of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in London. Turley was asked to testify on the likely pre-trial, trial, and appellate issues facing Mr. Assange as well as the prison conditions that he could expect upon extradition to Northern Virginia for trial.
Professor Turley also agreed to serve as lead counsel representing the Brown family from the TLC program “Sister Wives, a reality show on plural marriage or polygamy. On December 13, 2013, the federal court in Utah struck down the criminalization of polygamy — the first such decision in history — on free exercise and due process grounds. On September 26, 2014, the court also ruled in favor of the Browns under Section 1983 — giving them a clean sweep on all of the statutory and constitutional claims. In April 2015, a panel reversed the decision on standing grounds and that decision is now on appeal.
Professor Turley was also lead counsel in the World Bank protest case stemming from the mass arrest of people in 2002 by the federal and district governments during demonstrations of the IMF and World Bank. Turley and his co-lead counsel Dan Schwartz (and the law firm of Bryan Cave) were the first to file and represented student journalists arrested without probable cause. In April 2015, after 13 years of intense litigation, the case was settled for $2.8 million, including $115,000 for each arrestee — a record damage award in a case of this kind and over twice the amount of prior damages for individual protesters. The case also exposed government destruction and withholding of evidence as well as the admitted mass arrest of hundreds of people without probable cause.
Professor Turley also served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British Columbia (Canada) Supreme Court. In the latter case, he argued for the decriminalization of plural union and conjugal unions. In 2012, Turley also represented the makers of “Five Wives Vodka” (Ogden’s Own Distillery) in challenging an effective ban on the product in Idaho after officials declared the product to be offensive to Mormons. After opposing the ban on free speech and other grounds, the state of Idaho issued a letter apologizing for public statements made by officials and lifting the ban on sale for “Five Wives Vodka.”
Turley has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, including with the Florida House of Representatives. He also served as the consultant to the Puerto Rico House of Representatives on the impeachment of Gov. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá.
Professor Turley is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. He has testified over 100 times in the House and the Senate. That testimony includes the confirmation hearings of Attorney General nominees Loretta Lynch and William Barr as well as Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Professor Turley is also a nationally recognized legal commentator. Professor Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” in the recent study by Judge Richard Posner. Turley was also found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. He has been ranked in the top five most popular law professors on Twitter and has been repeatedly ranked in the nation’s top 500 lawyers in annual surveys (including in the latest rankings by LawDragon) – one of only a handful of academics. In prior years, he was ranked as one of the nation’s top ten lawyers in military law cases as well as one of the top 40 lawyers under 40. He was also selected in the last five years as one of the 100 top Irish lawyers in the world. In 2016, he was ranked as one of the 100 most famous (past and present) law professors.
Professor Turley is one of only two academics to testify at both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings. In December 2019, Professor Turley was called as the one Republican witness in the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings. He appeared with three Democratic witnesses. Professor Turley disagreed with his fellow witnesses in opposing the proposed articles of impeachments on bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations or obstruction of justice. He argued that these alleged impeachable acts were at odds with controlling definitions of those crimes and that Congress has historically looked to the criminal code and cases for guidance on such allegations. The committee ultimately rejected those articles and adopted the only two articles that Professor Turley said could be legitimately advanced: abuse of power, obstruction of Congress. Chairman Jerrold Nadler even ended the hearing by quoting his position on abuse of power. However, Turley opposed impeachment on this record as incomplete and insufficient for submission to the Senate. He argued for the House to wait and complete the record by seeking to compel key witnesses like former National Security Adviser John Bolton. His testimony was later relied upon in the impeachment floor debate by various House members and he was cited by both the White House and House managers in their arguments before the United States Senate in the Trump impeachment trial, including videotaped remarks played at the trial.
Professor Turley’s articles on legal and policy issues appear regularly in national publications with hundreds of articles in such newspapers as the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. He is a columnist for USA Today and writes regularly for the Washington Post. In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by The Aspen Institute and the Week Magazine. Professor Turley also appears regularly as a legal expert on all of the major television networks. Since the 1990s, he has worked under contract as the on-air Legal Analyst for NBC News, CBS News, BBC and Fox News. Professor Turley has been a repeated guest on Sunday talk shows with over two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox Sunday. Professor Turley has taught courses on constitutional law, constitutional criminal law, environmental law, litigation, and torts. He is the founder and executive director of the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS). His work with older prisoners has been honored in various states, including his selection as the 2011 recipient of the Dr. Mary Ann Quaranta Elder Justice Award at Fordham University.
In 2024, the Washingtonian recognized Turley as one of the most influential persons in shaping policy. His award-winning blog is routinely ranked as one of the most popular legal blogs by AVVO. His blog was selected as the top News/Analysis site in 2013, the top Legal Opinion Blog in 2011 as well as prior selections as the top Law Professor Blog and Legal Theory Blog. It was also ranked in the top 20 constitutional law blog in 2018. It has been regularly ranked by the ABA Journal in the top 100 blogs in the world. In 2012, Turley was selected as one of the top 20 legal experts on Twitter by Business Insider. In 2013, the ABA Journal inducted the Turley Blog into its Hall of Fame. In addition to teaching a course on the Supreme Court and the Constitution, he is on the board of the Supreme Court Historical Society.
Professor Turley received his B.A. at the University of Chicago and his J.D. at Northwestern. In 2008, he was given an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School for his contributions to civil liberties and the public interest.
Twitter: @jonathanturley
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” and “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Icon made by DinosoftLabs from Flaticon
Tom, 73 years of living should provide you with a great deal of perspective. I am 62. My father served overseas during World War II with what was then known as the Army Air Corps. He spent a great deal of that time in Iran and came out with a pronounced disdain for Arabs (he recognized no distinction between Arabs and Persians). As a Democrat by family tradition, he liked Adlai Stevenson, but thought that he spoke over people’s heads. So he did what many veterans did, vote for the war hero. After two terms of Eisenhower, he told me-and this was one of those moments where one recalls the exact words, “I wouldn’t vote for another G..d d..n Republican if they managed to prop up Abe Lincoln.” He had plenty of prejudices, but recognized them for what they were, and demanded that his kids not share them. That is, he wanted us to be more educated, more compassionate, more understanding and more tolerant than he was.
I mentioned that story simply to illustrate my belief that societies as well as individuals need to mature. Maturity to me is nothing more than the gradual elimination of irrational fears, which in turn opens us up to the consideration of other points of view. I expressed my support for the Obama candidacy to anyone who cared to listen during the campaign. Several people whom I care about a great deal ackowledged to me in private that they could not bring themselves to vote for a black man. They couldn’t really articulate the reasons, but they didn’t need to because all of the reasons can be found in the history of this country. They were simply afraid.
You have expressed concern that the new president will take us “in a direction that promises the end of our way of life.” I’m not sure what you mean, but I do recall that the last time I heard a comparable statement, the candidate was John F. Kennedy and the joke was that if he lost the election he would have to send a telegram to the pope telling him to unpack.
Pres. Obama is just a man like you and me, except that he is smarter than I. He received an outstanding education. He has a wife and kids and wants the same things for them that you and I want for our own wives and children. He is not going to eliminate the First Amendment or any of the others, including the Second. He doesn’t appear to be a great dancer, contrary to a certain popular myth about black people. He has the ability to laugh at himself. He is secure enough that he doesn’t feel the need to surround himself with sycophants; he is willing to listen to opposing views. Whether his presidency will be successful will depend on the same sorts of things which have determined the success of other presidencies: good will, careful planning, decisiveness and a great deal of luck. I don’t agree with all of his views, but I’ve yet to encounter another human being as reasonable and well-balanced as I (LOL).
His election is another opportunity for America to mature. I am confident that when his term of office concludes (or two terms, as the case may be), he will have solved some problems and not solved others. Some problems will have simply solved themselves, only to be replaced by new ones. The Republic will still be standing.
Narrowness produces fear because constant exposure to only one line of thought becomes obsessive. One of the ways I try to avoid becoming too narrowly focused in my views is to expose myself to other ideas. I’ve never yet found a reason to be afraid of another’s thoughts. I read a variety of materials, including some very conservative and some very radical stuff. Contrary to what you might think, I’ve even listened to Rush Limbaugh on occasion, although I do not regard him as a thinker. He is actually a commercial polemicist, but there are plenty of intelligent conservative journals out there. I do not waste time listening to persons who view the world as though life were a series of conspiracies. I do not find any topic (including myself) immune from satire or humor. I lived in 11 states growing up. I met some wonderful peole every place I’ve ever lived. I’ve met some bitter, unhappy people every place I’ve ever lived.
In sum, I do not know what concerns you about the new president, so I don’t know how to allay those concerns other than to suggest that you take a look back at all of those things you may have once feared, and at what became of them.
B”H
Professor Turley, you rock! You have done more to restore my faith in this country — and that perhaps we are not on our way to third world status — than anyone else!
Thanks for the response, Mr. Turley. I would love to read your grandfather’s story, so I hope you do write that book someday. You were correct in your short article about your grandmother that the stories of that generation are disappearing. It was actually my great-grandmother who would have been a contemporary of your grandmother. She was also forced into marriage at age 14 and bearing children by 15. Unfortunately, she passed away in the 1950’s, so I never knew anyone from that generation of immigrants (I was born in the 1970’s). I know very little of their personal stories, other than names, dates, and a few little anecdotes (my grandmother was born in the 1930’s, so she was only 10 when they moved away from the Ohio Valley). I’ll certainly keep my fingers crossed about that book…
Thanks!
Jim:
It is terrific to hear from you and to see that you have become the Commonwealth Attorney for Loudoun. That is quite a job and does the whole school proud. It is even more impressive when you were deprived a valid education in not one but two areas. You are very kind in your comments and I will indeed take you up on the airport tour. I insist on being able to ride and shoot one of those de-icers (a personal dream).
Best,
Jonathan
Prof Turley,
I stumbled upon your site when I saw an article that covered an assault case my office handled a little over a year ago against Rep. Bob Filner at Dulles Airport.
In my position, which is an odd combination of politics and law enforcement, you learn quickly that there is always more to what is reported by the papers than what is actual in fact. This case was no exception.
Proudly, I can tell you that you helped carve me into the attorney I am today as I was a student of yours back in the early 90’s (Torts, Crim Pro).
I suspect that we’re on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but I always appreciated your classes more than any other, because you helped me think diffently and examine cases from multiple perspectives. This has been a great asset in my profession.
Let me know if you find your way to Loudoun County, Virginia. Maybe I’ll arrange a tour of the Airport for you!
Jim Plowman
Commonwealth’s Attorney
Loudoun County
GWU Law School (Natl. Law Center)
Class of 1996 (night school)
Mike,
Great response. I feel that, once we got by that first salvo we fired, that you might give me insight (and, perhaps, I to you) about concern for our nation and our rights as citizens, from two “opposing” sides. I spend a great deal of time worrying about the end of a way of life that’s coming at an unbelieveable pace. I am, predictably, an advocate for bearing guns, freedom of speech (Limbaugh, although I don’t listen to talk-radio or watch TV news, or believe the newspapers), media honesty (major issues here), honest politicians (an oxymoron if there ever was), Israel’s safety, etc. So, I’m a flaming Conservative, to say the least. I keep hoping for an awakening from the Liberal side about the erosion to these Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Without them, and other similarly endowed “rights” vanquished, will you want to live (and raise children) in what will be left of this great country. I’m 73 years old, and have always taken these things for granted. We are now “LED” by a man (and whom/what ever’s behind him) in a direction that promises the end of our way of life.
My source is: WORLD NET DAILY News, writer Bob Unruh, in a post dated 1/27. I’d send you the article, along with others from the same day, but I think that blogs aren’t a good place to share contact info. Probably, rightfully, not allowable. I AM new at this.
I really, truly would appreciate your opinion(s) on this meeting and how there’s been NO media acknowledgement of it’s occurence.
Tom
Tom, I know nothing about any such meeting. What is your source? To answer your question, it is always improper for a judge to meet privately with a party to a lawsuit, or with an attorney for a party, without the presence of opposing counsel. Indeed, I believe it is improper for sitting judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court, to maintain any social relationships with those whose actions may become the subject of judicial review. That is why, for example, I found it unprofessional and improper for Justice Scalia to go duck hunting with Vice President Cheney. But I would need more information to respond to your comments.
JT:
“Indeed, my Italian side hails from Cianciana, Sicily”
********************
I am kicking myself for not putting it together. Your mom at age 82 drives alone from Chicago to see her grandkids; you’re a doting parent; a wine lover; a compassionate advocate for the downtrodden; possess a Roman’s feel for politics and law. I bought into that Irish heritage of your Dad’s side, and totally missed the gumba in you. Damn, damn, damn. I knew I liked you for a reason. I should have got it a lot sooner! Sono spiacente!
Mr. Turley,
I’ve always enjoyed political commentary, and, as a liberal, I’ve always appreciated your articulate defense of our positions in the public arena. On a completely different topic, I was recently researching my family ancestry, which traces back to Cianciana, Sicily, and came across the wonderful article that you wrote about the passing of your grandmother. It certainly made me appreciate my own Sicilian grandmother, who I promptly called after finishing the article.
I was curious as to whether you have written anything based on the interviews with your grandmother regarding the Ciancianese and/or Italian immigrant life in the Ohio Valley in the early-1900’s. My family emigrated to that area, living in Yorkville and Bridgeport until the 1940’s.
Anyway, I’ve noticed that you monitor this board, so maybe you can drop me a line sometime and let me know if you’ve ever written anything to that effect… I would certainly enjoy reading it.
Thanks!
Gary:
What a surprise. Indeed, my Italian side hails from Cianciana, Sicily, where both my grandfather and grandmother came from. One of the still remaining tasks is to write the book about my grandmother. The fact that they lived in Yorkville would seem to guarantee that they knew my grandparents, I would think. Please give my very best to your grandmother. Cent’ Anni!
Mike,
I just belatedly found out that Obama had a closed door meeting two or three days prior to the Supreme Court’s scheduled meeting about whether or not to hear the lawsuit asking for proof of his origin. This meeting was attended by 8 of the 9 sitting judges of the Supreme Court. I don’t know your legal background, but it’s somewhat inappropriate for this clandestine meeting to have occured, given that opposing counsel wasn’t invited. Does this have any meaning to you? If it had been John McCain, what might have been your response, and, perhaps all the other “serious people” previously mentioned? Can you search yourself honestly and without bias and answer this question? Perhaps you might appreciate my concern in other matters. There really has to be other “powers” involved for this type of activity not being disclosed to the public. And, the gall to do something as blatantly this illegal has to prove that something’s badly wrong.
Your opinion here will be greatly appreciated.
Tom Fitchue
Mike,
I appreciate your time writing your response. From the content, I can see your viewpoint and respect it. Your first writing was an attack that I responded to with hackles up. Not a great way to start a discourse, wouldn’t you agree? I don’t agree with some of your thoughts, but I can respect your right to have them. I believe the failure/refusal of Obama’ refusal to bring forth an original document flys in the face of “transparency”, which, as I recall, was a main talking point during the election. There were (ARE) many unsettled issues from the election that still rackle me, but, that’s my problem. I do have many friends & associates that strongly share my concerns, in response to your “serious” people. I guess we all have varied opinions – would be awfully boring if we didn’t.
Tom Fitchue
This thread seems to be getting very full and hard to read. Can the webmaster start up a Bio II file?
mespo:
Thanks, I guess.
Mike Appleton:
Welcome to fun world troll thumping. You will learn to love the non-sequiturs, passionate stupidity, and utter contempt for reason or judgment. These trolls really do find themselves profound.
Tom, I usually leave this sort of exchange to mespo or Buddha, but I guess I got myself into it, so … My point is simply that the things you are concerned about have been investigated. Some of it has been litigated. For Pete’s sake, I haven’t seen the “original” of my own birth certificate. I also have not personally been on the moon, so cannot attest on the basis of personal knowledge that we have actually landed there. We daily rely on what others tell us about all sorts of things; we question veracity when we determine that we have been lied to or that the asserted truth does not square with our experience and common sense. Or, in some instances, when the speaker appears to have dishonorable motives, such as racial or ethnic hatreds. We judge another’s seriousness by the manner in which his or her thoughts are organized, whether the speaker engages in ad hominem attacks as a substitute for argument and whether he or she recognizes that disagreement is not evidence of bad faith. I have not seen or heard anything to lead me to suspect that anyone has played games with the president’s birth records. Moreover, Phillip Berg, the prime mover in this crusade, is a fruitcake. As a lawyer, he knew from the outset that he had no more standing to challenge the election than I have to ask the courts to enjoin the Iraq incursion as violative of the War Powers Act. For the rest of it, I did not attend GW and have never met Prof. Turley. I follow this site because the topics are interesting and the comments (with some exceptions)are thoughtful. I’m sorry if this response is not sufficient, but it is frankly the best I can do.
Dear Mr. Appleton,
And, your credentials include expert evaluation of an on-line “certificate of birth” to acertain its originality? And your “power” to delve into the minds of everyone in this country that enables you to declare they are “serious people”? Just exactly who endowed you with these dubious (at best) powers? Could it have been something that came to you in a dream? I image there could well be drugs involved, butt, who am I to judge YOU of all people?? Who knows, your laser “WIT” might bring a bolt from the Heavens to strike me when I least expect it? I mean, someone with your powers might be able to do anything! And, I’m sure Prof. Turley appreciates you taking up the banner, so to speak. He must be so proud of you!!
TF
tom fitchue, I certainly do not pretend to speak for Prof. Turley, but at the risk of appearing rude, I wish to point out that no one can answer your questions because they are incoherent, delusional and evidence of paranoid fantasies. No serious persons have questions about Pres. Obama’s birth certificate, school attendance or employment history. I would add that his immunization records appear to be in order as well. I suggest that you need some time off, maybe a nice vacation trip to Roswell, N.M.
Prof. Turley,
I asked several questions on an entry on 1/25. I see you do respond to school/praise messages. I hope you will offer an opinion on the issues I “raised”. I know no one in the media will address my concerns because, obviously, they are judged to be taboo. Are you governed by something (for want of a better word) that makes it off-limits? The OATH glitch was so benign as to cause no backlash for you, I would guess. I don’t see that the St. Pete’s article in which you were quoted would have offered any threat or offended anyone to your determent. I guess what I’m asking of you may NOT be comfortably answered. If so, please accept my apologies. It’s just such a monsterous affront to our Constitutional law that this issue has been ignored by our Courts, media, the DNC, our electoral college, Congress……and,especially the Supreme Court! I mean, who (or what) has the power to influence the Supreme Court? Maybe I’m being overly optimistic to expect these entities to protect/represent the citizens of this land?
Kevin, I ask the state troopers to let me off because I post on the Turley blog.
There is no harm in asking.
Prof Turley,
How nice to see you are as active now as you were when I had you for TORTs back in 1998 at GW Law. You have always been a wonderful professor and judicial leader thus I look forward to keeping tabs on your thoughts as relayed within the pages of this site.
While I took a different legal route (in-house counsel specializing in Technology and IP), your views on such diverse constitutional/tort issues still fascinates me.
Take care
Kevin Cromer, Esq.
Kevin:
It is wonderful to hear from a former student and to see you doing so well. Welcome to the site. I am afraid that I cannot offer any refund on prior classes, however. Yet, if you become a regular, you can go to any Starbucks and ask for a discount as a Turley blogger on a Latte. In fact, you can ask for a discount from any coffee shop.
JT