March 31, 2011 Comments Off
I keep seeing a recurring theme around here. Things are unfair. The government is oppressive. The government doesn’t do enough. People don’t fight for their rights. People want too many rights. The constant cries of “Where’s mine?!”
News Flash: This world is just one big freak show.
People are doing crazy things. The government is doing crazy things. You read about it every day.
According to George Carlin, we are all born with a ticket to the freak show in hand. The tickets give Americans a front row seat.
Criminal Defense Lawyers get backstage passes.
Stop wallowing in pity. Grab a legal pad, sit back, take good notes, and get ready to smack someone in the head with it in a courtroom.
March 30, 2011 § 5 Comments
I like reading Mike Cernovich’s perspectives at his blog, Crime and Federalism (link to the right). He has a lot of fun with a variety of issues. Lately much has centered around men and women, rational roles, perspectives on life, motivations, and contributions. It can be infuriating for some, but it is also fun and instructive.
He has no fear of commenting on men vs. women. I always hesitate to address the male vs. female debate. I generally feel that my very limited perspective is far too inadequate to make a reasonable contribution.
Now, though, I think I have it figured out. The root of our differences is with what each sex wants. It’s really that simple.
Women want near-idealism. They want fairness and due process. They want children who grow up to be smart and conscientious. Women want to be heard, but they also enjoy spirited debate. They want others to be happy and act as positive contributors. They want cleanliness and appropriate appearances. Women want accountability with compassion. They want to share things with a partner who embraces their regard for mutual respect. They want equality with merit-driven rewards. They want a sense of community coupled with allowances for individuality. Women want reason and reasonableness.
Men want to be able to take a leak in their backyard without getting in trouble for it.
There you go.
March 30, 2011 Comments Off
The vast majority of my clients come from referrals from other lawyers. When someone calls, I always ask “How did you hear about me?” They usually reply something along the lines of “Steve Karns told me to call you.” This way, I make sure that Steve remains on my Xmas card list. Some say that they found my website. Others were referred from other past clients. I just like to know in order to show appreciation to those who hold me in decent regard.
Lately, some bizarre things have happened. For instance, I got a call from a nice kid who wanted some military legal issues rectified.
He said, “A lawyer in Paducah, Kentucky said I should call you. He said he refers a lot of cases to you.”
“Paducah? Yeah, sure. What was his name again?” I inquired, searching my mind’s rolodex for acquaintances in Paducah.
“Umm, I can’t remember. I just know he’s a big Paducah attorney.”
“OK, well, no problem. So, you were saying about your punishment for…”
The conversation continued, and everything was fine. I couldn’t help but wonder, though, who from Paducah referred the case. I don’t know anyone in Paducah. To my knowledge, none of my buddies relocated to Paducah. I certainly don’t remember having cases referred repeatedly by somebody there. Sure, I’ve driven through a couple of times, but I don’t even remember stopping. The client forgot the name, so I may never know.
Believe me, I’m not upset, but it would be nice to to say thanks.
Even more bizarre is another source of a few clients. The conversations start similarly. Then, I get to the “How’d you hear about me…” question.
“Oh, I got your info from a 1-800 number referral service.”
“A referral service?” I reply.
“Yeah, they said you do a great job with these types of cases.”
“OK, well, what was the number?” I inquire.
“Oh, darn, ummmm, let’s see, gosh, I thought I had it right here. I think I lost it.”
They never have the number, and, they are not scamming me since several became clients–great clients.
I’ve never signed-up for a referral service. I don’t know anything about a 1-800 number. The extent of my advertising is the creation of my website (which I did myself). What the heck is going on here? How do they know I do a great job? How do they know I do anything? How do they know me?
Or, am I just bad and nationwide?
March 29, 2011 § 2 Comments
The longer one is a Criminal Defense Lawyer, the more one notices the failings of High School Civics/Government teachers. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in Wisconsin where Wisconsin high school graduates (now members of the legislature) took a swipe at the rights of citizens to unionize. Don’t blame them, blame the folks who molded their perspective on government and individual/group rights.
But, I’m not here to talk about Wisconsin. That topic is now officially worn-out. I’m here to talk about two gripes I have with civics teachers in secondary education. I’ll assign grades.
4th and 5th Amendments (F). I trust that the Bill of Rights is posted in every American Government classroom, but I suspect it is written in cyrillic. That’s fine and good for the kids in Brighton Beach, but it’s not of much use to the other 99.9% of the population. How do we know? We see the results. Despite the admonition, “You have the right to remain silent…,” folks feel the need to talk and talk and talk and talk. Afterward, when reminded of the simplicity of the phrase, they look up with both bewilderment and shame. If only they truly understood…
The Role of Congressmen and Senators (F—). I get a lot of calls from former servicemembers who have something in their records that is bad/wrong. Often, they are veterans who received a discharge that is characterized as something less than Honorable. They all want their situations fixed or upgraded. Most want the change to occur for free. To accomplish this, they call their Congressman or Senator. The aide at the office tells them that the elected official is deeply concerned for their fellow citizen (they are always “deeply concerned”), and they agree to “do what they can.” What they do, often, is submit some matters to the Department of Defense that result in absolutely no relief whatsoever. In doing so, they fail the client by wasting an appeal opportunity (they are very limited) with a half-assed letter. Then, I get a call, and my arsenal of possible weapons in the case has been fleeced because some aide to Senator X decided to pull an appeal out of their ass in about an hour (when a merely acceptable one takes more than 10).
The problem here is that they believe that a call to an aide at the legislator’s office will solve their problems, for free. Where do they get this? How do droves of high school graduates move into the world thinking that government officials are there to generously dispense success, wealth, and vindication? They believe that their Senator will interrupt a 3-martini lunch in order to throw-open the doors of the Pentagon and gain justice. In truth, the matter is left to a clerk who writes a mealy-mouthed appeal and prints it on high-class vellum. It’s all a bunch of lip service for no other purpose than to spread goodwill and demonstrate a commitment to fighting for the rights of citizens.
Those who believe the government will be there to help them in an hour of need are destined for disappointment. Thousands of citizens in need constitute a significant populace. One citizen in need is statistically insignificant–even when you add family and friends. Just ask any economist.
When the appeal fails, and they always do, I get a call. Sometimes it’s folks who say “You told me this wouldn’t work, but…” Some are still amazed that the Department of Defense failed to kowtow to an elected official from outside the Executive Branch. When questioned about the documents included in the appeal, they are always wanting, and now the client is left with one less appeal and a lot less leverage.
That’s OK, though. It was free.
I don’t totally blame the kid on the phone, though. The blame is equally shared with the jerk who, upon receiving tenure at East Pigcrap High School, stopped giving a damn.
March 25, 2011 Comments Off
When you look at the criminal law blogosphere, you’ll see a lot of folks bemoaning the state of our criminal justice system. Frankly, everyone has complaints about how unfair it is (and this comes from both sides of the fence–prosecutors and defense). I, too, complain about the things that, from my narrow perspective, are unfair or unconscionable. It’s what we do as 21st Century humans.
When you wonder about how people can interpret our Constitution and, more specifically, the Bill of Rights so wrong, consider two very important facts.
- The Constitution was made-up by a bunch of hung-over guys in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787. Oh, we love to idolize them and talk about how the process was so wonderful and saintly. It wasn’t. It was highly political, messy, sweaty, and reeked of beer farts. But, that’s beside the point. The real point here is that it was made-up by a bunch of guys, and by guys I mean rich (yet debt-ridden) (many even slave-holding) humans with penises. Sure, laud them for some wonderful ideas, but at the root, they were slobs akin to you and I. Mostly, I thank them for being ambiguous.
- 38% of Americans believe that the recent earthquake in Japan was a sign from god.
The first point will likely be addressed in more detail in a future post. I intend to have oodles of fun with it. The second one, however, is my focus today.
Frequent readers of this blog know that I don’t blindly follow statistics, but I temper my skepticism with years of listening to people I meet along with crazy, evangelical family members. They attribute the hand of god to successful surgeries, a good job, succeeding at trial, high test scores, a $20-winning lottery ticket, touchdowns, and the 1985 Royals World Championship. So, I can easily see over 1/3 of population (many of whom attend megachurch cash cows).
Decisions in this country are largely made by individuals who are popularly elected. One way to become popular is to appear of solid moral character. The easiest way to feign solid moral character is to declare allegiance to some supernatural belief in the form of religion. These religions can be very persuasive and persistent–even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Essentially, they make up stuff and charge you to follow it based on faith. This faith is sold using a variety of tactics to include fear (you don’t want to go to hell, right?), promises of eternal existence (you want to go to heaven, right?), or peer pressure (everybody talking about how wonderful Mr. X is because he does what is necessary to go to heaven).
It was found recently that the earthquake is attributed to god by 38% of Americans. Never mind everything we’ve learned about the molten core of the Earth, the ever-flowing mantle, the unstable crust, the Pacific ring of fire, and eons of evidence to support scientific findings that geologic happenings are firmly attributable to the laws of physics–not some all-knowing presence up in the sky.
Think about it. Earthquakes are explained using solid, scientifically tested, peer reviewed evidence. It is evidence-based and not the result of political compromise or conjecture. Yet, people still attribute their cause to unscientific, untested, faith-based reasons.
Now, consider the Constitution and all of its provisions. It was made up by men in Philadelphia. It is not scientific. It is political. It was based on perspectives and theories of liberty. It was not based on physical evidence or peer reviewed data. It was the result of a compromise between several competing proposals. Now, people debate wildly its meaning, intent, and interpretation.
Knowing this, why do we still look at certain interpretations of the Constitution with amazement? The fact that there are wildly competing views of its provisions is really the only thing that does make sense.
If you have doubts, don’t question my perspective. You just need faith.
March 24, 2011 § 6 Comments
I’m not good with fashion. Just ask any of my female colleagues. So, now and then I need a little help. I admit my status as an unwashed advocate.
Today, it is easy to seek help by using online polls. How generous of the cybersphere to give me such a wonderful tool. Now, you’ll be able to help me make wardrobe choices and perhaps even vote for strategy in future cases. The possibilities are endless with online polls, and they are accurate 87% of the time. Of course, 67% of all statistics are made-up by the person touting them.
My first dilemma:
Some of you may not be familiar with each option. So, I’ve included examples below. After all, I want you to make an informed and educated decision for me.
March 21, 2011 § 1 Comment
Our society is not unified in the definition of a “Free Consultation.” You can look in dictionaries, but the definitions allow for a high degree of ambiguity. My experiences tell me that there are two distinct perspectives on the free consultation. Mine, and that of some potential clients.
My Definition: Tell me the basic facts about your case. Generally, I’ll get these from you by asking very pointed questions. Having done this before, I know what is important. Based on this information, I’ll have an understanding as to the best general course of action and my anticipated workload. From this information, I’ll explain (generally) the process and my fee to lead you through it.
Time required: 5-15 minutes.
The Definition Per Some Potential Clients: Find a lawyer. Pick one who is either really young or really old. The young ones are go-getters and idealists who really want to help, and the old ones are grandfatherly, sappy, and paternal. Both of these populations are particularly vulnerable due to these qualities. Avoid middle-aged looking lawyers whenever possible, they put-up with the least amount of crap. Get the lawyer on the phone. Ask him as many questions as possible. Lure him into giving gritty details about the process and possible outcomes. “What-if” the hell out of all possible contingencies. When he tries to back away and exit the conversation, use telemarketing skills to lure him back. When necessary, pass the phone to a family member or friend. This is especially helpful for bathroom breaks and preparing meals. If the lawyer attempts to quote a fee or retainer, steer him back to answering questions by making him feel guilty. Useful phrases include:
- I only have a few more questions.
- I know you’re busy, but I’m almost done.
- Hang on a sec, one of my kids is going potty (particularly useful if you need to go potty).
- Oh, that fee sounds good. I’ll just need until Monday to call the bank. But, I really need to understand this now, can we please start until I get the money. I’ll call the bank as soon as we are done.
- My wife/husband has a few questions for you.
- Can you please let my mom know what is going on?
Lull him into a coma, if possible. Tell him about Aunt Mabel’s bladder surgery. When desperate, consider telling him that you know he is the perfect lawyer for you and that you really, really want him to represent you. Always remember that you have no intention of paying or retaining him. This is your secret, though. Known only unto you. Never be afraid to become overly emotional, irrational, or both.
Time required: ∞.