THE GREAT PAPER CAPER PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Oliver Jeffers | 40 pages | 30 Apr 2009 | HarperCollins Publishers | 9780007182336 | English | London, United Kingdom The Great Paper Caper - Dilly Dally Kids Will justice be done? This handy resource includes instructions, a board and question cards to enable your children to play the 'Electric Eddy Board Game'. A collection of posters that show inspirational quotes about schools, children and teaching. Print them and share them in your school's staffroom! Download our today! Search for Ideas and Resources. Videos Use these videos as the starting point for learning in your classroom! More Maths Statistics Resource Packs. Follow us on Other Topics Assemblies Special Needs. Books Explore our library and use wonderful books in your lessons! Share Have you made a great resource? Share it here! Subscribe Stay up to date and receive our free email newsletter! Events News. The secrecy surrounding the U. Supreme Court derives from a policy set by the fourth Chief Justice, John Marshall, who wanted the Court to issue single, unanimous decisions and to conceal all evidence of disagreement. His critics considered this policy to be incompatible with a government accountable to the people. This criticism has never entirely quieted, but every time things get noisy the Court simply brazens it out. Supreme Court Justices; the only claim on the Justices is justice itself. Louis Brandeis began handing his papers over to the University of Louisville, in Kentucky, in , three years before he stepped down from the Court. Frankfurter and Brandeis had been close correspondents. Early in his career, Rehnquist told the legal historian Stanley Katz that he thought there ought to be a requirement that all judicial papers be given to the Library of Congress. Not long afterward, the legal historian Melvin Urofsky, who was researching a book about Johnson v. Santa Clara, a affirmative-action case, happened to be chatting with William Brennan at a party. Cases decided by the Rehnquist Court include Bush v. Gore, one of the most momentous actions ever taken by the Court. In the twenty-first century, the Supreme Court wields far more power than it did in the eighteenth. Is judicial secrecy defensible in an era of judicial supremacy? Fair-minded arguments can be made on both sides. Rehnquist died in In , his papers—nearly nine hundred boxes—went to the Hoover Institution. More than five hundred will remain closed until the last Justice who served with Rehnquist dies. History is patient. But perhaps the time has come to ask, How long is too long to wait? Rarely has an appointment been met with such high expectations. Rarely has a Justice proved so disappointing. During the twenty-five years that Frankfurter taught at Harvard Law School, from to , a conservative Court repeatedly struck down laws aimed at economic reform and regulation, and Frankfurter insisted that, in declaring measures like minimum-wage laws unconstitutional, the Court was overstepping its authority. During the twenty-three years that Frankfurter served on the Court, from to , its most significant judicial activism concerned overturning laws that restricted civil liberties and civil rights. Frankfurter nearly always dissented from these decisions, citing his commitment to judicial restraint. A brilliant liberal scholar, Frankfurter became known, on the Court, as its most implacable conservative, not because his politics changed but because his view of the role of the Court did not. The American Civil Liberties Union—which Frankfurter had helped found—filed an amicus brief in support of the Gobitas family. Frankfurter wrote an 8—1 opinion upholding the mandatory flag salute, citing the principle of judicial restraint. To his outraged friends, he declined to elaborate. He earned a reputation as an annoyance. He lectured his fellow-Justices, as if they were his law- school students. His diaries are even more arrogant and venomous. He proved incapable of forging agreements. Barnette, Jackson wrote an opinion for a 6—3 majority that ruled in favor of the Barnette family. Frankfurter wrote a bitter dissent. Felix Frankfurter may have been the most divisive Justice ever to serve on the Court. The change is sudden, dramatic, and puzzling. It may turn out that a divided Court is the legacy of Felix Frankfurter. But anyone seriously interested in pondering that legacy has got to wonder: Who raided his papers? In , Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. In , he asked one of his clerks, Alexander Bickel, to begin dividing his legal papers, one half to go to the Library of Congress and the other to the Harvard Law School Library. Frankfurter retired from the Court in , after suffering a stroke. Frankfurter hoped that the story of his life might be written by Philip Kurland, a former clerk of his who had become a distinguished constitutional scholar at the University of Chicago Law School. Meanwhile, Frankfurter allowed a reporter, Max Freedman, to edit a collection of letters between himself and F. But Freedman was in no condition to publish: he suffered a stroke that left him unable to write. He moved to Winnipeg and became a recluse. Judicial biography lies at the intersection of two dark alleys: a corner where judicial secrecy meets authorized biography. Rehnquist abandoned the biography. Bickel put him off: he told him to write to Hugo Black. Bickel then attempted to recruit a biographer from among his Yale Law School students. He tapped Richard Danzig, a twenty-five-year-old former Rhodes scholar. Bickel believed—hoped—that the talented Danzig was preparing for a career as a scholar. In February, , Danzig submitted to Bickel a formal request for permission to use the Frankfurter papers at Harvard. Newman took a job teaching at a public school in New York. He was trying to avoid the draft, and he was also eager to make a career as a legal scholar, an outsider attempting to break into a tightly closed and fiercely guarded world. Kluger consulted Bickel, who told him to turn Newman down. In October, , Kluger asked Freund and Bickel whether he could see the Harvard papers for a book he was writing about Brown v. Board of Education. Unlike the young and inexperienced Newman, Kluger had a contract with Knopf, and enclosed a letter from its editor-in-chief, Robert Gottlieb. Freund and Bickel agreed to grant Kluger permission to see the files relating to Brown v. Nixon had a terrible record with nominations to the Court. In , he had nominated Clement Haynsworth, a federal judge from South Carolina. The Senate voted down the nomination, the first time that had happened since In , Nixon nominated another Southern judge, G. Harrold Carswell; he was voted down, too. Both judges had checkered records on segregation. In September and October of , Nixon and Mitchell debated possible nominees. Not a day. Did he? Byrd was a ploy. In December, on the eve of the Senate vote, the Newsweek reporter Robert Shogan released a memo that Rehnquist had written to Jackson in Shogan got the memo from Kurland when he called to interview him and Kurland riffled through the Jackson papers in his office and mentioned that he had an interesting memo. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed. On December 10, , a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee threatened to continue the hearings after the holiday. Nixon responded by calling for a special session. In , two legal scholars, Brad Snyder and John Q. Barrett, published a fascinating law-review article in which they attempted to reconstruct that letter. Barrett Prettyman, another of his former clerks, to see what they made of it. No one knows who had it. In August, scholars using the Frankfurter papers at the Library of Congress began reporting to the staff that a great number of documents were missing. At first, the staff at the library assumed that the missing items had been misfiled, but in November, , the library checked the entire collection against the finding aid as best it could. The missing documents appeared to have been carefully chosen: they included the most significant items in the collection. The library called the F. The special agent in charge suspected that the thief was a scholar, and the F. In March, , an F. He asked Parrish who else was sitting at his table in the Reading Room when he used the papers. Parrish told the F. On March 22, , an F. All three told me they were never questioned. Except for the part about being a lawyer, this description fits only Newman. The report was forwarded to the Justice Department on August 10, And then there was a leak. Anderson, who had an office on the ninth floor of a building on K Street, was the most influential political columnist in the country. They scrambled for stories. Anderson hated Nixon, and Nixon hated Anderson. The Great Paper Caper by Oliver Jeffers I often find that I can fill up these rev Oliver Jeffers is an odd duck. Oliver Jeffers is, as I have said before, an odd duck. The Great Paper Caper is proof enough of that. There is a mystery lurking in these woods. It started small enough. Local forest denizens hardly even noticed when the first branches of their trees started to disappear. When the trees themselves started to go, however, it was time to do some serious detective work. At long last something was found near a crime scene; a paper airplane. A paper airplane with the paw prints of the local bear all over it. And sure as shooting when the animals check it out they see that the bear has been turning a plethora of wood into paper airplanes in a vain attempt to live up to the paper airplane stardom of his ancestors.