Charles International Law

Charles International Law Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from Charles International Law, Lawyer & Law Firm, 606 Baltimore Avenue, Unit 207, #556, Baltimore, MD.

Charles International Law is a boutique firm founded by an Ex-Navy SEAL and former federal prosecutor specializing in immigration and international law, especially asylum for political activists and those affected by global conflict.

06/18/2026

Everybody wants to be George Washington.

History needed millions of people who weren't.

The American Revolution, the Civil Rights Movement, and every successful political movement depended on ordinary people making contributions of different sizes in different ways.

Not everyone can lead.

Not everyone should lead.

But everyone can contribute.

As America approaches its 250th birthday, what contribution are you making to preserve the Republic?

06/17/2026

One of the most important skills in law, diplomacy, and public policy is the ability to distinguish between what has actually happened and what people are claiming has happened.

Over the last few days, I've seen people celebrating a supposed peace deal with Iran. I've also seen people condemning it. The problem is that we don't actually know the terms of any such agreement.

More importantly, even according to public statements from the administration, the central issue of the conflict—Iran's nuclear program—has reportedly been deferred for future negotiations.

If the most important issue remains unresolved, can we honestly call it a peace deal? Or is it more accurate to describe it as a temporary ceasefire?

In this video, I break down the distinction and explain why precision in language matters when discussing war, diplomacy, and national security.

What do you think? Does postponing the central dispute constitute peace, or merely a pause in the conflict?

06/16/2026

Most of the people we now celebrate as reformers were considered annoying in their own time.

The American patriots were annoying.

The abolitionists were annoying.

The suffragists were annoying.

The civil rights movement was annoying.

And that was often the point.

Meaningful reform requires people willing to ask uncomfortable questions, challenge accepted assumptions, and refuse to let important issues disappear simply because discussing them makes others uncomfortable.

As America approaches its 250th anniversary, I think we should spend less time congratulating ourselves and more time asking whether we have been faithful stewards of the ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Citizenship is not passive.

Stewardship is not passive.

And preserving a republic requires more than loyalty. It requires accountability.

If we're going to be annoying, however, we have a corresponding responsibility: we have to be right.

Evidence matters.

Truth matters.

Legitimacy matters.

The goal is not to create noise. The goal is to create constructive tension that forces society to confront problems it would otherwise prefer to ignore.

What issue do you think Americans are currently ignoring at their peril?

06/16/2026

As the United States approaches its 250th birthday, I find myself thinking less about celebration and more about stewardship.

This past weekend, my wife and I visited the new Thaddeus Stevens and Lydia Hamilton Smith Center for History and Democracy in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. One of the things that struck me was how many of the Americans we most admire were people who recognized that the country was falling short of its ideals—and then dedicated their lives to closing the gap.

Thaddeus Stevens understood that America was imperfect.

He also understood that imperfection is not an excuse for surrender.

The Constitution does not promise a perfect union. It challenges us to build a more perfect one.

That idea feels especially relevant today.

The duty of citizenship is not to worship the country as it is. Nor is it to give up on it when it disappoints us. The duty of citizenship is to be a steward of the principles that justify the republic's existence in the first place: the rule of law, constitutional government, equal justice, and individual liberty.

As America turns 250, perhaps the most important question is not whether we are proud of the country we inherited.

Perhaps the more important question is whether we will leave behind a better version of it for the next generation.

What do you think are the most important responsibilities of citizenship in a constitutional republic?

06/11/2026

One of the recurring themes in my work is that if you want to understand the present, you have to understand the past.

The Framers of the Constitution narrowly defined treason because they had seen how English monarchs—particularly Henry VIII—used vague and expandable definitions of political crimes to suppress dissent and punish opponents.

They understood that treason was real. They also understood that government officials would always be tempted to stretch politically charged legal labels beyond their original meaning.

Today, the debate is often framed in terms of terrorism rather than treason, but the underlying constitutional question remains remarkably similar:

How do we distinguish between punishing unlawful conduct and targeting political beliefs?

How do we protect public safety without giving government the power to redefine political opposition as a threat to the state?

In this episode, I examine the history of England's treason laws, the ex*****on of Sir Thomas More, the Treason Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the lessons the Founders believed future generations should never forget.

Do you think the constitutional safeguards created by the Founders are still sufficient to protect political dissent in the modern era?

06/07/2026

Last week, I published a video apologizing for something I got badly wrong.

I grew up believing that racism, bigotry, and discrimination still existed, but that they had largely been pushed to the margins of American society.

I was wrong.

In the follow-up video, I try to answer a question many people asked:

"How could you not have seen it?"

The answer is uncomfortable.

I grew up in a community filled with decent people. I had access to good schools. I had opportunities. I was surrounded by people who generally tried to treat one another with dignity and respect.

And because that was my experience, I assumed it was representative.

It wasn't.

Over time, military service, international travel, working with Muslim allies overseas, and later prosecuting domestic violence cases involving primarily Black women in Washington, D.C., forced me to confront a reality I had not fully appreciated.

I had mistaken my own experience for reality.

Political philosopher Charles W. Mills called a related phenomenon "white ignorance." The intelligence community calls a similar analytical failure "mirror imaging."

Different fields. Similar insight.

Human beings are remarkably good at assuming that the way we experience the world is the way the world actually is.

One of the most important lessons of my adult life has been learning that understanding begins with humility.

Not certainty.

Not ideology.

Humility.

The willingness to ask a simple question:

**What might I be missing?**

I'm curious: what life experience, conversation, book, mentor, or event most challenged your assumptions and changed the way you see the world?

06/03/2026

I used to believe many of America’s civil rights battles had largely been won.

Not perfectly. Not completely. But enough that the remaining prejudice had been pushed to the margins.

I was wrong.

That is not easy to say, but it is necessary.

I misjudged how secure those gains were across the board: voting rights, race, religion, gender, and LGBTQ equality. I underestimated how fragile our institutions were. I underestimated how quickly old prejudices could move from the margins back into mainstream political life.

Being wrong is not the problem.

Refusing to learn is.

I do not get to use ignorance as an excuse anymore. And neither do you.

Once we have seen what is happening, heard what is being said, and watched who is being targeted, the question is no longer whether we understand the problem.

The question is what we intend to do about it.

I intend to be part of the solution.

06/02/2026

A principle of constitutional law that should not be controversial:

Threatening to kill a law enforcement officer's family is not protected speech.

If the allegations against Nicholas Scelfo are true, the First Amendment does not shield that conduct.

But there is another side to this story.

When announcing the arrest, FBI Director Kash Patel stated: "You touch a cop, and this FBI will put you down."

That statement is legally distinct from the alleged threat made by Scelfo. But it raises an important question about the role of law enforcement in a constitutional republic.

The FBI's mission is to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution. Its job is to investigate crimes, gather evidence, obtain warrants, make arrests, and present cases in court—not to sound like an internet tough guy.

The rule of law requires restraint from citizens.

It also requires restraint from those who wield government power.

In this episode, I examine the First Amendment's true-threats doctrine, the criminal complaint against Scelfo, and why public officials should be careful with the language they use when discussing force, punishment, and the constitutional role of law enforcement.

06/01/2026

A thought experiment:

If representative government requires elected officials to negotiate, compromise, and make decisions outside direct public scrutiny, what protects the public from abuses of that power?

My answer is character.

One of the points I make in this video is that integrity in public office is not merely a moral virtue. It is one of the structural foundations of a constitutional republic.

The Constitution cannot supervise every conversation. The law cannot regulate every exercise of discretion. Eventually, every representative government depends upon the integrity of the people entrusted with authority.

That's why I believe the growing tendency to dismiss questions of character in favor of pure policy outcomes is dangerous.

A constitutional republic ultimately depends upon citizens choosing leaders they can trust when nobody is watching.

Do you agree?

Address

606 Baltimore Avenue, Unit 207, #556
Baltimore, MD
21204

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 7pm
Tuesday 9am - 7pm
Wednesday 9am - 7pm
Thursday 9am - 7pm
Friday 9am - 7pm

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Charles International Law posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Charles International Law:

Shortcuts

Share

Category