And Justice For All... unless we decide not to.

I remember studying abroad in Europe during law school to study International Law (ok, and also maybe just to have an excuse to travel Greece, Italy and Spain, instead of accepting an unpaid summer internship) and realizing, for the first time, just how rare our American justice system is. Very few countries employ a jury system, and the American jury system is particularly unique. Even countries such as Israel have no jury system whatsoever.

I remember, after our professor explained the intricate systems of some Western European systems, he posed what should be a simple question:
"Why are juries better?"

While almost all of my classmates agreed that we were, without question, a part of the best legal system in the world, it was difficult for most to articulate exactly why that was. Maybe it's a bit of ethnocentricity - a sort of blind love of the only country we know - but something about the jury system just seems so right. And, I can honestly say (cheesy as it is), every time I see a jury sworn in, I get a little teary-eyed. There is just something fundamentally, well... cool... about 7 random people becoming a part of the justice system. It seems like the best example of democracy I can think of in practice here in the United States.

Ok, so... my point: why is everyone so upset about alleged terrorists being tried in federal (civilian) courts, and why is Obama teetering on breaking the promise to give them a fair trial? A little history (and you can check my research): Reagan (the regaled Conservative president - who, by the way, is slated by some to be the new face of the $50 bill) was the first President to try alleged terrorists in civilian courts. Even George W Bush (a man whose opinions/actions I would rarely cite as evidence of the right move, but nonetheless..) publicly supported this during his term. Shoe bomber Richard Reid was convicted in civilian courts in 2002 and 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006. Both are not only currently serving life sentences for their crimes, but the world as we know it did not collapse as a result of their fair chance at justice.

Federal courts, where I believe these alleged terrorists should be tried, are the same courts where all alleged criminals face prosecution in our country, according to the Constitution (oh yeh, remember THAT thing?). Military commissions not only offer a sort of second-class justice, but also aren't incredibly effective in a case like this. First of all, a military commission has never been used to prosecute a murder, much less a complicated terrorism case. Also, since 9/11, they have only achieved three convictions. Two of those convictions resulted in sentences of less than one year (and we are talking ex-Guantanamo residents here). Because I assume the average proponent of a military commission in these cases would like to see these men hanged before they are even given a trial, I'd say they must not know the facts.

Aside from all practical matters, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CONSTITUTION? I realize that there are people so enraged by recent terrorist attacks and threats (beginning with 9/11 - and rightfully so) that they believe these people aren't entitled to trials, or to any of the rights of an American, and we should gas them and be done with it, trial or not. This reminds me of Singapore.

Let me explain... my mother is traveling a lot for her new job and will soon have to go to Singapore. She is terrified, and you might understand. For many, the word "Singapore" conjures up images of whips and lashes for so much as a cough in the wrong place. My mom said a colleague told her it is illegal to chew gum there and the offense is, I'm sure, harshly punished.

Or, what about Amanda Knox? The American college student was studying in what we probably all consider to be a slightly more "civilized" country than Singapore, yet there have been several complaints about the justice she received. Was there enough evidence, and would it fly in an American court?

These examples could make even the most avid world-traveler a little leery of their next destination; it might also make us reflect, "Wow, glad I live in America..." But why? If we also take the position that if the crime serious enough and the accused foreign enough, that all of our guaranteed rights are simply empty promises, what makes US any better???

I have been thinking of this a lot lately, not only because the ACLU (an organization I greatly respect) has publicly compared Obama to "Dubya" for his backpedaling to military commissions (quite an accusation, I'd say), but because of the recent Liz Cheney ads. If you haven't seen them, you should YouTube it. She is referring to the lawyers who have been hired to represent the accused terrorists; professionals who she has dubbed "The Al Qaeda Seven". The ad shows outlines of people, presumably these unknown lawyers, with photos of known terrorist leaders in the background and some line that asks where their loyalties, as American citizens, stand.

Obviously this advertisement upsets me as a criminal defense attorney, but also as an American. The thought that we should question the loyalties, the patriotism, of lawyers who are representing the Constitution is really sickening. Not that I should be surprised - at this point in my career, I represent mostly minor "criminals" - prostitutes, drug addicts, really bad drivers... and I face the same interrogation at every cocktail party: "How can you represent those people?" I can't imagine what it would be like to represent people who have alleged connections to 9/11. For this, I will refer you to the Constitution - something I'm proud to uphold every day. And, remember - when a "criminal" is released "on a technicality", it is the State, the PROSECUTION, the POLICE, who messed something up. Not me.

And, finally, one last amusing personal connection to this story. Apparently people in NYC are up in arms that these trials are supposed to take place in their great city. Apparently there are security concerns. Apparently people think there is a great likelihood that these people will escape and, I don't know, blow something up. Forget the fact that these people don't work alone, that they probably aren't capable of much on their own that would cause anyone in NYC any immediate danger. Forget the fact that they would be so high max security in FEDERAL prison, forget the fact that it has never happened before... And think about the local (in Osceola Cty Florida) gang leader who recently escaped a county facility, under maximum supervision, by digging a tunnel for days, unnoticed. Quite frankly, I have a much bigger problem with the possibility of a violent and armed GANG LEADER loose in my neighborhood than a would-be suicide bomber.

*Off soap box*

The Landlord Pays... sort of.

When I do posts about work, a lot of times I have to be careful about how much information I reveal, whose names I use, etc. However, today, I have a legal story (non-work-related), and the goal is absolutely to forego anonymity for the subject of the story.

As some of you know, I have been suing my landlord. I moved out in October and he never returned my security deposit ($900, not counting a "non-refundable" $325 pet deposit), and never gave me any kind of notice about what he planned to take for damages/etc. In Florida, a landlord has 30 days to do that, or they forfeit any right to your security deposit. So, if it's been 30 days and you haven't heard from a landlord, you could basically smear poop on the walls and it wouldnt even matter (but please dont take that as official legal advice).

Anywho, the guy ignores a million emails/calls/texts. Naturally, I start feeling all litigous and get counsel (who happens to be a friend of mine, who does it for free).

Months go by of sternly-worded letters from my attorney, subpoenas for court, and I never hear a WORD. Then, suddenly, the day before court, I guess the guy realized he was going to have to cancel his spa appointment and just went apeshit. I was happy to, for once, refer him to my attorney, to whom he offered $400. Seriously. (By the way, had this gone to court, he had no defense, and would have had a judgment against him of more than $2000, with interest).

So, the guy decides my lawyer is rude (when he finally met him, he "warned" him that he better watch who he is rude to or he might get hurt... seriously?), he "decides" he "wont" deal with him, and begins to stalk me. Delusional.

For example, I get the following text:
"Lori, let's be real here. Everything was smooth up until this microwave issue and the attorney came into the picture. He obviously will tell you not to discuss this with me. He wants his money too. I have to pay 400 to get the microwave fixed AND pay you back the deposit. If we settle for 1100 that is more than fair. Can we settle on that and be done with it?"

I, naturally, ignored this text, and the 400 that preceded/followed it, but I'd like to point out why it's my favorite. First of all, the idea that this was all "smooth" before is hilarious. I retained a lawyer BECAUSE it was not smooth. In fact, I'd say it was quite rough on me. But, I bet it was pretty smooth for him since he, you know, ignored me for months without consequence and all. Secondly, he is trying to play Mr. Nice Guy. Like, big bad lawyer is screwing this for us. Ok, first of all... I'm a lawyer, soooo doesnt help to suggest that they are money-grubbing assholes (truth aside). And, also... I told my lawyer I didnt want to talk to you, because you annoy me. That was not his advice. And, finally... 1100 was not fair, considering he was in no bargaining position and I fail to believe that the small dent I accidentally made in a microwave (tip: don't microwave metal) really cost $400.

So, finally he caves... and, mind you, that is to my incredibly reasonable offer of $800 for me and $500 for my lawyer. Then he has the audacity to ask for a payment plan. Seriously. Says he can't come up with any money for two weeks. This brings us to another issue: the law requires a landlord to keep your security deposit in a separate bank account. Clearly he spent mine on designer jeans (he's a pharm sales dude, you know the type). So, again: FAIL.

Anyway, the story has a relatively happy ending. I got my check (shockingly he came up with the cash the night before court anyway) and he didn't get screwed in court. I felt this was my good deed, so, to balance that out, I'd like to make an announcement:

NEVER EVER RENT FROM ANDREW HUFF. HE WILL SPEND YOUR DEPOSIT AND THEN NEVER GIVE IT BACK (maybe, he did it to me).

xoxo --

Jake+Vienna = LOVE 4EVA

Ok, so that was either the cheesiest episode of The Bachelor of all time ("next time, on the CHEESIEST episode of The Bachelor EVER"), or I'm just finally reaching my limit. I think what really did it in was that horrific song accompanied by the borderline pornographic Jake/Vienna montage, followed by the dude (who IS that) showing up in person on After the Rose while they danced. G-A-G.

But, let's backtrack. I seem to be the only person in America who is proud of Jake for picking Vienna, so I thought I'd share my revolutionary thoughts. As a reality tv connoisseur, I am familiar with the "villain" that appears every season (think Wes of Bachelorette fame), and always makes it far enough to make things interesting. Vienna was definitely slated to play that part this year (unless you count Roslyn, who would have made a far more effective villain for the finale - I totally would have cheered against that bitch), but I dont think she was the typical choice.

In the past, they've really given us someone to hate. Maybe it's through editing (although I fail to see how that is entirely true), but the status quo is generally the very good-looking guy/girl who has some motive for being there, and it is never the "journey of love" (to steal a little cheese from Jakey-poo). The women are aspiring models/actresses, and last time we had Wes and his godawful music career. And, although always transparent to the savvy viewer, the poor bachelor/bachelorette can never quite see what's going on (until right up to the end, when they generally make the "right" choice).

First of all, Vienna is not hot. She is probably the least hot contestant from the entire season (although, I will admit she looked nice on the finale). Let's be frank: she is cross-eyed and has the worst dye-job I've ever seen. This is a clear violation of Bachelor Villain Rule #1.

Also, she really had nothing to gain, besides maybe the self-confidence she finds from men (and, finally, she gets to replace that weird daddy engagement ring thingy!). I did read that she competed in every Hooters bikini contest for a period of years and always aspired - but didnt quite make it - to the Hooters calendar. But, let's be serious, even that girl knows she isn't going to be a legit model with what she's working with there.

So, I guess the first part is, I dont think Vienna is that bad. I mean, sure, she's a bit trailer, and she wasnt the most visually appealing contestant, but what happened to cheering for the underdog? Vienna is like the Saints of the Bachelor!

However, if my brother brought home some chick like Vienna, I would NOT be on board, so it's important to look at Jake and why HE needed a little Vienna in his life (and to stay far, far away from Tenley).

Jake is, in a word, LAME. He talks "values" and "journeys" and is probably the least sexual good-looking guy I've ever met (what? it's like I know him...). I mean if anyone saw him on The Bachelorette last season, they knew this would be a snooze-fest based on his weirdness with Jillian. He is a timeline guy - we've all met him. And he's also that guy that we all knew in high school who was strangely good-looking yet awkwardly asexual. The man has probably slept with two girls in his life (pre-Bachelor of course), so I was pretty proud of him for slutting it up this season (and while we're on that topic, any guesses as to who he really had sex with on the show??)... because I think he needed it. And this brings me closer to why he needs Vienna.

I mean, you had Tenley, whose Disney-princess voice pretty much sums up her wacko rainbows and carebears personality (annoying). She had to constantly talk about how she'd only been with one man and blablabla. Really? Personally, I think she should have learned her lesson from Corrie, who was "coincidentally" booted directly after her whole, virgin confession thing. Anyway, I guess she really believed Jake had integrity and everything, which is very sweet and all... but that girl just screamed baggage. And her life with Jake would have been a total snoozefest, JUST as I had predicted.

So, Jake went and surprised me. He pulled a classic dude move and went for the slut (although I'm sure she's a very nice slut), and there's something I appreciate about that. I mean, Mr. Perfect Enunciation went for the Hooters trailer girl... really? Why doesnt anyone else think this is AWESOME and is more redeeming of Jake than anything else???

On After the Rose, when Tenley was STILL obsessing about what Jake "meant" when he said they had no physical chemistry, I wanted Salt and Peppa to come out (instead of the old guy to sing the "theme song") to Talk About Sex, baby... to explain the situation.

Which, brings me to the other idiots in the world who actually wanted Tenley to be the Bachelorette? Come ON. Not only is she supremely annoying, everyone KNOWS you need a chick who will put out to be in that role, which is exactly where Aly comes in, for sure.

So, those are my feelings, and I'm now embarrassed that I've actually managed to write THIS much about this show. However, I'd like to end with another kudos to ABC: AWESOME job using Tenley and Jake's mutual "love" of dance (seriously? he sucked.) to transition right into his role on Dancing With the Stars. You can also catch Jillian (of Bachelorette fame) on Extreme Makeover: Home Edition (in case you didn't know, I'm serious).

You're Good at This - You should be an attorney

There are endless terms a client might use to distinguish a Public Defender from a private attorney. "I'm going to get a..." : "paid attorney", "real attorney", "barred attorney"... and many times, just "attorney", as if entirely discounting the possibility that I am an attorney too. Honestly, I'm used to this now and I rarely flinch at the terms. I hardly even bother to grumble anymore, "I'm an attorney too, sir..." The way I see it, for the most part, our clients are poor. The things the government gives them for free are rarely of quality or without strings/consequence. Why would the government (you know, the ones who arrested you in the first place) offer you a good defense, free of charge? The more savvy client will even point out that you are paid by the same entity that is trying to put him/her behind bars (the prosecutor).

What's been bothering me these days are these mysterious attorneys out there who give clients "advice" that they can only hope will lead to a retainer ($$$$). For example, "the State has nothing, this case will be dropped", "I will have you out of jail by the end of the week (not possible)", "I will file a Motion for Discovery, Motion for Acquittal, Motion for Victory.." You get my point. Of course, these stories must be taken with a grain of salt. Sometimes the client that relays these messages back to their PD (naturally, in an effort to demonstrate why you aren't doing the right thing), there could be a bit of "telephone syndrome" going on... meaning, that is NOT what the attorney said, or it is taken out of context (basically, they remembered the parts they wanted to hear). I have certainly had a client tell ME that I promised something that I didnt - but that's apparently what they heard. Then we have to allow for the fact that the "attorney" they are speaking to is a little bit less of a law school graduate, more Uncle Frank who always wanted to go to law school, or neighbor guy who took a class on criminal law in college.

But, after we allow for all of this, it's most important to focus on the actual attorneys out there doing this. A private attorney, especially in a one or two person firm (as many of the criminal law firms are) have to "hustle". My cases come to me (in droves) and they have to recruit theirs. So, it becomes more important I suppose to stand out from the rest of the faces in the Yellow Pages, maybe with a few little promises that the justice system would never allow you to keep. This does such a disservice to A-the impoverished uneducated client facing (sometimes) prison, who wants so badly to hear you promise it will be ok that he/she is willing to pay to hear you say it; and B - ME! and all public defenders, who, at the end of the day, still handle the case after the client went out to shop for advice they would later hold over your head.

Let's put it this way; I am never (ok, rarely) offended by a client who thinks I didnt graduate high school. I am always (ok, usually) offended by the private attorneys who throw PD's under the proverbial bus. Let's face it, we are the "competition" (even though we would struggle to see it that way; please, take some of my cases!)... and sometimes, you have to convince someone that there's a reason to leave the competition. But the fact is, most private attorneys practicing criminal law were PD's or prosecutors at some point...

This is all reminding me of why I'm glad I work where I do. That's what I'll blog about next...

My Inspiration

People always tell me to start a blog. I'd like to think it's a reflection of my charm and wit, but really, most people can't help but love (or be entertained by) the stories of the people and things I come across in my daily life.

I'm a Public Defender (also known as "public pretender") in Florida, so, basically, my job is like a tv show. In fact, I've promised my 3rd floor lunch group that I would chronicle our stories in some way so we could someday pitch them to a tv producer. So, sometimes I can't share all that I want (confidentiality and respect for the people I talk about), but I want to try my best to bring it all to you (and, in some way, get a little stress relief from the day in sharing).

To begin, I've started with my inspiration :

Today I was in court, surrounded by some of my female colleagues. The Judge was calling trial cases and we were waiting to see what would happen with our own clients for the day. Our conversation was probably some typical mix of pre-trial jitters and advice, and maybe a little bit of what was on tv last night. A silvery-haired dude, a lawyer of the "paid" variety, walks by with that air of superiority (Public Defender's are like lowest-of-low-scum-on-bottom-of-totem-pole, no matter how many times they ask our advice, and despite the fact that almost every criminal defense attorney started as one), and says:

"What is this, The View? All of the ladies have taken over the courtroom."

Now, we all decided within minutes that this was most likely his best attempt at a joke (or, even more pitiful, maybe even flirting???)... but this is offensive for many reasons.

1. I still DVR The View and watch it religiously.

2. Because I watch The View every day, I know that it is a total bitchfest and that several of the castmates are complete idiots.

3. The statement kind of begs the assumption that the courtroom is not a place for women, since we have to take it over and all.

So, I have decided to dedicate my blog to this. In a way, it's funny, because I love stupid reality tv and plan to talk about it a lot. I also plan to be really opinionated in a way that I can only hope will piss people off in the same way Elisabeth Hasselbeck can get me going. But, also, it is a constant reminder of my "place" in the courtroom. If it isn't a client who thinks I'm a pretend lawyer, then it's a good ol' boy who thinks it's appropriate to call me "little girl" in the courtroom (yes, it's happened).

Yes, that's right, I'm still complaining about a woman's place in the workplace. Prepare for feminist rant here. I've had male colleagues twice my age comment on how "cute" I am (while I am worrrrking, people), and I had a client ask me if I was another attorney's secretary when I told him I'd be covering his office conference.

My solution is to bitch, and this is my outlet. Welcome to the view....