What are the chances that there are two or more people named Joseph Margolick in Arkansas, one of whom was cited for speeding more than 15 miles per hour over the limit in Pulaski County and failed to appear for a 2022 arraignment?

A search of Arkansas Court Connect reveals three cases involving the name Joseph Margolick. Two are medical malpractice cases. One is a criminal traffic case.

Standing alone, that proves nothing. Names repeat. Databases are imperfect. Coincidences happen.

But the question becomes more interesting when the lens is narrowed.

What are the chances that there are multiple individuals with the same name in Arkansas, each alleged—separately—to have acted in ways that endangered others, while the systems responsible for accountability appear strikingly disengaged?

In one medical malpractice case, allegations include conduct described as false imprisonment and battery. According to records and correspondence, evidence related to those allegations was submitted to the UAMS Police Department. No meaningful investigation followed. Instead, the department requested that this writer stop sending information.

That response raises a different question altogether.

What are the chances that if the accused individual in a case was poor, unknown, or lacking institutional affiliation, the same level of indifference would apply?

Available information suggests no urgency in executing the warrant issued for Joseph Margolick in 2022 related to a failure to appear.

Again, this is not an identification. It is an observation about systems.

Because when warrants sit unserved, when allegations involving violence are quietly shelved, and when law enforcement discourages the submission of evidence, the issue is no longer about who someone is. It is about what institutions choose to do—or not do.

If accountability pauses whenever professional courtesy enters the room, then the issue is not identity or coincidence—it is selective restraint by the very institutions charged with enforcement.

And that should concern everyone—especially those who believe the law is supposed to work the same way for all.