713-224-1747
Recent Blog Posts
Branding Week, with Bonus Andy Nolen [Update]
Mosey on over, cowpokes, 'cause it's brandin' week in the blawgosphere.
Scott Greenfield opens the rodeo with So It's Not Just Lawyers?, which is this Gene Weingarten column MS3K style.
Keith Lee of An Associates Mind comes out strong: Facebook You v. Real You or Why Personal Branding is Stupid:
Your brand is what you say about yourself, but your reputation is what others say about you.There is no way to self-create a reputation – or at least no way to buy a reputation that lasts. Reputation is developed through hard work, consistency, reliability, and integrity.
Lee gets a reader response showing that stupid is as stupid does: Chris Kulbaba comments, "the persona you create through your reputation IS your brand" in response to Keith's "There is no way to self-create a reputation." Kulbaba hawks himself as some sort of branding expert; apparently the persona he's trying to "create for himself through his reputation" is "dolt." Get along, little dogie!
For Future Reference
I have occasionally wanted to refer to fools of the nth (or even or odd) degree, but been unable (probably because they aren't "fools" but "simpletons") to bring to hand the Edgar Allen Poe quote from which the expression came. So here, for future reference (yes, Gideon, by all means bookmark it), it is:
A certain set of highly ingenious resources are, with the Prefect, a sort of Procrustean bed, to which he forcibly adapts his designs. But he perpetually errs by being too deep or too shallow for the matter in hand, and many a school-boy is a better reasoner than he. I knew one about eight years of age, whose success at guessing in the game of ‘even and odd' attracted universal admiration. This game is simple, and is played with marbles. One player holds in his hand a number of these toys, and demands of another whether that number is even or odd. If the guess is right, the guesser wins one; if wrong, he loses one. The boy to whom I allude won all the marbles of the school. Of course, he had some principle of guessing; and this lay in mere observation and admeasurement of the astuteness of his opponents. For example, an arrant simpleton is his opponent, and, holding up his closed hand, asks, ‘Are they even or odd?' Our school-boy replies, ‘Odd,' and loses; but upon the second trial he wins, for he then says to himself: ‘The simpleton had them even upon the first trial, and his amount of cunning is just sufficient to make him have them odd upon the second; I will therefore guess odd'; he guesses odd, and wins. Now, with a simpleton a degree above the first, he would have reasoned thus;‘This fellow finds that in the first instance I guessed odd, and, in the second, he will propose to himself, upon the first impulse, a simple variation from even to odd, as did the first simpleton; but then a second thought will suggest that this is too simple a variation, and finally he will decide upon putting it even as before. I will therefore guess even'; he guesses even, and wins. Now this mode of reasoning in the school-boy, whom his fellows termed ‘Lucky,' what, in its last analysis, is it?""It is merely," I said, "an identification of the reasoner's intellect with that of his opponent.""It is," said Dupin; "and, upon inquiring of the boy by what means he effected the thorough identification in which his success consisted, I received answer as follows: ‘When I wish to find out how wise, or how stupid, or how good, or how wicked, is any one, or what are his thoughts at the moment, I fashion the expression of my face, as accurately as possible, in accordance with the expression of his, and then wait to see what thoughts or sentiments arise in my mind or heart, as if to match or correspond with the expression.'
Selling Out?
This accusation is damning. It also may be untrue.
In his nutty and angry 100 page pro se defamation complaint against Overlawyered and others, Arthur Wolk writes:
Wolk did not even personally handle the discovery in the Taylor case, and thus the order critical of Wolk's conduct during discovery in the Taylor case was issued in error, but more importantly Wolk ensured that his clients were protected by staying out of the settlement negotiations, which were mediated by others.Moreover, the Taylor case was settled with no involvement from Wolk, and the plaintiffs in the Taylor case had additional counsel other than Wolk, who independently reviewed all aspects of the settlement making sure the plaintiffs in Taylor were well served, received full value in the settlement and were completely satisfied with the result. Indeed, the plaintiffs in Taylor received a settlement that far exceeded the value previously placed on the case by an independent mediator.Most importantly, the Taylor case was settled before Wolk even requested the Court vacate the mistaken discovery order, which the Court in Taylor eventually did.
Child Prostitutes = Nails?
The Houston Chronicle's editorial board gets gushy over a "human trafficking court" (probably in fact a human-trafficking court) created by juvenile-court judge Michael Schneider to deal with underage prostitutes: "Kudos," writes the Chron, "to all the parties involved for offering a humane, practical alternative for these vulnerable youngsters."
Houston State Sen. John Whitmire has a long and distinguished history in working for prison reform and alternatives to incarceration. He welcomed the news of the pilot program, telling the Chronicle, "This is a smart approach to addressing criminal justice, to get involved as early as possible. There's no doubt in my mind it will work, and will be cost-effective, not only in dollars, but in human misery."
In June of last year the Texas Supreme Court ruled in In the Matter of B.W. that a child cannot be prosecuted for prostitution. The Chronicle mentions this ruling in its editorial, but it-and Senator Whitmire-fail to connect the dots.Judge Schneider's creation of a human-trafficking court is an attempt to recover judicial power lost with B.W. Since a child cannot be prosecuted for prostitution, underage prostitutes are not a criminal-justice problem. They are no longer the business of Judge Schneider qua judge, but only as they are the business of us all. I don't pretend to know what kids who become prostitutes need, except that it falls under the category of "social work" rather than "judging."
Still Crazy After All These Years
Good news: Lana Shadwick of the Harris County District Attorney's Office's Appellate Section, formerly of Fulbright & Jaworski (and a bunch of other places that have nothing to do with the trial of criminal cases), has decided to run for criminal court judge.
I heard the news that Shadwick would be running in the Republican primary against Kristin Guiney (who outclasses Shadwick across the board, and who I think will likely make a terrific judge) I thought, "It's Christmas in July!"
Why is it such good news? Not because Shadwick is even remotely qualified for the bench-she's not-but because it will provide for highly entertaining blogging. You see, the name on the ballot will be Lana Shadwick, but she'll always be The Lateral Hire to me.
Stanford and the Loss of Innocence
I don't much care what standard Stanford University uses to decide whether to expel students accused of sexual assault. The issue doesn't get my blood pumping. If Stanford chooses "a preponderance of the evidence" and other schools follow a higher standard ("clear and convincing evidence," or even "beyond a reasonable doubt"), potential Stanford students are free to decide whether they want to attend a Hysterifascist People's Utopia, and go somewhere more congenial.
But according to the U.S. Government Stanford can't choose any other standard, and neither can any other college that accepts federal Title IX money. The Department of Education's "Dear Colleague Letter" says that, under Title IX, "a school's grievance procedures must use the preponderance of the evidence standard to resolve complaints of sex discrimination." Sex discrimination, says the DOE, includes sexual violence.*
Help Put Steven Kramer's Arm on the Door
Here is the advice you see before sending a comment to Bennett & Bennett via our website:
This form is for potential clients to contact Bennett & Bennett. Do not use this form if you are trying to sell SEO services or anything else.
Pretty unambiguous, right?
So when Steve Kramer of LegalMatch sent me an email via the contact form last December, I responded:
You saw this on my contact form:This form is for potential clients to contact Bennett & Bennett. Do not use this form if you are trying to sell SEO services or anything else.And you thought, "that doesn't apply to me because..."?Because what?Help me out here. I want to understand.
Mr. Kramer did not respond. I didn't hear from him again...until today, when he sent the same message again via the same form:
Submitted on Saturday, July 23, 2011 – 16:39Submitted by anonymous user: [71.107.57.147]Submitted values are:First Name: sLast Name: kEmail Address: steve.kramer@legalmatch.comPhone Number:Message to Bennett & Bennett:Mark,I do not believe that our two firms have met.I'd like to discuss a quasi-exclusive relationship involving our criminal law matters in the Houston region.Our volume in that region is approximately 990-1,050 criminal law matters per year or approximately 4 per day M-F.Take a look at the current case summaries of our clients. To access our database:• go to our site, www.legalmatch.com• click on attorney log in.• your user name is tx072111• your password, is tx072211• all lower case• note that the password and user name are different• click on the "all" cases line near the top of the home page;• password expires July 25Of course, I do ask that you not yet contact any of the clients.After you have reviewed the case summaries, let me know whether it looks like a potential fit.Cordially,Steve Kramer
Good-Citizenship Tip
If you are afraid that the prosecution is giving the jury false information based on your data (via Bobby Frederick, South Carolina Criminal Defense Blog), tell the defense.
Disbar Nancy Grace for Being Repugnant? Are You High?
Nancy Grace is vile: to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that.
Scott Greenfield thinks someone should do something about Nancy Grace, and that someone is the Georgia Bar:
But Nancy Grace's refusal to adhere to the obligations of a lawyer is unethical. She may not be stoppable on TV, where the demand for eyeballs consumes any interest in accuracy or ethics, but how is it that she still holds her ticket from Georgia? How is it that the rules that apply to lawyers have no hold on Grace's tongue?What if Nancy Grace was constrained to air her views as a disbarred lawyer? Would the big networks still give her the platform to spew on national television?.....
Even in Georgia, we are lawyers. We need not continue to put our imprimatur of legitimacy on this woman who, more so than any other of recent vintage, has made America more ignorant about the law. Or is the Georgia bar so enthralled with her drawl that they would never pull the ticket from their favorite daughter, exempt from the ethical obligations that apply to the rest of us?
Another Bad Screening Arrest
I get it: if you disrespect the TSA authoritah, you will get arrested.
Like this:
But now, a Colorado woman is accused of putting her hands on a TSA agent at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix.Court records show 61-year-old Yukari Mihamae grabbed the left breast of the female agent Thursday at the Terminal 4 checkpoint.Police say she squeezed and twisted the agent's breast with both hands.Officers say Mihamae admitted to the crime.There's no word why she touched the agent.
When I read a story like this, I like to read the applicable law. It's a little service I provide for my readers to try to distinguish myself from every other idiot commenting on the story. Here‘s the applicable law:
A person commits sexual abuse by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual contact with any person who is fifteen or more years of age without consent of that person or with any person who is under fifteen years of age if the sexual contact involves only the female breast.
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
