This is a court of law, not a court of justice

rticulating my loss of faith in the justice system, in which, heretofore I’d had the utmost respect, can be best served with a pithy statement attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes,

“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice.”

Holmes, the younger (his father also an Oliver Wendell) a graduate of Harvard University was named by Teddy Roosevelt to the Unites States Supreme Court just after the turn of the 20th Century. Influenced by Darwinism, jurist Holmes was also a strong proponent of moral relativism and earned much criticism during his service, albeit one of the longest in American history. He stepped down from the bench at a ripe 90 odd years of age.

By November 2005, more than 18 months had transpired since the local court legally terminated my marriage and DF had still not yet provided a Quitclaim to my home, nor had he proffered other elements of the Court’s mandate either. It was not only frustrating but a crippling financial burden as well. I’d managed to eek out an existence without income but funds were at an all time low.

What was more crushing was the apparent inequity in the application of law. The local judge strictly refused to offer me the opportunity to annul my marriage despite clear evidence of fraudulent intent was available in written form and scathing testimony by a guest at our wedding. No, the judge steadfastly refused to hear an annulment claim and also refused to hear the issues related to fraud (marital assets whistled away prior to disappearing) in the termination of the marriage as well. In accordance with court procedure, in advance of the mandated mediation and settlement conference, I'd provided full disclosure of all assets, both joint and personal, that remained in my possession. DF failed to provide any disclosure of his, even though he'd helped himself to funds in the bank accounts and the equity proceeds from the refinance of my home, and driven out of my life in a vehicle that was my property before marriage, and titled as same. Instead, the judge insisted that he'd address equitable distribution of the remaining assets, as he saw fit and advised me to seek recovery of anything else in another law suit. Accordingly, the judge preserved my right to take separate action against both offenders in a separate claim, upon consummation of the divorce.

All well and fine you say? Well, yes, I suppose except for the fact that bringing a second action costs money, though and in light of the fact that we would not have an opportunity to present the complaint and causes of action before the Court, it would turn out to be a fruitless offer, in the end. Needless to say, at the time, recognising that this would be the only means of retrieving what had been ferretted away by DF in advance of petitioning for divorce a second time in our short two-year marriage, I did file the complaint, which the Defendants defaulted on by failing to answer a complaint that they knew had been preserved. We believed that with a default judgment, all that remained would be a determination of the damages, but the default, however, was set aside by the very judge that presided over the divorce complaint!

An August Motion for Reconsideration of the order was also denied. No reasons were offered by the judge, other than that my attorney had not returned to work after his quadruple bypass surgery soon enough, by his estimation and that he wished to hear and decide the case on its merits. No problem! If merits were going to be considered, we'd have no problem showing that our causes of action were indeed warranted.

I worked alone to read up on everything I could find related to all Court rulings on default judgments. The lower court judge had cited “excusable neglect on the part of unsophisticated laypersons” as satisfactory cause for their failure to answer the complaint, but as far as I could see, the law calls for the twin conjunctive elements of “good cause” and a “meritorious defense” and that had not been provided.

I had only my computer and the Internet at my disposal to search for applicable citations and formulate a solid legal argument for my case. I found Alken Ziegler v Waterbury Headers Corp, where the Supreme court found the Court of Appeals had erred in believing that the good cause prong of the rule was satisfied by a showing of a potentially meritorious defense. "Potentially" meritorious would not apparently meet the requirement. It was conceivable that strangers could perceive DF and KMC as unsophisticated, and that theirs was possibly excusable neglect, but what of the meritorious defense element?

The lower Court had also affirmed Defendants Motion for Summary Disposition as to the remaining counts of fraud and IIED. It’s posture was that a tort for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress had not yet been recognized by the Supreme Court as a separate cause of action and certainly not in the divorce context, yet my research uncovered cases before the Court of Appeals, Nelson v Ho, Haverbush v Powelson, Campos v General Motors Corp and Warren v June’s Mobile Home Village & Sales, Inc., where the law clearly recognised IIED as a separate cause of action. Further, in Doe v Mills, the question as to the sufficiency of a claim of IIED it was opined was for a jury to decide, and yet another recent pertinent but unpublished case, Bhama v Bhama, dealt with IIED within the marital context and in a divorce setting. Lastly, court rule states that summary disposition is not appropriate where there is a genuine material issue of factual dispute. In Stebbens v Concord Wrigley Drugs, the test, with benefit of doubt afforded to the party opposing the motion, is if the record could be developed which would leave a material issue upon which reasonable minds could differ. The burden, upon the moving party, to support its position with evidence showing that there are no disputed facts. That burden would be upon the Defendants and according to Smith v Globe Life Insurance Company, if there exists a genuine issue, which should be decided by a trier of fact, then a motion for summary judgment cannot be granted (just as in Metropolitan Life Insurance v Reist). Moreover,a lack of specificity that the lower Court cited as to the fraud allegations, (admittedly, in my attorney’s haste to prepare within hours for a hearing, many citations were not included) the Court of Appeals have opined that opportunity for further amendment is appropriate. Court protocol also recognises that the specificity of an amended complaint need only be sufficient to give Defendants notice of the allegations. If a Court found any insufficiency then it should offer the party an opportunity to amend, and summary disposition is only appropriate when amendment would derive no further purpose. So how could the Court not have offered my attorney such opportunity? All of this caused me to wonder how our case had failed to meet these standards of review and court rules.

Yes, at this point in the process it was difficult not to agree with Mencken when he once stated, “A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers” or indeed Raymond Chandler, who claimed “ The law isn't justice. It's a very imperfect mechanism. If you press exactly the right buttons and are also lucky, justice may show up in the answer".

There would be yet a need to bring the case before the Court of Appeals and an outlay of yet more funds to see that the terms of the Consent Judgment of Divorce were honoured and that the circumstances arising from the Defendants fraud and consipiracy, the right for a cause of action which had been specifically preserved, were, at the very least reviewed by a Court.

As the hawk is wont to pursue the trembling doves

mpathy (n)
A feeling or capacity for awareness, intellectual understanding and sensitivity for others that are experiencing an emotion.

While the ability to empathise is a sophisticated imaginative process that develops with age, empathy seems to be hard-wired in the human brain. It doesn’t necessarily equate to compassion, as compassion involves the additional element of a desire for circumstances to improve. However, empathy certainly is a prerequisite for compassion.

We're well aware that emotion drives animals to respond to various stimuli. Elation is openly and unambiguously expressed in many species. Granted, we've seen this often in domesticated individuals, but what of those that are not? Dolphins, for example, emote very distinct chuckles when joyous. Likewise, fear, pain and grief are also freely exhibited in a variety of species. According to Lyonnaise neurobiologists J. Decety and P. Ruby, it is not too far-fetched to conclude that the emotion empathy may indeed exist in animals as well.

The brain chemical dopamine underlies the emotions of joy and happiness in both human and nonhuman individuals. Pain receptors, known as nociceptors, permit some organisms to feel pain. These neurobiological elements enable the sharing of emotion and thus empathy, according to University of Parma research neurobiologist, Gallese. He discovered particular neurons in the cerebral cortex of monkeys that quite well could be the neurobiological basis for empathy in a wide range of species.

Prior to making direct contact with Doug, after the arduous 5-month wait for him to return from California and settle back into daily routine in accordance with the academic calendar, in all of my previous communications I'd demonstrated compassion and, therefore, empathy for any potential awkwardness that revealing my knowledge of the real situation could pose for Doug. I spared him all embarrassment in the brief phone conversation we had that mid-September morning. I was also mindful to articulate that I respected his personal circumstances, position and stature, wished to safeguard it and that being aware of his true identity and commitment now called for new "rules of engagement". I'd place all other emotions, expectations and experiences we'd shared aside to preserve a simple but cherished friendship.

So how could it be possible that “Doug” could not feel some sensitivity to the disappointment that was no doubt evident in my voice when he claimed that he’d never been in contact with me? It was difficult not to telegraph a sadness that I was feeling when I pleaded with him not to make this more difficult than it already was. And yet, almost in mid-sentence, he cut the conversation short and hung up.

I was not willing, without some confirmation from him, to think of my dear friend as someone that had deliberately deceived and intentionally hurt me. The hundreds of hours we'd chatted may have entered into a realm of "forbidden territory" for a married man, yet I was open to consider that it might have simply been a situation that had accidentally transcended appropriate boundaries. But if that was the case, then why continue the myth and pretend that I had imagined everything; that I was operating on pure speculation, or worse yet, that I had concocted this for some strange reason? And why be so cruel and cold, especially since we were fellow members of the same immigration board, as he had commented.

The manner in which the whole situation had been handled by him, a year or more by this time, had caused me pain, sadness and so much self-doubt on the heels of all I'd experienced at the hand of DF and KMC. Could one person feel more dejected and rejected?. In the end, it appeared that Doug, the very person who'd sworn that he was "NOT, NOT, NOT going to abandon me", had indeed done that without so much as a good-bye, or an explanation and from this last conversation, apparently with no compunction either. None of it made sense.

How was it possible that he couldn't empathise with how devastating it was for me to be treated so coldly. I was the one who'd been vulnerable and cautious, and who'd been encouraged to trust again by none other than him? Had I not epitomised the true meaning of a friend, with my generous and forgiving nature? Did I not deserve at least an explanation, an apology or some acknowledgment? And then I realised that perhaps he perceived, from my surprise phone call, that I might be motivated to take advantage of his vulnerability, as mine had been.

Aposematism, derived from the roots "apo" meaning 'away' and sematic to mean 'warning', is nature’s defense in organisms to ward off potentially threatening individuals. Often it involves distinct, often glaring and strident colouration that works in a diametrically-opposed fashion to that of camouflage. Indeed, aposematism is an advertisement almost akin to, “Don’t eat me, I taste bad!"

In addition to aposematic colouration, there are other natural behavioural defense mechanisms utilised by organisms, when threatened or cornered. Birds exhibit what is known as "agonistic" display. When perched, males engage in fluffing the feathers of the crown and nape, to appear more visible and give off a larger presence, or they raise and flare their wings in a "stiff pose" display. Birds, predominantly males, chase each other aggressively, sometimes resulting in in-flight collisions and combat. When really excited, they adopt a "full threat" pose in flight, gliding directly at a combatant with tail and wings outspread.

The range of agonistic behavioural activities employed are relative to the perceived level of threat. If scansorial (tree climbers), they either move around the trunk of a tree to hide or remain motionless until the threat has passed. Others become proactive and harass the predator, at times engaging in swooping to strike an intruder. And in the rare event that the predator captures them, they exhibit loud squeals to frighten the pursuer.

Given that this is commonplace in animals, I wondered if his unengaging response to my gentle phone call was an example of "agonistic" display. Had I failed to communicate my appreciation for any potential vulnerability on his part? Perhaps he perceived, mistakenly, that I might have less-than-honest motivations for contacting him. I sat down at the computer to draft him an email, telling him, first, of how painful his reaction was to witness, and spelling out that it was time for the masquerading to end; that I was approaching him as a genuine friend that was hurting and needed some answers.

I sent the email the next day. The next contact would be just before Christmas 2005.

As the hawk is wont to pursue the trembling doves ~ Ovid

A bird is known by its note; a man by his talk

A la plume et au chant l'oiseau; au parler le bon cerveau
For those of us that are not birders or ornithologists, describing bird song can be rather tricky. A handy system of remembering and identifying which call belongs to which species is to use mnemonics. Tom Lorenzin assembled such a list and describes the calls of a few species as:

• Barn Swallow: tit-tit-tit-tit (rapid staccato)
• Clark's Nutcracker: kraa-a-a-a (long, drawn-out), or kra-kra-kra-kra
• Cooper's Hawk: kek-kek-kek-kek-kek
• Downy Woodpecker: pik (flat)
• Hairy Woodpecker: peeeek (sharply, somewhat nasal)
• Pileated Woodpecker: kik-kik-kik-kik-kik (rate & pitch rise then fall)
• Red-bellied Woodpecker: churrr, churrr (throaty, deeply trilled) or, chack, chack, chack (soft and diminishing)
• Red-headed Woodpecker: squeer, squeer (raspy)
• Yellow-bellied Sapsucker: meeew (whiny, nasal)
  

While the average person may not be able to identify a species by song alone, to avid birders or those that study the species, each call is as distinct and identifiable, not only to breed, but also to situation. Specifically, of genus sphyrapicus, the Yellow-bellied sapsucker's repertoire is varied. It’s most common call is a slurred cat-like "me-ah” that sounds as if it is emanating from the nasal passages and falls in pitch. "Week-week-wurp-wurp" are exchanged between pairs and their juveniles. The territorial call sounds more like a "kwee-urk" and is the exchange between mates. Even drumming, the sound made as it taps its bill on trees or other structures while foraging or for individual recognition, consists of a rapid series of strikes followed by several intermittent thumps.

Collector Charles Emil Bendire, a specimen collector for Spencer Baird at the Smithsonian in the late 19th Century, noted that the Red-bellied Woodpecker is a rather noisy bird. “Its ordinary call note resembles the 'tchurr, tchurr' of the red-headed very closely; another sounds more like 'chawh, chawh,' and this is occasionally varied with a disagreeable creaking note, A soft, slurred, nasal whee-ur or mew. Also drums: several rapid thumps followed by several slow, rhythmic thumps. The display communication of the spring pair is not a drum but a broken series tap: prrrrrrrp, prrp, prp, prp. While during the mating season peculiar, low, mournful cooing sounds are sometimes uttered, which somewhat resemble those of the Mourning Dove."

Although it turned out that my elusive online friend wasn't Doug Reynolds, the son of the founder of the engineering firm Reynolds, Smith & Hills in Tallahassee, there were some facts that he'd shared that did ring true. He’d told me at one time that he studied acoustics of bird and whale song. While acoustics may not have been the primary focus of his current research, he had spent time as an ichthyologist researching whales and was now an ornithologist, concentrating his research efforts on the ecology and trophic dynamics of birds.

September 19, 2005 arrived and the leaves had begun to show signs of a fast-approaching autumn season, and the air was crisp. The deep blue sky was clear and sunrays flickered and danced across the rippled aquamarine lake that bordered my office complex. By this time in the year, all phone lines to the building had been disconnected and I was attempting to finalise all wind up affairs via my cell phone. I walked out of the building and settled on the grassy verge along the lake to make the call, where it was tranquil and private. I dialed and the phone rang three times. It was almost 12 months since he last sent me an email as "Doug", and I know that I was both anxious and nervous at the same time. He’d, after all, attempted to suggest that I had him mistaken for someone else in April in response to my birthday email, but I knew, without question that I had not.

A familiar sounding voice answered the call, and my mind reflected for a moment on the long nights we’d spent in voice chat. It was great to hear the warmth and deep resonance of his masculine voice. Yes, a voice I had said more than a year ago, I'd never forget. Within moments I quietly announced who I was and asked how he was. Upon hearing my name, he claimed he didn’t know me, and nervously I begged for him not to make the call more difficult than it was. I had no interest in the “Whys and wherefores” and had no intention of discussing anything related to his masquerade as a multi-millionaire, nor did I wish to focus on the events of the past. I was just keen on making direct contact with someone I enjoyed and to pave the way clear for an honest basis on which to place our friendship.

My voice began to tremble as he denied knowledge of Clark or Doug Reynolds, and I fought back the tears as I pleaded with him not to do this. Then, a moment later he asked if I was the same “swissnut” that once posted on the immigration newsgroup ILW.

“Yes, I am” I replied.

“I thought so, I’m Sphyrapicus, but I have never heard of the people you are speaking of. I’m sorry but I have to go” he replied, and I heard the click of the phone as he abruptly terminated the call.

Of Poseidon and Aphrodite in dactylic verse

dyssey, by definition, is a prolonged, eventful journey, not reserved to the physical, but also to the intellectual or spiritual. The epic poem, the Odyssey, commonly ascribed to Homer, explores elements of human nature. At centre stage, the pitfalls of temptation and the power of cunning over strength. Consisting of 24 books, the poem is crafted in a metric rhythm called dactylic hexameter where each line of the poem comprises six feet, and each foot a 'dactyl'.

dac·tyl (n)
A metrical foot consisting of one accented syllable followed by two unaccented or of one long syllable followed by two short, as in flattery.
A finger, toe, or similar part or structure; a digit.
Ornithology. The arrangement of digits on bird feet. See zygodactyl.

Poseidon, as I explained earlier in this exposé,was married to sea nymph Amphitrite. A Nereid, she was the personification of the sea, respected and honoured by sea-farers. Constant and faithful to Poseidon, she respected and loved him and even the progeny of his frequent dalliances. She comforted him when friends, goddesses and nymphs rejected him. Amphitrite, the mother of fish, seals and dolphins, is often spoken of as moaning, especially in storms.

From his domain at the depths of the sea, Poseidon controlled the devastating force of earthquakes and gained the epithet of "Earth Shaker". An enigmatic god he was also the god of fertility. His association with violent storms and the power and changing nature of the sea earned him the reputation of a turbulent and powerful deity, with a violent, vengeful and uncaring disposition. Yes, fellow deities and mortals, alike, feared the wrath of Poseidon. Nonetheless, Poseidon was also a legendary lover and rivaled Zeus, his notoriously promiscuous brother. Despite his name in Greek meaning "Husband of the earth" Poseidon had numerous love affairs, one of his love interests was Aphrodite. When Poseidon saw Aphrodite's naked beauty, he was filled with lust for the love goddess.

He uttered to her, "I claim you for the sea," he said, "You are sea-born, foam-born, and belong to me. I offer you grottoes, riddles, gems, fair surfaces, dark surroundings. I offer you drowned sailors, typhoons and sunsets. I offer you secrets. I offer you riches that the earth does not know-power more subtle, more fluid than the dull fixed land. Come with me, be queen of the sea." Poseidon was the personification of earthquakes, horses, fertility and the rapidly changing nature of the seas and water.

Aphrodite, as legend goes, emerged from the sea foam that symbolised semen and ejaculate. The mythological interpretation of Aphrodite, born from male genitals, is that of sexual power and energy. She was a tall and gorgeous maiden, depicted naked and dripping wet with only the bright tunic of her flaxen gold hair that cascaded her toned and exotic frame. Aphrodite surpassed all the other goddesses in beauty and as a deity of fertility, wherever she stepped, earth burst forth grass, flowers blossomed and the air filled with birds. The goddess of desire, all who uttered her name were enraptured and enchanted with her. Pleasure is Aphrodite’s profession. Her primary focus being ove and sensuality, she was free in her sexual life. Aphrodite would often help others in love. She’s most frequently seen in the company of Eros and the three Graces personifying charm, grace and beauty.

While the myths of Aphrodite feature love and desire, hers is also a tale of how passion is at times a double-edged sword. While several legends of Aphrodite emphasize themes of love and desire, some deal with the consequences that the she suffers as a result of being the victim of love and passion. Yes, Aphrodite was as well known for the pain she brought as she was for the pleasures of sexual passion that she personified. Nonetheless, this goddess of beauty was gentle to those who respected her sensual and complex nature. Aphrodite intoxicated gods and mortals alike, and had a magnetic charm over all birds of the air and creatures that move on the earth or in the waters.

Aphrodite, associated with the sparrow, dove, swan, and swallow, personified love, enchantment, seduction, persuasion, passion, sensuality, light, herbs and flowers and fertility.

Aphrodite sows and gives that love from which all we upon this earth are born. ~ Euripides

The spiders' iniquitous den

crambling to assemble a pleading and to prepare for a hearing in one night is an overwhelming task. My attorney, still recovering from a major heart attack, had been on leave of absence for 3 months and was not as familiar with all of the evidences that would need to be presented. Knowing that just added to my stress. The judge had not appeared to consider my counsel's ill health, denying the last minute Motion to Adjourn submitted the day prior after we learned that the case had been reactivated on the docket in my attorney's absence.

The case had been stalled for a period of 3 months, admittedly, and that was frustrating enough for me, but with an attorney who had been hospitalised and cautioned by his physician not to take on high-stress activities for some time (his principle practice specialty being criminal matters ~ stressful and high profile ones at that), it was disappointing to learn that the judge had placed the case on the court docket, when my attorney had not yet been released for full-time work.

Notwithstanding, I toiled through the night to compile evidence and draft out the background of the specific facts and corresponding standards of review that my attorney would then use as a basis for the pleading and prepare before the 1:30pm hearing the next day. I was working as the sun came up and printed off what I had just prior to 9:00am when my lawyer's office would open. I reminded him that opposing counsel had been permitted to file a Motion for Summary Disposition while the case had been stayed and left his office completely exhausted, but hopeful that he would be able to get it filed and appear in court on time.

But, since this hearing had been mandated by the Court, and our request for adjournment submitted outside the 7-day requirement, the judge denied oral argument. My attorney, while willing to try to plead the case, would not be given opportunity, and the judge would review the record and a decision would be rendered within 7 days. I received a copy of our pleading in the mail the day following and was a little disappointed to find that it had been reduced to a five page filing, presumable in the interest of time. Much of the detail I'd provided, spelling out the intricate scheme that had been planned and executed by the Defendants, had been culled to accommodate for brevity required by the Court. I was more shocked to learn within 7 days that the judge had not only summarily dismissed the case, but were also not afforde the opportunity under Court Rule to amend our pleading for what he termed as "lack of specificity". I thought this was a misapplication of court rule, as regulations call for amendment unless amendment could not provide any further facts. How could the judge think that of our case ~ we had more than 140 pieces of evidence to proffer? Furthermore, the judge's order, in fact, scolded my attorney for what he termed was unnecessary delay of the case. This, after Defendants had defaulted for failure to answer the initial Complaint and three subsequent Motions to Compel filed by us prior to Christmas, due to Defendants' failure to answer interrogatories. How could the judge consider a health issue a purposeful delay on our part?

It was at this point that I began to wonder if we'd been caught in the den of iniquity; the spider's den, that is. What's more curious was that I'd been told that the Senior Partner of the firm representing DF and KMC was none other than the major shareholder of the company she worked for, and one in which it was claimed she enjoyed a very generous remuneration package and a cozy relationship with her immediate supervisor and partner.

It was hard not to think that our claim was being deprived due consideration. We'd be forced to challenge the decision with a Motion for Reconsideration, and hope for the opportunity to present our case and be on a level playing field.

Hawks vs Doves ~ Bourgeois strategy

'Hawks versus Doves', no, it has nothing to do with NHL play offs, although to some degree it is a play off of an evolutionary type, I suppose and describes the various strategies employed by species to better guarantee survival. In the instant case, it has to do with assessment of behaviours in an effort to prevail in survival but this will become even more clear after I attempt to describe the phenomenon.

Survival is all about gaining access to food sources, securing a habitat that is secure and thus permitting reproduction to increase the chances of survival and ultimately maintain population density. Organisms behaviour is a complex combination of strategies with the end result being to promote survival.

If all members participate in a particular strategy, it’s referred to as “optimum”. However, if some strategies are not universally practiced, then what emerges are competing strategies that can be present at various times and at various levels. The evolution of this range of strategies that are not universally accepted sets the playing field, as it were. Game strategy employed in the human arena requires that we are aware of our opponent’s behaviour or tactics. An entirely new means of interpreting organisms’ behaviour emerged when Maynard Smith posed that successful reproduction and resultant survival involved similar game strategy.

Let’s consider the following example where there are two distinct behavioural strategies at play. 'Hawks' prevail over their opponents through aggression, by fighting and killing them. Although this is a successful approach to command control over resources and habitat, there is some risk involved. After all, some individuals will be lost in battle ~ yes, through aggression some hawks can be mortally injured. On the other hand, 'Doves' adopt a more pacificist role and rarely engage in combat, but choose a display type strategy to achieve their ends.

Now let’s consider that all members of a particular population and species choose to employ the 'Dove' strategy. Things appear quite peaceful until a member adopting the 'Hawk' strategy enters the arena, and being a fighter, he’d likely champion over the passive non-combative 'Doves'.

Reversing the hypothesis, if all members adopted the role of 'Hawks', there’d be a lot of fighting, and some resultant mortality, but since the 'Dove' strategy involves little fighting, while the 'Hawks' were fighting each other, those that adopted the 'Dove' strategy would prosper. The end result being a mixture of both 'Doves' and 'Hawks' with an equilibrium reached when pay offs for each strategy were equal. Thus an Evolutionary Stable State.

Now let's add another element, that of the choice of behaviour. A strategy like this which is stable and has choice built into it is called an Evolutionary Stable Strategy. It differs from an Evolutionary Stable State because it an individual in the population can make a choice, and natural selection has determined the frequency with which each behaviour (choice) occurs within the strategy.

Of course, the whole concept Evolutionary Stable Strategies (ESS) can only work if the individuals participating are able to determine the pay offs for the various strategies. Going back to the interaction between 'Hawks' and 'Doves', if each individual could assess when it would be best to play 'Hawk' versus when it is more appropriate to behave like a 'Dove' it would create an Evolutionary Stable Strategy (ESS) where the choice of which behaviour to exhibit has been made based upon assessment. Within species, individuals adopt alternative competing strategies with frequencies that reflect the success of each strategy. Evolutionary Stable Strategies occur when alternative competing strategies are at equilibrium.

I'm not going to go into the various types of Evolutionary Stable Strategies that can occur, because quite frankly, my understanding of this is limited, but one such strategy, known as 'Bourgeois' strategy. With Bourgeois, whose central feature is that ownership of a resource determines the behaviour used in a particular contest. If a Bourgeois strategist owns, it will defend its ownership with 'Hawk-like' ferocity; if a Bourgeois employing individual does not own, it will attempt to obtain the resource using display that does not escalate to fighting. Simply put, play 'Hawk-like' when an owner of a resource and exhibit 'Dove-like' behaviour when an intruder'.

OK, I'm sure you're wondering, how does the apply to this sequence of events? This assessment-related behaviour common in species is no different than that employed by our own human species. We assess a situation and determine which behaviour to adopt in order to gain access to a resource. This will become more clear as I relate the series of episodes that occurred in September 2005.