There are some truly bad people, but really not very many.  Most are pretty ordinary people who, for one reason or another, do bad things sometimes.  Some get caught.  Some need to get caught. Some get punished but the bad things they do, even if they aren’t truly bad people.  That’s how it’s supposed to work.

There’s a blog called  Bad Lawyer about many subjects, but primarily about a lawyer who did something bad.  It’s about to go dormant for a while.  Until next April, at least.  That’s because it’s time for Bad Lawyer to do his time.  Five months in.

Over the past few months, I’ve come to get a feel for Bad Lawyer.  He tells his own story, as he’s the “criminal under his own hat.”

My professional conduct deviated from the standards of the ethical attorney in the maintenance of my IOLTA account;  and, in the reporting of income and payment of taxes.  I rationalized that I would be able to “catch-up and negotiate.”  This was delusional on my part.  I thought to myself that I was not stealing from my clients, I was just taking from my allocated attorney fees.  While technically true, the rules mean something–if in fact, I could not pay may bills, keep the phones turned on and pay the secretary without cheating then I really had no business holding myself out as being fit to practice law. 

As the secrets of my incapacity compounded I was sicker, and less able to practice.  After 15 years of sobriety I relapsed, seriously oblivious to the connections between my unethical and illegal conduct and sobriety.  I thought my relapse related to my father’s dying–I recognize now that my father’s dying and the crisis in my family was just an excuse to medicate my more profound disorganization and emotional disorders. I was sick.

I am in extreme emotional pain, and the desire to go early is my recognition that I am not spending these remaining moments of freedom with anything but the heaviest of hearts.  My poor kids.  I can’t imagine what it’s been like for them this last couple of years. 

I will miss my children the most.  Despite the day to day disappointments and gnashing of teeth that parenting teenagers presents–they are the best things that ever happened to me, and they would not be in my life but for the willfulness of the BSL who demanded that we go out and fetch them from the universe.  My children are pure joy, smart, fun, loving and beautiful.

From the folks who banned toys in Happy Meals, the steamroller is still on the move.  From the San Francisco Examiner :

A proposed ballot measure for the November 2011 ballot – when voters will be electing the San Francisco’s next mayor – would amend The City’s police code “to make it a misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicle or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18.”

Doing so would result in a fine of up to $1,000 and up to one year in jail, according to the proposed measure submitted to the Department of Elections.

“What are you in for?”

“Taking tips.”

Putting aside religious traditions, it’s not nearly as crazy as it appears at first.  Are we not outraged at genital mutilation of young girls?  Why, then, is the surgical removal of a male baby’s foreskin any different?

The bill’s leading proponent, San Francisco resident Lloyd Schofield, explains :

Your support will help us to protect ALL infants and children in San Francisco from the pain and harm caused by forced genital cutting.   Damage ranges from excruciating pain, nerve destruction, loss of normal, natural and functional tissue, infection, disfigurement and sometimes death.

Despite the absence of specific support for its claims, it’s hardly a stretch to believe that the removal of a foreskin from a penis is an unpleasant experience.  If someone was inclined to do that to a man in his, say, 30s, without his consent, they might have a fight on their hands.

I suspect that circumcision is the norm in the United States today, though I haven’t done a personal inspection to support my suspicion.  There are some health reasons proffered for this, as well as aesthetic expectations that have become routine.  But then, are they really of sufficient merit to withstand the challenge of inflicting such pain on an infant?

There’s significant doubt that this bill can pass, even in San Francisco.  For many, it just points to the insanity that’s gripped this crunchy city in its efforts to micromanage its own Utopian vision.  And certainly, the creation of a crime for something done by nearly every parent within an hours drive from a moyel could present a serious prison over-crowding problem.  Would they build a bris wing?

But in the scheme of wild ideas for new crimes and a painless society, the rationale behind this one is far better than the elimination of toys from Happy Meals.  Thinking hard, why is circumcision of a male infant different than clitoral circumcision of a female baby?  We would take up arms to prevent this atrocity from happening to girls, but hand over our boys willingly?  Because that’s simply what we do?

Of course, even if these Frisco outliers were to ban it, I would be due a religious exemption.  No descendent of mine will escape the lesson of conformity on his eighth day of life. 

When such venerable and trusted institutions as the Better Business Bureau is revealed as a scam, selling an A rating for $395 (slightly more if you’re a terrorist group), you have to wonder just how empty are the claims that the internet serves the public interest by providing access to information at the click of a mouse.

As Ken at  Popehat subtly put it:

The internet is the world’s biggest shitty argument by authority. Kids try to source Wikipedia for their term papers. Politicians cite things their aides saw on sites with seizure-inducing crazy-man graphics. Snarky, self-satisfied bloggers act as if a hyperlink settles a point.

One would think, given the wealth of bad news that tends to appear here, on the telly, in the newspaper, that criminals never take a holiday.  Police, therefore, are constantly on guard to protect and serve, or at least have their guns at the ready to shoot the violent perps.  The truth is otherwise.  Via NY1 :

The New York City Police Department says 2009 saw the lowest number of police-involved shootings and shots fired since record keeping began in 1971.

There were 105 shootings and 296 shots fired last year, with only 68 of the nearly 35,000-member force intentionally discharging their weapon.

New York City is a big place, which is why it has more cops than some small cities elsewhere.  Yet fewer than 300 shots fired by fewer than 70 officers.  Quick, honey, sell the Smith & Wesson stock.  But it’s not just shots first by cops, but shots fired at cops.

Officers are also safer on the street, as 2009 was the first time an officer was not shot by a suspect.

The first rule of policing, as I’ve explained many times, is get home for dinner.  What?  Did you think it would something heroic and inspirational?  Well, it is, just not to you.  Foremost in a police officer’s mind as he straps on his gun is to make it through his shift unharmed.  Be reasonable.  It’s a job, not something to die for.  He’s got a wife and kids.  She’s got a husband and kids.  Not even a pension and gold shield will make up for leaving your children parentless.  Get home for dinner is a very good rule.

And it appears they are, indeed, getting home for dinner, provided they don’t crash the cruiser into a wall or shoot themselves.  Accidental discharges aren’t covered.  It’s unclear whether drunken, sex-crazed attacks are included, and with a 35,000 person force of both men and women, that sort of thing can happen.

But the concern is that a simple car stop will result in a driver pulling a gun and discharging it into the chest of an unsuspecting officer, whose hands are busy with a summons book and whose mind isn’t focused on the potential that any person, every person, could be the last she potentially sees.

What are the implications of this bullet dearth?

The NYPD says analysis has altered the way officers assess the need to fire weapons, with restraint becoming more of the norm.

If I had to guess at the meaning of this sentence, it would be that irrational or knee-jerk fear has abated, making cops less inclined to feel threatened.  But that’s not quite the message it sends.  Rather, it tells me that in the past, police were fear driven when assessing the propriety of shooting people. 

With the first rule of policing firmly in mind, they were more inclined to shoot first and think later.  It would take some quick thinking and a facile tongue to make sense of it later when questioned for public consumption, but the actions of police officer were swift and clear:  Shoot first and come up with excuses later.

And it’s not just cops.  According to the Wall Street Journal, the murder rate in New York City for 2009 was 471,   In contrast, the murder rate in 1990 was 2,245.  Those were heady days for criminal defense lawyers, by the way, as that number reflected a healthy, vibrant drug trade, which was great for business.  While the murder rate is up this year, currently at 464 with the holiday season ahead of us, always good for some familial disputes, it will still reflect a remarkably low historical rate.

While the lack of shots fired should bring comfort, its implications are less clear.  A kinder, gentler police force would certainly go a long way toward normalizing relations between police and citizens, perhaps easing the tensions that give rise to authoritarian impulses by those with guns and shield. 

On the other hand, it may also serve to bolster their sense of authority, reducing their fear that the person they challenge, question, even occasionally shove off a bicycle, will have the wherewithal to respond with force.  There being little evidence that police have become more finely attuned to civil rights, the lack of a sense of threat from the public may serve to embolden them to do as they will with us.

No one wants to see anyone hurt, police officers included.  But a little bit of fear, just a little, might help to remind cops that disrespectful behavior could have negative consequences.  Fearlessness could produce a cadre of armed men and women who believe they are empowered to do anything they want.  And they still want us to obey their authority.

I can’t explain quite why this struck me today, but David Drumm, one of Turley’s new elves, posted this song, the Kink’s Well Respected Man from 1965,   It struck me that this was something that others who may not have been around in ’65 might want to hear.

Chandler, Arizona criminal defense lawyer Matt Brown is one of those young lawyers whose epiphanies restores my faith that the next generation isn’t just Slackoisie, but has some great people who will do the heavy lifting demanded of us.  Matt posts about the “differences” amongst criminal defense lawyers, something that most either deny or refuse to see.

It’s strange to look at someone who’s doing something so vastly different from what I do and realize that to almost everyone outside of our narrow little field, we’re the same. Really smart people hire terrible, high-volume lawyers for their criminal cases. The difference between a lawyer who personally works every aspect of your case and a lawyer who farms your case out to an associate carrying a caseload that would make a misdemeanor prosecutor blush isn’t that clear to most people. A lawyer is a lawyer. A person whose career seems as foreign to me as a day-trader or a sales rep looks an awful lot like me to many people.

What does it feel like to stroll into court late and yell your client’s name to the gallery hoping someone responds? How does it feel telling a client the fee she’s paying you is for someone else to do the work? I guess people who do that don’t say they do that, so scratch that question. What is it like to not know the names of your clients and be able to talk to them about the things that matter to them? I don’t really care to know. An acquittal doesn’t mean an awful lot if you don’t know what your client’s going home to. The flip side I guess is that a guilty verdict doesn’t sting as much if you have no clue what your client’s losing.

What’s really significant about Matt’s post is that he connects dots that most of his contemporaries can’t or won’t.  There is a “feel-good” mantra around those criminal defense lawyers who engage in social media that we’re all on the same team, we’re all part of the same club.  We should be kind to each other, support each other.  We should write positive blog posts about each other. We should follow each other on twitter.  Isn’t that what we’re all here to do?

Sadly, no.  We’re not all on the same team.  We may all call ourselves criminal defense lawyers, but our teams are vastly different. 

Most of the criminal defense lawyers online appear to be caring, aggressive and smart.  We know because they tell us so.  They assert their self-assessment and challenge others to disagree.  Others are to accept their self-assessment and embrace them as one of the gang.  One big happy family of wonderful caring, aggressive and smart criminal defense lawyers. 

But as Matt notes, there are CDLs who don’t care, who provide terrible representation and who suck.  We all know them in real life.  We see them in court.  We hear them as they yell out the names of clients they’ve never met to plead them guilty to crimes they don’t understand.  These are bad criminal defense lawyers.

Isn’t it wonderful that none of these have ever touched a computer?

But they have, of course.  They promote themselves in websites and blogs.  They talk tough and sound like great lawyers.  Their self-assessment is that they are great lawyers.  They persuade clients that they are great lawyers, and that the clients should retain them.  They take the client’s money, far less than another lawyer would charge the client.  But to the client, both are great lawyers because they say so.  If you have a choice between two great lawyers, and one charges a fraction of what the other charges, who would you use?

The lawyers with their names on the side of a bus probably don’t share my philosophy on goals. The goal for them is clearly money. Many lawyers feel that way. That’s why salespeople regularly contact my office suggesting unethical fee-splitting agreements. I wouldn’t have to spend hours each week playing ethics whack-a-mole with my email inbox if desperate lawyers weren’t buying into all of the SEO and illegal referral scams disbarred lawyers keep forcing down our throats.

We’re not all in this together.  Some are in it for the money.  Some just don’t care.  Some don’t have the skills or desire to gain the skills.  Some will never have the skills no matter how strong their desire to acquire them.  Some are more dangerous to our clients than the prosecution or the cops.

And we are all on the internet.  And we all look superficially alike on the internet.  It’s easy to do, and all the others on the internet searching for the embrace of others will squint their eyes and pretend that we’re all part of the same gang. 

Matt softly notes the most disheartening thing about this lesson, that the lawyers who suck don’t realize they suck.  They don’t see what they do as purely mercenary, or inept, or scummy.  They believe that they are good people and good lawyers, who rationalize the poverty of their representation.  They not only want to be part of the gang, but sincerely believe they deserve to be.  That’s their self-assessment.

We are not all in this together.  Some are and some aren’t, but being a criminal defense lawyer isn’t enough. 

Marketing advocates argue that the internet levels the playing field, allowing solos to promote themselves like big firms, providing a benefit to the public by letting them know they exist and offering a means to find them.  Of course, the same is true of incompetent, lying, scum, which never seems to register with marketing advocates. 

The difference seems to be, based on my limited experience on the internet, that the incompetent, lying, scum turn to marketing and self-promotion earlier and harder than good lawyers because they need to.  And when their promotional niche fills up, they turn uglier and ever more deceptive to stand out to the public. 

Matt Brown has his eyes open and sees the differences.  Most of the criminal defense lawyers online, and especially those who populate twitter, following each other to twit their deepest criminal defense thoughts, love and support, are too blind, naive or foolish to see the dark side of these difference.  And they don’t see them in themselves as well as others. 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.  Matt Brown is a very impressive young criminal defense lawyer. 

Despite all the argument and examples, few who haven’t been personally touched by the tragedy of the American criminal justice system care that it fails to meet its promise of “justice for all.”  I suspect that’s because few are touched by the system, seeing it as misfortune from afar, providing greater benefit to their lives than detriment.  It’s easier to overlook problems when they aren’t yours.

The Transportation Safety Administration, however, may have found a way to touch people who thought they were untouchable.  The TSA may accomplish what so many others before it have failed, because the TSA touches the lives of so many.  Rich or poor, powerful or weak, law-abiding or criminal, young or old; if you fly, they will touch you.

Years ago, I sat as arbitrator for a physician doing her residency in Manhattan who was traveling to her homeland in Palestine with her two young children.  She planned to fly El Al,  The airline had other plans.  She was stopped, separated from her two young children and detained.  She was frantic about her kids while she was forcibly held.  The only reason for El Al personnel to do this was that she was Palestinian.  They tried to wrap it up in fine rhetoric, but they simply profiled her and detained her.  Better safe than sorry. 

Although I’m Jewish, and some might suppose I have a bias against Palestinians, I was outraged at this woman’s treatment.  Forget about the award (I gave her everything she asked for, which was insufficient).  I told the El Al representative that this is America.  We don’t behave this way in America.  We don’t seize people, separate them from their children, just because we have the power to do so.  That if anyone should understand why unilateral fiat, might makes right, is wrong, it should be a Jew.  I told her that I was ashamed by El Al’s disgraceful conduct.

A few years before, I represented a person who worked as a security agent at JFK Airport.  This was shortly after the 1994 World Trade Center bombing, and before there was a TSA.  I asked her, half jokingly, what she would do if she found a bomb.  She told me she would run like hell the other way.  They didn’t pay her enough to die for the job.  She had no education, and it was a good job, better than the others she was qualified to do.  But it was just a job.

Many around the blawgosphere have been writing about the TSA since the new security screenings have gone into effect.  Some to describe them. Some to complain about them. Some to note the things that are  terribly wrong  about them.  No one cared about the Palestinian medical resident, other than her and me.  People are now beginning to care because it’s touching them.

This coming week, I will be traveling to Milwaukee with my son, who will be fencing in the North American Cup competition.  We travel with an expensive hardcase to protect his weapons.  The manufacturer of the case guarantees replacement of the clasps, specially made to allow TSA access, if broken.  Even though they are specially made for TSA inspection, they are regularly broken.

I have prepared a sign that I place inside the case asking very nicely that TSA agents recognize that the epees within are finely honed sporting equipment, and begging them to be careful, not to play with the weapons and to replace them in the case as they were originally packed.  When we arrive at competitions, the weapons are always damaged.

Our primary goal is to arrive at the competition with the weapons.  We hope to be relatively on time.  I always arrange for direct flights, for fear that the weapons will be lost.  I always plan for enough time to repair the damaged weapons, because the weapons always need repair after the TSA touches them.  One time, the interior of the case was filled with sticky, brown, cola residue that caused substantial damage.  Someone had spilled their soda into the case. 

There’s no one to speak to about this.  There’s nothing to be done.  It all happens out of sight by a person unseen.  We’re left to clean up the mess afterward, cursing but without anyone to hear.  As Ken at  Popehat posts, a former TSA screener  expresses her view of the situation:

Flying is a privilege not a right. As such, it can be and is regulated. Requirements can and are set up to ensure that everyone who flies is safe. If you don’t like it, then don’t fly. You may not be as concerned as the next guy about the safety or you may be more concerned. Point is the job of TSA is to ensure the entire traveling public is safe not just you. TSA officers don’t care what you as an individual want, they can’t, it just isn’t possible. You may be ok with lax security but what about the next passenger who wants thorough security?

Your right to privacy isn’t being violated at all. You always have the option to drive a car, take a train, grab the bus or start rowing a boat. You do not have to fly, you just want to fly. The minute you decide you want to fly then you have to accept that security is involved and you are going to have consent and submit to it period the end.

. . . .

Now if you want to fly, suck it up and accept that you have to submit to the security procedures. Yes you think they are stupid or unnecessary but TSA officers and TSA don’t care what you think. They try to make it all warm and fuzzy but they can’t because it is security not a trip to Disney World. Shut up and get in the scanner or don’t fly.

When  last we discussed Bruce Karatz, former CEO of KB Homes who was facing either probation or 6.5 years in prison, according to whose calculator you used, the question of what would become of Karatz had yet to be determined.  Judge Otis D. Wright II has fixed that.

Karatz was sentenced, as recommended by the probation officer, to five years probation with 8 months of home detention at his “24 room Bel-Air mansion.”  We know this because it was specifically pointed out by the government in its sentencing memorandum, which Judge Wright called, “mean-spirited and beneath this office.” 

“To promote respect for the law, the public must be assured that a wealthy, well-connected individual, regardless of his station, array of prominent friends and associates, history of private success or acts of public largess, will be subject to the same standard of criminal justice as those less fortunate,” prosecutors wrote.

Judge Wright did not appreciate the government’s take on things.

“But what was even more disturbing was the inflammatory language in the government’s report that if this court did not impose a harsh sentence that it was evidence of a two-tiered justice system, one of the rich and one for everyone else,” the judge said. “To invite public ridicule and scorn on this institution, I think, is unspeakable.”

Unspeakable though it may be, Judge Wright spoke it.  Loud and clear.  But if the court’s expression of its views up to this point remain somewhat, shall we say, obtuse, then consider this:

“I don’t care, sir, whether or not you have a pot to piss in,” Judge Wright said to Mr. Karatz. “What you get here is fairness.”

Now there’s something to carve into the marble pillars above the courthouse door.  And I have nothing further to say.

There was no doubt upon reading  Eugene’s post that it was a decision that warranted further discussion.  Seriously, a prosecutor pulling a birthday cake out of a bag during summation, complete with 8 candles to mark the birthday the deceased victim would never see.  It doesn’t get any more bizarre.

But before I could get off the phone and churn it out, along came Gideon at  A Public Defender  with a great post on the same case.   The stress point is that this frosted bit of outrageous drama is deemed waived on appeal because defense counsel neglected to object.  Post hoc, of course, defendant counsel (and I leave you to read Gid’s version to know where he places himself in the top 10 best criminal defense lawyers in the whole, wide, entire State of Georgia, claims the decision was “strategic,” as he didn’t want to draw additional attention to the cake.

Right.  Because there was a good chance that the jury wouldn’t otherwise notice a lit birthday cake for a dead child pulled out a bag during summation.

Apparently, neither integrity, honest nor zealous representation are part of the criteria for making that list of the best lawyers ever.  Then again, as long as lawyers are allowed to proclaim themselves the bestest ever, the criteria will remain a perpetual mystery.

But I already give away too much, since there no point in my writing about it when Gid’s already done the work for me.  As the title says, piece of cake.

In an almost surreal post at The Faculty Lounge, where law professors hang out to discuss deep, scholarly thoughts, the sort of stuff that they assume would only interest fellow academics, Drexel’s own Dan Filler ponders the age-old question, “is it ethical to let lawyers spam their comments just to get comments at all?”

Bloggers always see lots of spam in the comments – particularly in the older posts.  These days, we see a ton of comments signed by (presumably faux) Air Jordan, Uggs, and Viagra sellers.  The signature is attached to a link to a commercial site apparently seeking to drive up traffic via the Google algorithm.  When I feel the energy, I clean a ton of them out….but too often they live forever in our archives.  

Recently I noticed some  spam-like comments originating from law firms.    Perhaps too quickly, I erased some of them.

Ever generous, you will no doubt notice the parenthetical, presumably faux, because there are many people with the given name Uggs and Viagra.  Sadly, there may well be a few with the name Air Jordan, though they usually post comments under the name “Truth Speaker” or “John David Galt.”  But I digress.

Filler goes on to note, as examples, comments to a post about lawyers as presidential candidates, including one by the Rosenblum divorce firm about candidates writing books, completely off-topic, and this one:

Tobler Law – aka Tobler & Associates (your accident and injury team) – adds:

Thanks for the post! I had no idea there were so many lawyers as past presidents – I knew about Lincoln and Taft, but the rest I was clueless on.

I too was thrown by the clueless part, since it’s clearly truthful.  Yet Filler had questions.

Now, I recognize that this might not be spam.  Perhaps someone from Tobler was researching this question about lawyer presidents, came upon a two and half year old post,  was stunned to realize that Richard Nixon (to say nothing of Bill Clinton) was a lawyer, and felt compelled to comment.  Maybe Mr. Rosenblum thought this was the perfect setting to pontificate about the use of books as a campaign fund-raising tool.  But call me a skeptic.  I think that these folks are spamming to drive up their Google profile.

Skeptic.  As a lawprof, Filler should know as well as anyone how stupid trench lawyers can be, offering such foolish and tangential comments in their effort to show their interest and appreciation for scholarly blogging.  And yet Filler, rather than appreciate the outside interest, questions the bona fides of the comment.  Skeptic indeed.

Such heady concerns, raising the obvious question of how long it will take before this post is expanded and expounded to find its rightful place in the Harvard Law Review, earning Filler the admiration of his peers he so richly deserves.  Filler goes on to ask the really hard questions:

Is it ethical for lawyers to do this?  Is the strategic production of spam comments a form of advertising?  If so, is it in compliance with advertising regulations?  Are there other restrictions that might make such spurious comments improper?  Does it make the profession look bad?

What boggles the mind is that these tough questions reflect near-total isolation from what has long been a subject of discussion nearly everywhere else in the blawgosphere.  Is there any question whatsoever that this is spam?  Is there any doubt that the idiotic comments were posted for the sole purpose of gaining SEO juice?  Is it conceivable that even a lawprof would find it difficult to recognize that it makes the “profession” look like crap?

Well, apparently the answer to these “yes,” as reflected in the comments to Filler’s post.

Yes, I was a bit puzzled about those two comments, but (vainly, perhaps) chose to believe that they were just associates who were drawn to my brilliant post like moths to a flame…

The foregoing apologia was offered by Willamette Lawprof Laura Appleman, whose Yale JD obviously didn’t do enough to clue her in.

Then there’s the ironic thoughts of personal injury lawyer, Ron Miller,

I tend to publish all of these types of comments. Sure, they might be a little spammy but having commenters is good and while not particularly insightful, these somewhat hallow comments still add something to the conversation.

Ole Miss lawprof  Ben Cooper doesn’t see them as advertising, to which ethics lawprof  John Steele responds:

Ben,

Just for the sake of argument, let me offer a weak argument that some spam is misleading. When the spam comment is generic, off-point, and solely for the purpose of jacking up search engine results, is the comment at least insincere and therefor “misleading”?

To which Cooper replies that Steele’s is about the best argument one could make against “spam comments,” implicitly endorsing the ethics of spammers.  And naturally, rounding out the comments at the bottom is a spam comment, though not from a lawyer.

Sadly, this bit of silliness at the Faculty Lounge reflects two deeply troubling problems, that lawprofs allow, and thus encourage, the spam that the rest of us have been fighting to kill.  See Turk, the  Popehat guys, Carolyn Elefant,  Bennett and Tannebaum, all of whom have gone to great lengths in their effort to clean up the never-ending opportunity for scum to embarrass the profession.  All the while, lawprofs invite them in for dinner.  Thanks for all your help, pals.

More importantly, trench lawyers have long been concerned that the academic blawgosphere and practical blawgosphere rarely intersect.  While some of us, myself included, keep abreast of the lawprof blawgs, the fear is that they ignore real lawyers in favor on insularity and isolation.  This is a significant problem, given that law schools are already far behind the curve when it comes to providing a useful education to students and lawprofs chose to ignore the ideas and concerns of real lawyers in favor of chatting amongst themselves.

This is one of those posts which proves the point beyond a reasonable doubt.  For crying out loud, would it kill you guys to pay just a little attention to real lawyers?  Maybe then you wouldn’t have to ponder such ridiculous thoughts.