Chapter 11: The Systematic Dismantling
The main conference room was packed by 2:00 PM.
Every associate from our class had shown up—this was the annual spectator sport, the chance to watch peers destroy each other in formal legal combat. Second-years filled the back rows. A few junior partners lingered near the door, pretending they had better things to do while clearly invested in the outcome.
Three senior partners sat at the front table—Brooks in the center, flanked by Chen and Williams. All of them with tablets open, scoring rubrics displayed, expressions professionally neutral.
Harvey stood in the back corner, arms crossed, watching like a coach whose star player was about to take the field.
Louis leaned against the side wall, eyes fixed on me with something that looked like cautious optimism.
And Donna sat in the third row, perfectly poised, observing everything with that unnerving awareness she always carried.
The audience doesn't matter. The judges matter.
Mike and I took our positions at opposite tables. He looked nervous—tie slightly crooked, papers shuffled too many times, the kind of energy that came from caring too much about the outcome.
I felt calm. Cold, even.
Forty-eight hours of preparation. Every precedent memorized. Every counterargument anticipated.
Brooks cleared his throat.
"Gentlemen. Mr. Ross, you're arguing for the defendant—the school district. Mr. Roden, you're arguing for the plaintiff—the parents challenging the surveillance program. Mr. Ross, your opening statement."
Mike stood, walked to the center of the room, and transformed.
The nervousness vanished. His voice became confident, passionate, the kind of presence that made you want to believe whatever he said.
"Your Honors, we're here today because a school district tried to protect its students. That's it. That's what this case is really about."
He gestured with his hands, building momentum.
"Cyberbullying is an epidemic. Students are suffering. Some are dying—suicides directly linked to online harassment that schools could have prevented if they'd known about it. The surveillance program here isn't about control. It's about safety. It's about schools fulfilling their responsibility to protect children in a digital age."
He cited cases—Vernonia v. Acton, Morse v. Frederick, precedents where courts had upheld school authority over student conduct.
"Constitutional rights aren't absolute. They're balanced against compelling government interests. And what interest is more compelling than preventing a child from taking their own life?"
Mike's voice cracked slightly on that last line—genuine emotion, not performance.
Harvey nodded from the back. The associates leaned forward, engaged.
He's good. This is exactly what Harvey taught him.
Brooks gestured to me.
"Mr. Roden. Your opening."
I stood, walked to the center, and stripped all emotion from my voice.
"Your Honors, this case isn't about whether schools should protect students. Of course they should. This case is about whether mass surveillance of students' private communications, without individualized suspicion, without warrants, without any procedural safeguards, violates the Fourth Amendment. And the answer, under established constitutional doctrine, is yes."
I didn't gesture. Didn't build narrative momentum. Just laid out systematic legal analysis.
"The Fourth Amendment requires particularized suspicion before searches. Schools' in loco parentis authority—their ability to stand in place of parents—has defined limits established by Supreme Court precedent. Tinker v. Des Moines protects student speech unless it creates substantial disruption. New Jersey v. T.L.O. allows searches only with reasonable suspicion of specific rule violations."
I paused, let the framework sink in.
"Mass surveillance of all students' social media accounts, monitoring private communications without any individualized suspicion, is categorically distinct from the targeted, suspicion-based interventions courts have approved. This isn't about protecting children. It's about constitutional limits on government power, even when exercised with good intentions."
The room was quieter now. Judge Williams was taking notes. Chen's expression had shifted from polite attention to active interest.
Different approach. Different philosophy.
Brooks nodded once.
"Proceed to examination. Judge Chen will begin."
Chen leaned forward, tablet in hand.
"Mr. Ross, hypothetical. The surveillance system detects a student posting about bringing a weapon to school. That post leads to intervention, preventing a potential school shooting. Doesn't that justify the program?"
Mike jumped on it immediately.
"Absolutely, Your Honor. If we prevent even one tragedy—one life saved—isn't that worth some limitation on privacy expectations? Students don't have the same privacy rights as adults. Schools have a duty to—"
I interrupted.
"Objection to the hypothetical's premise."
Brooks raised an eyebrow.
"Mr. Roden, this isn't a real trial. You can't object."
"Then I'll rephrase. The hypothetical assumes predictive capability not supported by the evidence in this case. The surveillance system here detected cyberbullying after it occurred. It showed no capacity to prevent incidents before they happened. Judge Chen's hypothetical describes a different program entirely."
Chen studied me.
"Point taken. Mr. Ross, does the record show any preventive interventions?"
Mike hesitated.
"The system is designed to enable prevention, Your Honor—"
"But did it actually prevent anything?"
"The... the evidence shows it identified concerning behavior patterns—"
"After the fact?"
Mike's momentum stalled.
"In some cases, yes."
I stayed quiet, let the weakness sit.
[ARGUMENT CRUSHER: ACTIVE]
[OPPONENT WEAKNESS IDENTIFIED: EMOTIONAL HYPOTHETICALS DISTRACT FROM CASE FACTS]
[COUNTER-STRATEGY: FORCE SPECIFICITY, DEMAND EVIDENCE]
[EFFECTIVENESS: 73%]
Judge Williams posed the next question.
"Mr. Roden, you're arguing students have full Fourth Amendment protection for their social media accounts. But don't schools have some authority over student conduct, even off-campus?"
"They do, Your Honor. Mahanoy v. B.L. established that schools have narrow authority over off-campus speech when it creates substantial disruption to the educational environment. But that authority requires specific, identifiable harm—not speculative concerns about what students might post in the future."
Williams nodded slowly.
"And mass surveillance?"
"Is the opposite of specific, identifiable harm. It's dragnet monitoring of all students' private communications on the theory that some might be concerning. That's exactly what the Fourth Amendment prohibits—suspicionless searches based on generalized government interest."
I cited three more cases, building the constitutional framework brick by systematic brick.
Mike tried three more emotional appeals—protecting vulnerable students, schools' duty of care, evolving technology requiring evolved constitutional interpretation.
I stripped each one to its factual foundation.
Does the record show vulnerable students were specifically protected by this program? No.
Does duty of care override constitutional requirements? Precedent says no.
Does technology change Fourth Amendment analysis? Only in how we apply established principles, not the principles themselves.
By the time Brooks called for recess, Mike looked frustrated and Harvey looked concerned.
[WIN RATE CALCULATOR: REAL-TIME UPDATE]
[PROBABILITY: 52% → 58% → 63%]
[SYSTEMATIC APPROACH PROVING EFFECTIVE AGAINST EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTATION]
[MENTAL FATIGUE: 19%]
I stepped out during the ten-minute break, needing water and a moment away from the tension.
The break room was empty except for Donna, making coffee with the kind of efficiency that suggested she'd done it ten thousand times.
She glanced up when I entered.
"You're doing well."
I filled a cup with water from the cooler.
"That's not decided yet."
"Mike's better when he's improvising. You're better when you've planned everything."
I drank half the cup before responding.
"Is that a compliment?"
Donna's smile was small and knowing.
"It's an observation. Whether it's a compliment depends on whether you win."
She walked past me toward the door, coffee in hand, then paused.
"For what it's worth, I've never seen anyone make Harvey look that uncomfortable during one of Mike's performances."
She left before I could respond.
I stood alone in the break room, processing that.
Harvey's uncomfortable. Because his teaching method—improvisation, charisma, emotional connection—isn't working against systematic preparation.
The System hummed quietly.
[RELATIONSHIP ANALYSIS: DONNA PAULSEN]
[ASSESSMENT: EVALUATING BEYOND PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE]
[INTEREST LEVEL: UNCLEAR BUT PRESENT]
I dismissed the notification and headed back to the conference room.
Closing arguments. Time to finish this.
+1 CHAPTER AFTER EVERY 3 REVIEWS
MORE POWER STONES == MORE CHAPTERS
To supporting Me in Pateron .
with exclusive access to 20+ chapters on my Patreon, you get more chapters if you ask for more (in few days), plus new fanfic every week! Your support starting at just $6/month helps me keep crafting the stories you love across epic universes like [ In The Witcher With Avatar Powers,In The Vikings With Deja Vu System,Stranger Things Demogorgon Tamer ...].
By joining, you're not just getting more chapters—you're helping me bring new worlds, twists, and adventures to life. Every pledge makes a huge difference!
👉 Join now at patreon.com/TheFinex5 and start reading today!