>> Good morning, class.

I'm going to be your teacher today.

My name is Luke LaChac.

I'm a teacher at the Somerset Hills School District, specifically at Bernardsville Middle School.

I'm a social studies teacher.

So today's lesson is going to be about history.

Specifically, we're going to dive into the history of what justice means.

Every morning, no matter what school you're at, you finish the Pledge of Allegiance by saying, "With liberty and justice for all."

But what does "justice for all" mean?

Today we're gonna explore the history of justice, going back to our heritage or our ancestors in Europe, all the way back into the medieval ages.

And we're gonna see what justice meant back then and what justice means now.

And we're gonna do that by examining our judicial branch, which is the part of our government that handles things like court cases and trials and law.

But before we get started with any of this, I need to make sure that you're ready for class.

So if you have a moment, make sure you have the materials that you're going to need for today.

Specifically, you're gonna need a pen or a pencil or crayons -- whenever you like to draw or write with.

You're gonna need some papers.

I have a lot here.

You're not going to need this many.

I know that I make mistakes.

So if you want to add a couple extra papers in case you make a mistake, you should probably do that.

And the last thing we're going to need, which might sound a little weird, is something you can stack -- something that's not breakable, something that you're comfortable with.

For me, I chose paper bowls.

But, you, it could be Legos.

It could be paper plates.

It could be paper cups.

It could be pizza boxes.

It could be shoe boxes.

It could be anything that you feel comfortable stacking.

But I do want to repeat, please do not stack your parents' glassware that they use for eating.

It's important not to do that.

I don't want you to get in trouble.

I don't want me to get in trouble.

So we're gonna focus on using things that aren't very breakable.

Alright.

Now, we're going to explore the judicial branch, which I already know sounds like a really big concept.

And with these big and new complex concepts -- these confusing concepts, these complicated concepts -- it's important that we look at the big words that might be new to us, break them down into small sections so we're able to understand what's going on.

So today we're going to start with the word "adverse."

What does "adverse" mean?

Is it a challenge?

Is it something that means harm?

Is it an unexpected reaction that's really not going your way?

I think our corporate sponsors are going to help relay this message.

I'll see you back in my class in a moment.

Hello.

I'm here representing Adverse Industries.

Are you stuck at home, unable to go outside?

Not even able to go to school?

Well, I have the treatment for you.

It is distance learning.

There are some adverse side effects of...your brother probably eating the last cookie in the package, your family not letting you go out to have sleepovers, your family not letting you out to play with friends, your teacher giving way too much homework, and people not sharing the television.

Back to you in LaChac's class.

A special thank-you from the people at Adverse Industries.

So, now that we're understanding the idea of what "adverse" means, let's think about a couple examples.

I know an adverse reaction I got when I was your age -- and you might be getting -- is when Mom and Dad said no to me about something.

Do I wanna go to a sleepover, do I want to hang out with my friends, do I want to play some sports?

And the answer would sometimes be no.

That would be the adverse reaction.

You're not looking for something that's adverse in your life.

Specifically, we're going to open it up to adversity.

"Adversity" is the bigger, longer extended version of "adverse."

But it's a way to describe a situation that might be challenging.

So, for example, a great adversity that we're all having right now is that we can't really leave the house.

It's important that we don't and we practice our social distancing.

But when we see adversity, we're seeing an environment that we might not like, that we might have to overcome.

When anytime we have an adversity, it's our job to make sure we overcome it and grow and become stronger.

So we've looked at two ways that we could see "adverse."

We have "adverse," which is a negative reaction that you might not want.

We have "adversity," which is an environmental situation that might be challenging, or, again, something we don't want.

Hmm.

Can you think of an adversity in your life right now?

What in your environment might be an adversity?

Good.

I like that.

Make sure that your example went with something that you don't like.

If your example was "My adversity is that I have a whole bunch of chocolate to eat," it's not quite an adversity, unless you don't like chocolate.

An adversity might be that you can't really see your friends all that much right now.

Great.

And the last way we're gonna look at "adversity," or "adverse" as the root word, is "adversary."

Now, this is the biggest word we're going to look at today, and we're going to use this word a lot.

So we know "adverse" meant something that we don't want, a negative reaction.

"Adversity" is an environment or a situation where I'm experiencing this negative thing, this challenge I don't want.

But an adversary is a person or a being or a team that you specifically don't like.

This would be your archenemy, your rival.

An example of adversaries would be like Thanos to the Avengers or Tom and Jerry or Batman and the Joker or Plankton and Mr.

Krabs.

There are so many different things, different things, different combos -- I lost the word there.

Different combinations of characters that we know or maybe sports teams we know that are adversaries.

So, for example, if we're gonna look at sports, we might look at the New Jersey Devils versus the Flyers.

We might look at the Giants versus the Patriots.

We're looking at two teams that see each other as opposing sides.

So we're going to bring it back to "adverse."

"Adverse" is the unwanted reaction or action that can get out of something.

So, for example, an adverse reaction would be if I went to go pet my cat Tars and she bit me or hissed at me or scratched me.

And that would create an environment with a lot of adversity, because me and Tars live together.

She's a great cat, and I want her to like me.

However, if the relationship gets bad, Tars might become my adversary.

I don't want that at all because that means Tars would be my enemy.

So if we look at these three words, even though they have very similar meanings, they all have different themes to them.

"Adverse" is the negative action or the unwanted action you don't want.

"Adversity" is that environment that you don't like.

And then the adversary is a person.

So, I'm gonna ask you to do me a favor now.

I've given you a whole bunch of examples of adversity, of adverse reactions, of adversaries.

I'm going to ask you now to please get your pen... and your paper.

And either write down, draw, or make a little story about adverse reactions.

I would like two examples of adverse situations for you.

This might be Mom and Dad saying no when you want an extra ice cream.

This could be you not being allowed to go on Netflix anymore for the day.

This could be really anything that is unwanted, an unwanted action taken toward you.

"Adversity" is the situation unfolds with all those unwanted actions.

The challenge that's there in front of you.

Give me two examples of that, as well.

And the last, most important one for this lesson is "adversary."

Give me a couple of examples between, really, any two opposing sides that are adversaries.

Remember, I gave you examples like Mr.

Krabs and Plankton.

It wouldn't be Mr.

Krabs and SpongeBob.

They're friends, or at least in employee relationships.

I don't know.

I haven't watched the show in a while.

Regardless, we're trying to look for adversaries here.

I'm going to join you all doing this, and we'll listen to a little bit of music.

And then I might show you a prime example of an adversary.

Now we're going to have some time to work on this little assignment.

So, remember, we're looking for two examples of an adverse situation, two examples of adversity, and two examples of adversaries.

You can hear the music softly in the background now.

I'll increase the volume when I'm done talking.

What I'm looking for here is for you to show me what you think, show me what you've learned.

If you don't like writing, you don't have to write.

If you want to act it out, if you want to draw it out, or simply if you want to say it out loud while we're doing this, that's fine, too.

But what I'm asking you to do is really delve deep.

Let's get started.

An adverse situation.

I just finished a show on Netflix that I wanted to watch.

I guess by finishing the show -- >> ♪ When the clowns crack up, I laugh with them ♪ >> Yeah.

What about now?

That's an adverse reaction to finishing the show.

>> ♪ Ain't no man or men that can change... ♪ >> Adversity.

I'm stuck inside.

That's an environment, right?

>> ♪ Who can cause me pain or raise my fear ♪ ♪ 'Cause I got only love... ♪ >> An adversary.

I'm sick of writing.

I'm gonna draw this one out.

>> ♪ You'll find it there ♪ >> What's a good example of an adversary?

Superman?

Lex Luthor?

I'm not good at drawing things.

>> ♪ Watch the naysayers fall... ♪ >> Hmm.

I got some ideas.

If you want to say your ideas out loud, too, that's more than fine.

>> ♪ There ain't no man that can save me ♪ ♪ There ain't no man that can enslave me ♪ ♪ There ain't no man or men that can change the shape my soul is in ♪ ♪ There ain't nobody here ♪ ♪ Who can cause me pain or raise my fear ♪ ♪ 'Cause I got only love to share ♪ ♪ If you're lookin' for truth, I'm proof you'll find it there ♪ >> Alright?

Hopefully you've come up with some good examples.

I'm excited to share them.

But first, let's look at a prime example of an adversarial, meaning adversary, relationship.

This is Tars.

Tars has a great example of what an adversary is.

And I'm going to show you that example, right, Tars?

Yeah?

Alright, ready?

Tars' adversary is in this very house right now.

Now, if Tars was friends with her adversary, would that make much sense?

No, it wouldn't.

Tars' enemy is her adversary.

She has an adversarial relationship with... the light.

Anytime Tars sees the light, she's got to get it.

But Tars and this thing aren't gonna be friends.

I know.

Tars... isn't friends with the light.

And that's an adversarial relationship.

Now it's time to show off our work.

Now, before I show you my work, I want you to understand my handwriting isn't that good.

So I'm gonna read it to you, and I'm going to show you.

So if your handwriting isn't that good, there's nothing to be embarrassed about.

So, I asked for two of everything.

I wanted two examples of adverse situations.

I recently finished a TV show I really liked and I feel a little bit of an adverse reaction when I don't know what to watch next.

I also currently have a broken skateboard.

That's an adverse situation.

I want to skateboard, and I can't.

"Adversity" is that I'm stuck inside the house right now.

And to make that adversity greater, I ran out of candy.

So my adverse situation is that I finished a show.

I don't really -- I don't know what to watch next.

I have a broken skateboard.

I can't even skateboard if I want to.

My adversity is that I'm stuck inside.

And I kind of want to go outside, but I'm making sure I'm practicing my social distance.

I also have no more candy.

I ate a whole bunch of Peeps, and I ran out.

And the last, for my adversaries, I decided I'm going to draw these examples.

You are more than welcome to write or draw or express these examples in any way you want.

So for me, I have a very poorly drawn dog versus a very poorly drawn cat.

And then because I wanted to really exercise my artistic abilities, I have a rock versus paper, like "rock, paper" -- ahh -- like "rock, paper, scissors, shoot."

I should be able to say that.

We're going to be going on to the next part of the lesson soon.

If you feel at all uncomfortable with this, don't worry.

I'm going to keep coming back to what these words mean, because I'm going to start using them in sentences to teach you.

The next thing we're going to explore is how justice looked back in medieval Europe.

So make sure you get a new piece of paper to start doing your work on.

And that way, you can fill out the notes appropriately.

Thanks.

So now that we discussed the meaning of "adverse," "adversity," and "adversary," we're going to start using those terms when we look at history.

We're going to take a step back, all the way to medieval Europe, and examine how they handled disputes about law, which really is just a fancy way of saying how they handled the law when people broke it.

So, hypothetically, if we were going to go all the way back then and you decided to commit a crime -- I know you never would.

But let's say you did.

The victim, instead of calling the police, having the police come arrest you and go to court, you would simply tell the king or the queen or the representative of the king and the queen, and they would bring it down to one simple point.

The only way to determine who was right or wrong in that whole criminal action was to fight.

Now, I know this might not seem right, but trial by combat and trial by jousting was the number-one form of finding the just resolution or just solution or just answer to any sort of issue with the law.

So, for example, coming back to where we were, if you broke a law in medieval Europe, and someone were to go tell the king or the queen instead of going to court, like we see it now or like you see on TV, the king and the queen would order that you would fight the person that you broke the law against.

Now, do you think this is fair?

Let's look at an example, and then we'll discuss it more.

Meet Joe... and meet Steve.

They are both living in the medieval era.

Joe assaults Steve and takes his money.

So Steve has made the choice to go to the queen and tell her what happened.

However, the only form of court justice is by combat.

Now Joe is set to fight Steve.

Do you see any issues here?

Does this seem fair?

So, was this fair?

Would it have been justice if that fight were to take place between Steve and Joe?

What do you think?

No, I really want to listen.

Please tell me, do you think it was fair that Joe and Steve had to fight?

Of course not!

How is Steve supposed to beat Joe in a trial by combat when Joe is so big and obviously so super?

When we're looking at this time period, we don't see a lot of justice.

At this time, they believed that fate, God, nature, whichever they believed or you believe, they believed that that higher power would give the person who was fighting the power to win if they were right.

But in this situation, it's not too often that Steve is going to be able to beat Joe.

So that system of justice really didn't work out.

However... I want you to explain to me how justice looks like in your situation right now.

Meaning, I know a lot of you are at home with brothers and sisters, Mom and Dad, guardians, aunts, uncles, grandparents.

Who knows?

And I know when a lot of people are living close together, and they're not allowed to really leave, tensions can get a little high.

You can get frustrated with one another.

Sometimes maybe an older brother, younger brother, older sister, younger sister, Mom, Dad, they want to control what's on TV.

Or maybe they want the laptop to stream Netflix or Hulu.

And maybe you don't always get your way.

Is the solution in that problem always just for you?

If you have an older brother who can really just hold the TV remote above your head and you can't reach it, is that fair?

Should our physical being, should our presence be the determining factor?

Meaning, being the reason that you were treated right or wrong.

Is that justice?

From my perspective, it isn't.

And I hope that you can see that, too.

But this type of court system was the first time that we see an adversarial relationship in medieval law.

So if we're looking at this whole era, we're seeing that one person did something wrong.

One person accused that person of doing something wrong, and the way they determined that they would find the truth was if they fought, and the winner was obviously right.

And when I say "obvious" there, I'm being sarcastic, because the winner was probably the person who was stronger, the person who had the training to do that type of fighting.

Now, thinking about what's going on at home, thinking about any relationship that you have where you've had an adversary or an adversarial moment, I want you to reflect now.

I want you to either draw out or write down a story where there was a miscarriage of justice, which is a big term.

A miscarriage of justice means that justice wasn't carried out.

It was miscarried, and justice didn't take place.

It wasn't fair.

Maybe your brother took the remote for the TV and now you can't watch it.

And he's gotten to watch every single TV show all day long.

He's gotten to watch the education channel, got to see teachers like me.

And maybe you wanted to watch something else.

So when your brother didn't let you have the remote and he hid it from you and he stopped you from getting it physically, did that seem fair?

I want you to outline that situation -- a moment where you don't think you received justice and how it was either similar or different than Steve and Joe.

So, a situation where I felt like I wasn't treated with justice.

Hmm.

And how it can relate to Steve and Joe.

It's a tough one.

That is a tough one.

♪♪ I remember once when I was your age and I walked into a convenience store with my friends, and we were just laughing.

And the manager of that store told us to leave because we weren't buying anything, but we just walked in.

That didn't feel like justice because I was a kid and the manager was an adult.

I had to listen.

I had to leave.

That definitely wasn't a just moment.

I felt a little bit like Steve in that situation.

Joe was older and bigger and stronger, and I was small and I had no choice.

I was Steve.

That wasn't justice.

I remember getting in trouble, being on a sports teams.

I remember the coach calling me out.

I probably did a couple things wrong.

Maybe there was just there -- justice there.

But think about it.

What is a situation where you maybe weren't treated the right way and couldn't do anything about it and life just moved on?

And that was that moment's version of justice.

How does that relate to Joe and Steve?

♪♪ ♪♪ Make sure you wrote something down.

While we worked, I gave you a lot of stories, at least in my life, where I felt like justice may not have been carried out.

And I gave out a couple of examples.

So now it's not my turn to share what, a situation where I didn't feel that justice was carried out.

It's your turn.

So if you have anybody in the room with you, maybe you can share it with them.

Or if I'm the only one in the room with you, you can share it with me.

Please, tell me a moment where you felt like justice wasn't carried out and why.

Interesting example.

That is, if you were talking during that silence.

If not, you and I thoroughly enjoyed about 15 seconds of elongated, silent eye contact.

And that's okay, too.

It wasn't very just when Steve and Joe had that situation in the medieval ages.

But time passed on.

And when we look at time in the situation, we have to start with the low bricks, the foundation to what our system of justice looks like now.

We started in the medieval era.

In our first court case, we saw an adversarial relationship.

We saw Steve versus Joe.

This is something that we've kept till today.

But we've learned how as a country and as a government to provide justice through that adversarial relationship.

When time passed in the medieval era, they grew to say maybe the people that are the victim or maybe the suspect, they shouldn't fight each other, because they realize that in a situation like Steve and Joe, it wouldn't be fair.

It wouldn't be just to have a big, strong person fight a tiny, smaller person.

That wouldn't be fair to them.

So what they came up with next was that if you were a person that committed a crime or potentially committed a crime, and you were reported, instead of having to physically fight the person that reported you, you could pay a knight or a friend or a warrior to fight for you.

And this is on both sides.

So if you reported a crime, instead of having to fight yourself, you could pay somebody to fight for you.

And in that system, the fighters, again, the winning side was "correct" or "just."

Let's look at an example of what this might be like.

And now we're back to Joe and Steve.

Joe does the same action.

He assaults Steve and takes some of his money.

Now...Steve goes to the queen and says the same thing.

However, it's in the future.

The queen knows that you can hire a warrior for trial by combat.

But Joe stole all of Steve's money.

That's okay.

It's justice.

I intentionally cut that just a little bit short.

How do you think this is going to end?

Do you think it's fair if Steve doesn't have any money?

What if Joe has all the money?

What if Steve can't afford anybody?

Is that going to be fair?

You tell me.

What do you think is wrong with this situation?

We've seen the first type of an adversarial court -- an adversary...court, where we had two people fighting against one another.

And now we're seeing the next step, the next evolutionary step in our system of justice.

So we're seeing first the suspect and the victim fighting for them to determine what is just or what is "just."

Next, the victim and the suspect can hire people to fight for them.

I gave you a small example, a small clip here, and we're gonna finish in a moment.

But what do you think?

What happened in this situation?

Would that be fair?

Well, I hope you responded to me.

And I don't think it would be fair.

I think that if you had all of your money stolen from you, how are you able to afford getting a good warrior or a knight to fight for you?

Is that right?

Is that just?

I don't think so.

But before we go on and before we start really looking at the U.S.

system of government and how we handle trials now to make sure we have liberty and justice for all, I'm gonna ask you to do one more thing for me.

Let's go back to your first situation that you wrote, about how justice wasn't carried out, a situation that you felt like it wasn't fair.

Could either of these two systems of law -- Could either of these two examples have helped you?

Would it have helped if you were to have to had fight or f-- "had fight" -- had fought the person that you felt like wasn't treating you right?

Would it have helped if you hired somebody to fight that person?

Let's go back to your brother and the remote.

You might not have a brother, but a hypothetical person and a remote in your house.

Would it have provided justice if you physically fought that person?

I don't think so.

But would it have provided justice if maybe you promised another sibling a favor or paid your sibling to fight the person holding the remote?

Would that be fair?

Would that be just?

Back to Joe and Steve.

Joe was able to hire his own superhero.

Steve, nothing.

Does this seem fair?

As you can see, things didn't really pan out for Steve in that situation.

Steve, in both of those systems of law, wasn't served justice.

Things weren't fair for Steve.

Before we move on, I want to reflect a little bit.

Today, you learned how to define "adverse."

You gave me examples of it.

You did the same thing for "adversity," for "adversary."

These are big words.

You're doing great.

We use this new knowledge, this new vocabulary, to understand old medieval courts and how, when someone did something wrong, the way court looked like was fighting, and how that escalated to paying people to fight.

You've reflected a lot on your own situations of justice and whether or not you've been treated justfully.

Before we move on to the United States system of government, let's look back.

I want you to reflect on the moment that you didn't feel like justice was carried out for you.

Could either of these systems helped you?

Yes or no?

And why?

And assuming that they wouldn't have helped you, what would you have changed about medieval Europe?

What would you have added to make sure it was fair?

Let's work on this a little bit together.

And then we'll start talking about the United States' system.

Alright.

So, I'm gonna go back to that convenience-store example.

Would it have helped me to have fought the person that works there?

I don't think so.

It probably would have gotten me in a lot more trouble.

Would it have helped me to hire somebody to go fight?

I don't think so.

I don't think the European system would have worked here.

♪♪ Now, what could we have done?

What could I have done to fix that situation, to fix the European -- the medieval Europe -- version of law?

♪♪ Maybe I could have talked to the manager at the convenience store.

Maybe I could have asked my parents to talk to the manager.

Maybe that's what should have been in medieval Europe.

Maybe just a little bit more listening and talking to one another than fighting.

I feel like fighting sometimes might, like, look cool in movies or make it for an entertaining TV show, but in real life, I feel like fighting hurts everybody.

So even if it makes the winner feel good for a little bit... at the end of the day, they just lost somebody they may have been close to.

They might have lost a friend by fighting with them.

♪♪ So maybe talking would have helped.

I don't know.

What ideas do you have?

♪♪ Brainstorm.

Think about it.

Talk to people in your house.

Alright.

So we've learned a lot so far already.

And I'm really proud of all of you.

We're going to get to our last section today.

We began this lesson going over some key vocabulary, understanding what "adverse," "adversity," and "adversary" mean, understanding what it was like to be in court in the medieval era, seeing all the injustice that took place.

Well, now we're here.

Now we're finally in America.

Modern day.

Now, in the next few years of social studies class, at whatever school you were at, you're going to learn about the rights of the accused, how a trial goes, and in terms of the plaintiff and the defendant.

But we're not going to go into any of those big terms here.

So make sure you don't get stressed out.

It's not going to get too complicated.

We're going to look at this the same way we looked at the medieval court.

Originally, when Joe and Steve were in their fight, we saw a miscarriage of justice.

Justice was miscarried out.

Joe wasn't able to, in a right way, receive justice.

And Steve wasn't, either.

And what was the problem there?

What was at fault?

Great.

It was the issue of fighting -- Physically fighting somebody is not going to get you the right answer.

It's not justice, and our founding fathers and our government realized this.

And they thought the best way to handle situations where a law was broken and there were two parties, two adversaries in our adversarial court system, was something called "discourse," meaning "conversation."

The best way to get to the root of any problem, of any broken law were for two parties to communicate about that situation to prove to a jury of our peers what really happened.

So now in our country, if a law is broken, the person who broke the law, the suspect, and the person who the suspect, and the person who had a law broken against them -- could be a person, or it could be a party, meaning, like an organization -- they come to the courtroom.

The plaintiff and the defendant.

And they there explain their side of the case in front of a judge.

That judge has a list of rules that the lawyers and the defendant and the plaintiff, they have to follow to make sure everyone has the same exact type of trial.

Why do you think that our government sets it up so every single trial has the same exact organization?

It's fought out the same exact way.

Fantastic.

The reason why is so everyone has equal justice, everyone has the same exact path in the courtroom to make sure everyone is treated equally.

Now, instead of having to physically fight the person, the lawyer helps you in the situation, explain what happened, provide evidence.

And these -- The plaintiff, the defendant, their lawyers communicate.

Their lawyers question witnesses.

They bring in material evidence, meaning physical material, to the courtroom to prove their side.

At the end of the court case, if it is a jury court case, the jury leaves the room so no one can hear, except for the jury, to talk about what they think happened.

And the jury all have to agree if the defendant is guilty.

So that means 12 people have to be convinced, without a doubt, without thinking for just a moment, "Hmm, maybe this didn't happen."

Every member of the jury has to agree that it happened.

Every member of the jury has to think the defendant is guilty for them to be guilty.

And even if all 12 people are convinced of the wrong thing and they all think the defendant is guilty, justice can still be served if the defendant is innocent.

What the defendant can do is appeal the case.

So, when you want that extra treat, and you go up to Mom, and you say, "Hey, Mom, can I have another ice cream cone?"

and she says no, I know that there's some of you out there who can walk quietly over to Dad and say, "Hey, Dad, can I have an extra ice cream?"

hoping for a different answer.

What you did there was you filed your appeal.

Mom said no so you went over to dad, hoping he would say yes.

And, unfortunately, he most likely said, "I don't know.

Go ask your mother."

You, at that point, you filed the appeal.

So in the courtroom, if the defendant thinks that justice wasn't carried out, they can appeal the case, and that means they'll go to the trial again in the Court of Appeals.

So they started in their district.

Then if they didn't go the way they wanted it to, they go up to and they appeal the case.

And if the case is appealed and the court says, "You know what?

You might have something here," it can go all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Now, that was a lot of information.

And I promise, that's all we're getting for this segment.

We're going to break all of this down now.

So, I want you to sit down with me.

I want you to get the materials that you found, that you knew you could stack.

I'm going to, I don't know, tell a small story while you're getting those materials, just in case you have to run out of the room real quick.

But you want materials like a shoe box.

I'm using paper bowls for my example.

Again, make sure this is something that's not breakable.

And we're going to look at how the Supreme Court, how the Courts of Appeal, how the district courts make sure that you, as a United States citizen, experience equal justice compared to every other citizen in this country.

That's what makes our system so great.

This is your time to go get those materials.

Remember, I'm using paper bowls.

You can use multiple shoe boxes if you have them.

Pizza boxes, paper cups, plastic cups.

A deck of cards, if you're good at stacking cards and you don't mind writing on them.

Don't use cards.

Anything that you can stack that's appropriate.

Look around your house.

I'm gonna give another 30 seconds.

Anything you think that you could stack up.

You need at least six items that you can stack.

It could be multiple different items, as long as they aren't breakable.

I don't want you getting hurt.

I don't want you to damage anything that's important.

So I want you to find some items here.

If you want to flex, maybe you could use some toilet-paper rolls -- the cardboard that's inside.

It's totally up to you.

Just find multiple items that you are okay with writing on and you are okay with stacking.

Alright.

30 seconds is up.

Now let's go back to that first example that we've carried through this whole lesson of an older brother or sibling not sharing the TV remote, which I know might be happening a lot right now.

Physically fighting them wouldn't serve justice.

Having somebody else fight them for you wouldn't serve justice.

But perhaps communicating with them might help.

And if that doesn't help, you can always appeal.

You can always ask somebody with more authority.

So if your brother stole the TV remote and you don't get any access to the TV, if you went to your parent, and both you and your brother explained what was going on, gave your side of the story -- the defendant and the plaintiff -- then your parent, as a judge, will determine the right thing to do.

That's justice.

Justice is being heard, being able to communicate your story, being able to explain your truth in order for you to be treated the correct way and not adversely.

So right now, let's look at this system where the defendant and the plaintiff are able to both communicate what happened through their lawyers.

Those lawyers try to do their best job to prove their side of the case.

A jury then decides whether or not the defendant is guilty or not guilty, and they can appeal up to those courts.

But there's a lot of people in this country.

How are all of them going to make sure they get justice?

America found a really quick solution to this.

They tiered, meaning they put each court at a different level.

So the most common court that you will see on TV, that, you know, when you're older, you might get called to jury duty for, or maybe that Mom and Dad has gone to jury duty for, is a district court.

There are 94 district courts throughout all 50 states and territories in this country.

There are 12 Courts of Appeal in this country, and there is one Supreme Court.

So if something were to go wrong and one were to end up in court, the first place they would go to is to the district court.

And then after that ruling, if the defendant's innocent and free, well, they get to go on and live their life.

If the defendant was found guilty and the defendant does not agree, the defendant knows they are innocent, they can appeal and go to that Court of Appeals.

So they start at the district court, which there are a lot of, And if after that court, after that trial, they want to appeal, they want a second look at their case, they can file for appeal in the Court of Appeals.

And if that goes through one of those 12 Courts of Appeals, they go up to the one Supreme Court, and that Supreme Court is called "supreme" for a reason.

It is supreme!

It is the most powerful court.

And that court itself will make the final decision.

You cannot go above the Supreme Court.

Now, that's it.

Today, we looked at a lot.

We looked at what "adverse" meant, what "adversity" meant, what "adversary" meant.

And then we started using "adversarial," understanding that that means the relationship between two people or two parties that are opposing.

We noticed that in the medieval era, all courts had that adversarial connection that we have now.

But they weren't fair.

Those two parties had to physically fight each other to determine what "justice" was.

And then after that, they started paying people to fight, and that didn't seem right, either.

But what the United States did was we took the idea of that adversarial relationship, but we made it civil.

We made it so truth could be found through communication and evidence, to make sure we provide justice for all.

Now we're going to do a small activity.

And I'm gonna walk you through how to make it.

And I'm going to give you a challenge, and I hope to see you succeed in this challenge and show me, and I don't just mean showing your TV, like you looked at it before.

But I mean physically send it to me.

I'm going to go over that in just a few moments.

Hi.

Hopefully at this point, you found at least six stackable materials.

Again, for the umpteenth time, please make sure you are not stacking your glassware.

I don't want you to get hurt, I don't you to get in trouble.

Me, I have paper bowls.

1, 2... 3... 4... 5... and 6.

So what I'd like you to do right now, if you have a marker or a pen or a colored pencil, is to take them, and I want you to either, if you can write on the material, write on the material, or if you need to write on a piece of paper and tape it to the material, you can do that, too.

But we're going to do an activity that represents our levels of the judicial system in America.

So that bottom level -- what was it again?

It's 94 across all 50 -- Oh!

The district courts, thank you.

So for the bottom level, we're going to write "District"... ...and "94."

"District" and "94."

Just remember how many district courts there are.

And then let's say a defendant doesn't like the case they got.

What's going to happen next?

They can appeal it.

So they'll go to the Court of Appeals.

And you don't have to remember right now how many there are.

You're gonna be doing stuff like that when you're in a little bit older grade.

But for now, you can remember that we have 12 Court of Appeals.

You don't have to memorize it, but it's good to know that there are more district courts than there are Courts of Appeal.

Does anybody know why?

Very good.

You have to go to district court, so there's going to be a lot more district courts because that's where most of the cases are going to go.

Not all cases are going to go to appeal.

And then what's the last one?

The most important?

The Supreme Court.

Great job.

So the Supreme Court.

Now, what would happen if we only had... one district court, one Court of Appeal, and one Supreme Court?

When I tried to stack them up... they would all collapse on one another.

However, if I have a lot of district courts to see the cases and then I have 2 or 9-- 12 Courts of Appeal to see the cases that aren't heard correctly or unjustly, and then I have one Supreme Court at top, see how all the layers of district courts are able to prop up or able to hold up the next layer of Courts of Appeal?

And those are gonna prop up the Supreme Court, giving the Supreme Court the most power.

Now, what I'm asking you to do, and, again, make sure you're being careful -- What I'm asking you to do here is to see how quick you can stack them.

Once you've practiced that and you made sure that you messed up the order, making sure you don't know which one's which, give it a few tries.

See how quick you can go.

I'm sure some people have different objects.

Some might be really hard to stack.

Give yourself a challenge.

It might be easy.

You can make it easy on yourself.

That's fine.

So I'm going to start.

Let's see how quick I can go.

Ready?

Put me on the clock.

3...2...1.

District court.

District court.

District court.

And then after district courts, Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court all go on the top.

So exciting that Tars even joined us.

How you doing, Tars?

Okay.

So, I'm asking you to show me how quickly you can stack it.

I don't know if anybody got my time, but let's see if you can beat it.

The last piece -- the last thing I want you to do here -- let's reflect on the lesson.

We looked at new vocabulary.

We looked at law in medieval Europe.

And now we looked at law in the United States.

We looked at how our government or how our judicial branch is layered or tiered or leveled to make sure that the most important cases are heard.

But they go through a filter.

So the Supreme Court doesn't have to see every single court case.

Just like the structure we made, it makes sense for that support to be there.

Now, you do your best stack.

And when you're done, I want you to think about that Pledge of Allegiance you say every single morning.

"With liberty and justice for all."

What does "justice for all" mean?

So, in my last challenge here, I'm going to do the stack one more time.

And then I'm answer that question.

Unfortunately, our time together today is coming to an end.

But I really want to thank you for letting me come into your home for this past hour to discuss something really important -- how justice is carried out today and how it was carried out back then, comparing the two, seeing how they relate, and seeing how much we've improved.

But there's something really important in learning.

First, we analyze, we learn, we question, and we grow.

We took on new words.

We analyzed them.

We understood them.

We looked at history.

We analyzed history.

We answered some questions, made sure we had it.

We asked questions, and now is the time to grow.

While you play this game and show me how good you are -- I want to see some really creative stacks that aren't breakable.

Some really creative stacks, showing me your understanding of the three layers of government.

When you're done with that, I want you to answer one question for me.

What does "justice for all" mean to you?

You've seen what justice looked like in the medieval era.

You've seen what justice looks like now.

What does "justice for all" -- every day when you say that pledge -- what does that mean to you?

And how does the United States provide that justice?

So you're about to see an example of me stacking my bowl -- my bowls.

And then I'm going to give you my answer of what "justice for all" means to me and how the United States provides that.

Alright.

Ready?

Not in order.

Not in order.

If you're still writing your stuff down, that's totally fine.

That's why I'm showing you examples, to give you time to write your stuff down.

Alright.

Ready?

3...2... Go.

Alright.

District court.

94.

District court.

There's 94 district courts.

District court.

Oh, that's all of them.

Whoo.

Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals.

[ Gasps ] I messed it up.

I got rid of some district courts there.

And the Supreme Court.

What "justice for all" means to me, it means that no matter who you are, no matter what race, nationality, age, gender, you're always seen equal in the eyes of the law, that everybody is treated equally when they enter that courtroom.

And we've set up so many rules like you learned about today, and there's a lot more, I promise, to make sure this happens... ...to make sure that everyone in this country gets the justice they deserve.

So my challenge to you, which I've already said, but I'm going to say it again, I want you to send me a video stacking your levels of the judicial system up, of the courts up.

And then tell me what "justice for all" means to you... and how the government provides that justice for all... and what you could do in your life as an American citizen to make sure that stays true.

Because living in a democracy means that every single citizen, every person in this country, must actively make sure that we follow these promises, these pledges, like making sure all people are treated justly.

Thank you so much.