713-224-1747
Recent Blog Posts
What the Hell is Ron Paul Thinking?
Nobody ever won a national election based on "love."
Fear or hope (which is just the sunny side of fear): these are the things on which presidential campaigns are built.
Not "love."
TSA Thuggery: First Amendment Edition
If I think that my friends in the media are about to report a story inaccurately, I don't caution them against reporting the story; I point them toward the facts.
That's because I'm not TSA thug Sari Koshetz, who told journalists that they shouldn't cover blogger Jonathan Corbett's demonstration that nude scanners don't work, because Corbett "clearly has an agenda" and should not "be aided by the mainstream media."
If I were to caution reporters against a story, it wouldn't violate the First Amendment because I am not the government. My coercive power is limited to the ability to file a defamation suit or not talk to the reporters the next time. A caution from me to the press would be nothing more than a reminder to get the facts approximately correct. When the spokesperson for a government agency cautions reporters against a story, there is inherently a threat of government action.
Why Do We Oppose Mandatory Minimum Sentences?
Meanwhile, crime victim advocate Joe Wamback, a Newmarket resident and former federal Conservative candidate, supports the omnibus legislation. His son, Jonathan, was beaten into a coma in 1999.The Smickle ruling is "the reason we need minimum sentencing in our legislation", he said.Defence lawyers who criticize mandatory minimum sentences are in a conflict of interest, he argued, since they derive their income from repeatedly representing people accused of a crime."Put them away and (the lawyer) doesn't have to defend him a third, fourth and fifth time," he said.
(YorkRegion.com, h/t Toronto criminal-defense lawyer Edward Prutschi.)
This is utterly loopy. Where there are mandatory minima, criminal-defense lawyers make more money because defendants are under more pressure to fight their cases, and therefore willing to pay bigger fees for better defenses. Third, fourth, and fifth offenders are usually indigent.
On Innovation in the Practice of Law
I am, in case you didn't know it, interested in innovation in the practice of law. I don't believe that "because lawyers have always used yellow legal pads" is a good reason for using yellow legal pads. I went to the Trial Lawyers College, where I learned to use psychodrama in trial preparation and trial; I have studied improv, hypnosis, NLP, and various other disciplines that might be useful in trial. The next time I have some spare time, I may get my criminal-defense skunkworks going.
But I also recognize that the practice of law has evolved over millennia.
Here's my friend Don's theory of the evolution of tools:
Buy a standard 10mm combination wrench at Sears, or at Harbor Freight, or off the Snap-On truck, and it's going to be about the same length: 6.25 inches. You can get a longer 10mm wrench, but it is "long-pattern," not standard. A standard 10mm box wrench has evolved to the length it is so that you can't comfortably apply more torque than a fastener with a 10mm head can handle (around 10 ft-lbs, so 20 pounds of pressure in a small area on the palm of your hand); if you apply a long-handle wrench to a standard problem, you can easily apply more torque, and you are likely break something. (I've wanted for years to work that into a post; check it off the list).
Homeless People and Cats
The City of Houston wants to regulate feeding the homeless-to make it a crime for anyone to feed the homeless without registering with the city and jumping through a bunch of other hoops (PDF of proposed ordinance).
In a lively online discussion among criminal-defense lawyers, Laurie Payne (not a CDL; I've no idea how she wandered into the discussion) interjected:
I TOTALLY SUPPORT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE AND THE CITY OF HOUSTON'S MOVE TO DISCONTINUE THESE AD HOC "FEEDING" PROGRAMS THAT DO NOT ADHERE TO ANY RULES OR HEALTH CODE NOT TO MENTION PROPER SANITATION OR PERMITS. ARE THE HOMELESS NOT THE PUBLIC, TOO?"DO-GOODERS" DO NO GOOD WHEN THEY ARE ENDANGERING THE PUBLIC, HOMELESS OR NOT, BY USING PUBLIC PARK LAND, CITY PROPERTY, AND PRIVATE LAND, WITHOUT PERMISSION OR FACILITIES TO "SERVE" THE HOMELESS.THIS IS WHY GOVERNMENT DOES NEED TO CONTROL GROUPS THAT ARE SELF APPOINTED SOCIAL PROGRAMS THAT HAVE NO REGARD OR TRAINING TO SERVE THE PUBLIC, MUCH LESS THE UNFORTUNATE PUBLIC!PLAY BY THE LONG ESTABLISHED RULES NOT THE RULES THAT YOU JUST "MADE UP" TO RAISE MONEY FOR YOUR "SOCIAL PROGRAMS". IF YOU WISH TO PARTICIPATE IN SOCIAL PROGRAMS, DO THE QUALIFYING FOR THE GRANTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO LEGITIMATE ORGANIZATIONS!LAURIE C. PAYNEFourth Generation Native Houstonian and Christian
Essential? Little? Temporary?
I wrote here, "I'm willing to give up some freedom to have fire protection and paved roads..."; one of my Twitter correspondents chided me: "He who would sacrifice liberty in the name of safety deserves neither."
I don't think that's right. We give up liberty (the freedom to do what we want with our money) by paying compulsory taxes in exchange for things like firefighters, and unless we are anarchists we consider it reasonable to do so.
(Even the anarchocapitalists think it reasonable to give up some of their freedom for safety by voluntarily exchanging their time (in the form of money) for security services provided by private companies.)
The Ben Franklin quote that my correspondent was thinking of is this one:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
When we exchange money for an improved chance of protecting our property from fire, we are not giving up essential liberty (we can do without that money) and the safety we are hoping for is more than "little," and more than "temporary."
Bennett, Dissenting
The first time I got to vote in a presidential election was in November 1988. I was a sophomore at Rice University, registered to vote in Texas. The race was between George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis. I voted for Ron Paul, who was running as the Libertarian candidate.
I believe that the answer to "how much government do we need" is, and probably always will be, "less," but I am not an anarchist.
Do away with government, the anarchists say, and the market will fill the role of the state-keeping us free, protecting our property, keeping us safe.
I don't share the anarchists' rosy view of human nature. Do away with government, and for a while the strong will dominate the weak. Then the weak will band together and dominate the strong. Then the strong will band together and dominate the weak again. Some of the weak will join the strong until finally more than half of the collective power is dominating less than half. Whatever this dominant 50+% is called, it will be, for practical purposes, the state. Over the long term, anarchy is impossible.
An Interesting Way to Do It
When I saw this story:
The fallout from severe layoffs at the Orleans Parish public defender's office came to an early head Friday inside a criminal courtroom. After a hearing in which Chief Public Defender Derwyn Bunton faced a litany of questions about his budget woes, Judge Arthur Hunter said he would farm out dozens of indigent cases to private lawyers.
I thought, "that's not right." Crowded dockets are not the problem of the criminal-defense bar. If the state isn't paying for the indigent to be defended, that's the state's problem.
The best criminal-defense lawyers can make decent livings (though nowhere near what their civil counterparts make) but most criminal-defense lawyers (including, by choice, some of the best) are eking out a living fighting the highest-stake cases. They are taking cases for too little money, either from the working poor or from the indigent-defense system, and spending many uncompensated hours helping people who couldn't possibly afford to pay what the help is worth.
The Trial Lawyers College is Not a Cult
Lawyers who look at Gerry Spence's Trial Lawyers College often see it as a cult.
This is wrong. TLC is not a cult.
Here's Janja Lalich and Michael Langone's checklist of cult characteristics, with my thoughts on whether they apply to the Trial Lawyers College:
The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
Yes. Many alumni mistake the TLC way, which is one way of trying cases, for The Way, and as a result reject (don't make room in their minds for) the possibility that there are other technologies that might be more useful, for any given lawyer on any given case, than the TLC way.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
Yep. Suggestions that TLC alumni might attend a class not endorsed by TLC, or might communicate more freely through media not controlled by the college, are met with rants like this one:
Dr. Emmette Flynn: Second, Do No Harm…?
Patients should be able to decide what happens to them. Doctors should not do things that harm their patients.
According to Wikipedia, the principles are autonomy, the patient's right to self-determination; and beneficence, serving the best interests of the patient.
Autonomy can come into conflict with beneficence when patients disagree with recommendations that health care professionals believe are in the patient's best interest. When the patient's interests conflict with the patient's welfare, different societies settle the conflict in a wide range of manners. Western medicine generally defers to the wishes of a mentally competent patient to make his own decisions, even in cases where the medical team believes that he is not acting in his own best interests. However, many other societies prioritize beneficence over autonomy.
It's easy to think of cases in which autonomy and beneficence clash-the patient doesn't want the medically required treatment, or the patient wants treatment that is not medically helpful (see, e.g., Joan Rivers).
Contact Us if You're
Ready for a Better Future
Schedule a consultation today by filling out the form below or calling our office at 713-224-1747. We look forward to representing you.
The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.
I have read and understand the Disclaimer and Privacy Policy.
From our office in Houston, we represent clients throughout Harris County and across the state of Texas. We assist with criminal cases in Conroe, The Woodlands, Kingwood, Bellaire, Friendswood, Highland Village, West University Place, Cypress, Willis, Austin, Dallas, For Worth, Arlington, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, Beaumont, Tyler, Plano, Spring, New Caney, Porter, Humble, Atascocita, Aldine, Cloverleaf, Pasadena, South Houston, Pearland, Fresno, Missouri City, Sugar Land, Pecan Grove, Richmond, and Katy.
Results listed are not a guarantee or indication of future case results.
917 Franklin Street, Fourth Floor, Houston, TX 77002
713-224-1747
