I’m afraid I have some serious explaining to do. Some of my former clients are probably not happy with me right now. If they follow the news, they just learned that I gave them bad advice.
Until yesterday this Stanford Lawyer actually thought that ignorance of the law was NOT a defense!
Leave a Comment
It really has absolutely nothing to do with the case. But it sure sells “widgets”. It just goes to show you how hard it can be to get a fair trial when the media, especially the silly social media, decides they are experts on something they know nothing about. They are so good at doing that, after all.
Leave a CommentStructure and rules, fairly applied, hold our society together. They save us from chaos and injustice.
You can have structure and rules, but without fairness it doesn’t work. Just think Nazi Germany. You can have fairness, but without structure it fails. Woodstock may have been a few days of communal fun, but after a week or two the lack of organization (people crashing without paying, no food, etc.) it would have been an unbearable mess.
Leave a Comment
Don’t worry. This won’t be another rambler. I realize that last post was a bit tangential. There was a reason for taking that approach; it was an experiment in trying to get people to read it.
As Donald Trump knows well, sometimes making yourself a target of criticism is the best way to get them to pay attention to what you have to say.
And what I had to say last time is, to me at least, critically important. It has to do with understanding, and thus following, established procedures for doing things the right way when it came to bombing Syria.
Leave a CommentAll-righty then, another legal issue for us in this political nightmare we live in; one I feel that I can comment on in my goal to show how legal analysis comes up every day in regular life, even something as irregular as politics.
At least it’s not controversial or anything.
Leave a CommentFor the two or three people who read my blog, you may have noticed that I have been off the grid lately. If you…
Leave a CommentThe answer is simple: Maybe. It depends. Like everything else I write about. It depends on evidence, and a careful analysis of any problems with that evidence.
The bottom line is that rarely, if ever, is truth absolute.
Take the latest feud over something that seems so basic: Did more people attend Trump’s Inauguration than Obama’s?
Leave a CommentThis topic has been on my mind for months now, for obvious reasons.
Apparently Matt Lauer brought it to the forefront with his lame “interviews” of Trump and Clinton. I wouldn’t know. I can’t bear to watch this stuff any more.
I say “interview” in quotes because nobody who does what I do for a living is able to take what these clowns pretend to do seriously. They don’t “interview” anyone. They simply invite them to spew sound bites: in Clinton’s case, canned rehearsed pre-packaged focus group approved sound bites; in Trump’s case, more off-the-cuff riffs that he obviously literally makes up as he goes along.
Leave a CommentI’ve blogged about it a million times. At least it feels that way.
I have definitely lectured clients about it about a million times: lying to get out of trouble just winds up getting you into more and more trouble. Think Martha Stewart. Or, now, Ryan Lochte.
Leave a Comment
As usual, I have no idea. But I can guess.
Ryan Lochte was out with some of his other superstar swim team members for a night on the town after completing his grueling week in the water, winning medals and flashing his winning smile all over TV’s around the world. Not to mention the years and years of hard core constant exhausting training he went through to get there in the first place. Now he was finished… for now. Can anyone find it horrible or surprising that he might be out blowing off some steam with his teammates?
Leave a Comment
