Handicapping the Presidential Election

Gambling is illegal in this country, except where it's legal, like Nevada, Atlantic City, some Indian reservations, on barges in many cities, and arguably in "private home games". Also legal is horse racing, dog racing, jai-alai and other "pari-mutuel" forms of betting (I know WAY too much about this, and if anyone wants an explanation of pari-mutuel betting, post a comment and I will explain). Also legal in some States is poker, though internet poker is "illegal" (yet somehow I may be playing later tonight). Sports betting is only legal in Nevada, though billions of dollars is bet illegally on all sports. Ever wonder what those baseball odds in the paper are all about? (Yeah....I know about that too). Lotteries seem to be everywhere, too.

In this country, you can't bet the Presidential election legally, but there ARE places where you can. I Googled "Odds on Presidential Candidates" and got this cool site

http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election-2008/to-be-elected-president/best-odds/

Check it out....you won't be arrested.
It made me think, Polls Shmolls, this is where the action is.
I will list the odds as this site states them, with some comments:

1. Hillary Clinton 2-1 knew she'd be the chalk, these are "best" odds, some books have her at even money or less. No filly has ever won the big one, but Bill can really ride.
2. Barack Obama 5-1 does he have a better chance than Rudy? I don't see it. I may use him in an exacta with Hillary.
3. Fred Thompson 6-1 Who??? Rudy is in trouble if this guy is a lower price. First time politicians rarely can get around two turns.
4. Rudy Giuliani 8-1 Not a bad price. Might have beaten Hillary for Senator but came up lame. Breeding a question mark.
5. Al Gore 12-1 Could emerge if Hillary stumbles. Shoulda taken the prize back when.
6. Mitt Romney 14-1 Couldn't pick him out of a lineup. Is he a Mormon? Big Love is my favorite show.
7. John Edwards 20-1 Big overlay. All or nothing, won't take second seat.
8. John McCain 25-1 Can you picture it happening? I can't.
9. Michael Bloomberg 40-1 Awesome mayor, incorruptable, strictly business. Could affect race and would likely hurt Hillary. Pbly will scratch.
10. Evan Bayh 50-1 Not this time.

There are other longshots listed....Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Newt Gingrich, Bill Richardson, John Kerry. I wonder if you could bet the "Field" of others, that would probably be about 25-1 right now.

Who do you like?

Wills and the Dysfunctional Family

Sometimes family members feud.
Sometimes its irreparable (in the eyes of the participants.....I would always beg to differ, but that's another story).
Sometimes thoughts of mortality and money will lead a person to take action.

So they make a will....with one main purpose.....to make sure that " X " doesn't get anything. Sometimes there are related purposes, to make sure that " X " gets the message, or knows what he missed out on, but the theme is often the same......." X " gets nothing.

I've done a lot of wills like this. In these situations, one thing you don't want is a will contest in the future. Sometimes the main problem the will-maker has with " X " is "he's the kind of person who would contest a will". The solution to this is something we learned in law school, which students think would never come up, but in practice is does, it's called an "in terrorem clause". Sounds pretty cool.....here's how it works. You leave " X " enough of a bequest to make it interesting, and add a clause that says effectively "If after my death ' X ' takes ANY steps to contest this will, he will get ZERO". People who are so inclined seem to love this suggestion, but some real thought has to go into it. To make it effective, you actually have to leave " X " something in the Will. Clients in this situation will invariably say "So leave him $10"....but this is not the way to do it, because " X " would have nothing to lose. A better approach would be to leave " X " a bequest of say, $15,000 or $25,000, in a million dollar estate, and let him deal with it.

Sometimes people don't want to do an in terrorem clause, but they do want to leave " X " nothing, and they want to minimize " X "'s chances in a will contest. One thing I always do, if someone is being left out, is specifically refer to them. It can be as simple as "I intentionally make no provision in this Will for X, and this is not due to an oversight". Some people go further and say something more....."I leave X zero because he .....whatever." Another one I have had, more than once, is "I leave nothing to X, for reasons which are well known to him." I didn't like it, but the clients wanted it and I did it. I always wondered if X really knew the reasons.

If there are any potential issues regarding the will-makers competancy, steps must also be taken to ensure the Will will stand. This would include using the best witnesses possible, keeping the language of the will as simple as possible, keeping detailed notes, and making sure you can document that you (attorney/draftsman) met with the will-maker ALONE.

There are legal provisions for video-taping a Will, but I have never done it. It surely is done, but I suspect not that often, and I can see many reasons not to.

Why all the fuss about possible will contests? Consider this.....an attorney can take a will contest on a contingency fee. There are often high stakes, where the will beneficiaries may get nothing (or much less) if the Will gets tossed. When Will contest cases first appear in Court, the first thing the Judge will usually say is...."any way to work this out?"......and eventually, there usually is.

Filing a Will for Safekeeping

Questions sometimes arise about where to keep a Will, and who to tell about a Will. In a perfect world, where families are close and people communicate openly, this would not be an issue. The person who makes a will should discuss it with his trusted family members and tell them where the will is, confident in the knowlege that when the time comes, the will will be found and its terms carried out. There are times when it's not that way, and even times when clients want and need to resort to deception and skullduggery to make their will, but keep it safe and a secret until they pass.

I always look at whether anyone with access to the will would benefit from its disappearance. I had a client recently whose closest living relative is a nephew. He likes the nephew well enough, but they are not close. He has the nephew in the will for about $50,000, has some other cash bequests, and leaves the rest (about $400,000) to his best friend, and if his best friend dies first, to his friend's family. I know him long enough and well enough to know it's legit, but he is very concerned that his nephew would be called to his residence if he died, and the will would be gone. He also is uncomfortable keeping it in a safe deposit box, and uncomfortable about leaving it with me. I suggested that we file it for safekeeping with Surrogates Court, while he is still living. Many people, and many lawyers, don't know you can do this, but it can be very useful. It costs $40 to file. Whenever anyone files an Administration proceeding (claiming there is no will), the Clerk ALWAYS checks for wills on file. I have filed wills for safekeeping about 10 times in the last 25 years. I don't know if it ever stopped skullduggery, but whenever I do it, the clients always appreciate the advice.

Isn't it True.....????

As I start my second 25 years in practice, here are a few observations about lawyering......

Isn't it true......

.....that most criminal clients are nicer than civil litigants?

.....that Judges who have never practiced can really hurt you?

.....that getting a retainer is not so hard, getting paid beyond the retainer is harder?

.....that in practice, it never matters where you went to school or what your grades were?

.....that whenever a new client tells you that people involved in the case have been "paid off", you know they are nuts and you want out?

.....that you could have been a psychologist?

.....that truth IS stranger than fiction?

.....that when you deal with extended families, very often "stupid is as stupid does"?

.....that small money cases drive you crazier than big money cases?

.....that some files are jinxed?

.....that when a client wants you to send a "lawyer letter", you know it isn't going to do anything?

.....that you don't know what people who have "real jobs" actually do?

.....that people who have real jobs have no idea what YOU actually do?

.....that you have thought about changing careers many times?

.....that you could write a book?

.....that the longer you practice, the more you realize how much you don't know?

.....that knowing how much you don't know is not only OK, it's one of the best parts about lawyering?

Fathers Day 2007

Top 10 things I learned from my father:

10. Think BIG.
9. Always reverse your exactas.
8. Give people a ride all the way home, no “dropping off”.
7. Tip generously.
6. Winning is not the only thing, fun and sportsmanship count.
5. Don’t use racial slurs.....he never did, and still doesn't.
4. Try to see things from both sides.
3. You can try to make everyone like you, but not everyone will.
2. Brothers should stick together and help each other.
1. Being a good father is very important. He grew up without one, and did his fathering without having anyone to show him how. I was luckier.

HAPPY FATHERS DAY MANNY!!!!

Per diem update

The per diem (court coverage) business is getting tougher all the time. Here are the main reasons:

1. The overall volume of personal injury cases is down. This is primarily due to the vigorous defense on these cases by the insurance carriers. It has become unprofitable for most plaintiff firms to accept the lower level cases, so now, these cases are simply not in the system. This puts pressure on the per diem business because not only are there less "jobs" to cover, but many firms who used to use per diems are now covering the appearances "in house".

2. Many of the civil defense lawyers are now victims of their own success. They beat the tar out of the plaintiffs, so now there are less cases, and the insurance companies have either laid off lawyers or stopped hiring. Many of the displaced lawyers try per diem work. Some can make a go of it and some can't. The bottom line is there is more competition for less available work.

3. The competition for work has kept the fees down. I would love to raise my per diem fees, but the problem is all my competitors would love me to do that, so they could undercut me. I recently told another per diem lawyer that in this environment I would lower my fees before I raise them. He seemed to think I was nutty. He can follow his business model, I'm going to stick with mine.

4. Many of the per diem players are marketing and advertising much more than before. I suspect some of them have actively pursued my attorney accounts, and sometimes in the course of marketing they "inadvertently" have gotten in my kitchen and taken some clients. Fair is fair, and my view is it works both ways and evens out. In the end, quality will tell. One thing is for sure, the per diem business is no different than any other, you have to service your existing clients AND market for new business.

5. Some of the downturn in lawyer business spills over into accounts receivable. There are some really bad attorney clients in this biz. I've learned who they are, the hard way. I am tempted to name names, but I won't. What I will do though, is let my new competitors scoop up all THAT business, and then struggle to get paid from these deadbeats. Here's when I knew the depth of sleaze from one of these firms.......He ran up a $10,000 tab with me (you may ask, how did you let that happen? and the way it happens is every so often they send in $3-4000 when you really need it, so you stick with it, and then it gets out of hand) and forced me to sue him. We negotiated a settlement, which I had to chase him for. After it was all over, I called him and said "No hard feelings, I have a business proposal.....I know you have volume in Queens, and I would like the work, but I must get paid, SO, I will give you very VERY low prices, lower than anyone else, EVER, and I only have one condition.....I want to bill a credit card once a month". He said no. He then proceeded to stiff my biggest competitor for $6000!!!!
Yipes!!!! and I am usually the guy who defends other lawyers.

The business still has a lot going for it, but anyone thinking about trying it should remember, it IS a business.

DOH! Immigration Bill Going Nowhere

President Bush really looked like Homer Simpson (or any other doofus paradigm you prefer) on this one. My faithful blog readers know that I nailed this situation.....I should only pick horses this well.

You have to give the Democrats credit, they lured Bush into a "compromise" that NONE of them would have actually voted for, and waited for his cretinous cronies to rail against it and "defeat" the bill before it went anywhere. It does not appear that the issues will actually be publicly debated. That seems like a constructive way to handle the most important social issue in our country.

What could Bush and the remaining upright-walking Rebublicans have done. Consider this scenario.....they all supported the bill despite stating certain reservations about it, but express a willingness to compromise further and work out any differences in the best interests of the country. They further trumpet their support of those things that would have forced the Democrats to actually talk about the bill (provisions regarding returning home, fines, waiting, elimination of certain family preferences, and English language encouragement). How many Democrats would have actually supported or voted for a bill with all those provisions? How different would this all look if the Democrats would have been the ones who "defeated" the bill, or at least contributed to the defeat.

The way this played out shows an appalling lack of political skill from the White House. It could also be that nobody in Congress, especially the Republicans, can gain anything from an association with the President. Bush is so far down that his best political ally is now Ted Kennedy.

DOH!!!!!!!

Immigration Bill......I'm on the right track

Here's a link to a fascinating op-ed piece from today's Wall Street Journal http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrasselpw/?id=110010155

It's based on interviews with President Bush regarding the immigration bill. I realize that some of my "liberal" readers will have difficulty reading anything emanating from "that man". I would say this.....the column is impressive, and explains many of the difficulties inherent in reaching a consensus for immigration reform.

In past posts, I have stated my basic position: President Bush wants and needs to enact a comprehensive immigration reform bill, and the Democrats will never let this happen until 2009. Furthermore, the present bill is all about changing the nature of the future debate, embarrassing the right wingers, and keeping the democratic Presidential candidates (primarily Hillary and Edwards) out of the fray.

There was one section of the article that really let me know I'm on the right track. Please read the whole piece for context, but here is the section that really caught my attention:

"When I ask if Mr. Bush thinks any of the current GOP candidates are proving to be leaders on immigration, he again flips the issue around (while still managing to sneak in one candidate's name): "I would rather refer you to those in the Senate that are doing a standup job. Of course, that would be Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham and [Mel] Martinez--I hate to name them because I'll leave somebody out--John McCain has been very strong in the Senate, Ted Kennedy." He goes on to praise Mr. Kennedy, noting that an "untold" story is just how many Democrats are against this bill, and that Mr. Kennedy's leadership will thus be necessary to get a bill through the Senate. "

Yes, that is the "untold" story, because this bill is way too stringent for most Democrats, and there will not be any "leadership" from Senator Kennedy to get it throught the Senate. Neither Senator Kennedy nor any other Democrats have any intention of passing this bill, and that is the REAL story.

The Adventures of Matt Weiner & Dovie

Sometimes you have to try something different. I have an idea for a young teen story. Since I have been accused of thinking and acting like a 13 year old, I will write in first person as 13 year old Matt Weiner. I am posting Chapter One. If anyone likes it, I'll post more....

ADVENTURES OF MATT WEINER AND DOVIE
Chapter One

I first knew that Dovie had special powers when I told Mom I didn't know who spilled the cereal in the kitchen. There was no reason for me to lie about it, but I told Mom I didn't know, even though I had just spilled it. It was stupid to deny it, since Mom wouldn't have made a big deal, and I had even started sweeping when I lied and said I hadn't spilled it.

As soon as I said it, Dovie started hitting me and barking. He does this thing where he runs towards me and then jumps and hits my legs. He's short and long at the same time, so he hits me below the knees even on his hind legs. When he barks and hits though, he means business.

Mom was laughing and said "Maybe he wants some cereal". Sometimes he does the hitting thing when he wants food, but when he does that he whines. The way he was barking was different. He was barking AT me. I said "What is it Dovie?" and he just kept barking.

Mom said "Maybe he's trying to tell us who knocked over the cereal." Dovie stopped barking and we both looked at him and laughed. I said "He knows more than me.", and he started barking at me again. I had a funny feeling and then said, "OK Mom, I confess, I knocked over the cereal. I'm sorry I lied about, I don't know why I lied, I was gonna clean it up anyway."

Mom and Dovie both got quiet. Mom said, "You know Matt, lying about small things is just a bad habit to get into." All three of us were quiet then, which is SO uncomfortable. I know that Mom does that quiet routine to make me think about things, and it kinda works, but I think she gets uncomfortable too. So then she said "I don't think Dovie likes lying either", and she laughed. I was thinking the same thing, but at that moment, it didn't seem so funny.....

Barry Bonds

Barry Bonds quest for the all time home run record will be a big story in upcoming weeks. For non-sports fans, the story line goes like this: Barry Bonds was an excellent player for many years, hitting quite a few home runs. In his mid 30's, his home run production shot upward, as did some other players. In hindsight, they were probably all on steroids, which some have admitted and most have denied. There are ongoing criminal cases and investigations. Bonds is not a popular player, except in his home park in San Francisco. He is unfriendly to reporters, and has generally adopted an isolated, surly persona. Because of the "taint" of the steroid allegations, major league baseball is not making much fuss about his upcoming record, and many fans do not think his record will be "legitimate". I don't know if a poll has been taken, but I sense most of the sentiment across the country is anti-Bonds.

I beg to differ. He should be recognized and respected for his monumental accomplishments. The standard refrain is that he "cheated". The problem is that cheating means breaking the rules. Fact is, if he used steroids or other performance enhancers, it was not against the rules at that time. The league and the teams did not discourage the many players who did it, they seemed to tacitly encourage it. Many of Bonds' contemporaries used performance enhancers, whether it was steroids, growth hormones, or other substances. His performance was so far superior to any other player, then or EVER, that it commands respect and admiration.

He was a superior player before the home run burst. His performance through this day, where at age 42 he remains the most feared and influential single player in the game, is remarkable. Teams continue to walk him at an incredible rate. He does not have a strong hitter after him in the lineup. Every move he makes is scrutinized and analyzed. Despite these obstacles, he is among the league leaders in home runs and on base percentage. He gets so few good pitches to hit, that all fans realize that he must have hit the most home runs, per swing, of any player in history....by a wide margin!!! Unless steroids or HGH gives you enhanced eyesight, judgment and bat control, we should all marvel at his production.

In any sport, my guage of a truly special player is when opponents say "Don't let this guy beat us". The greatest players rise above this and still beat you. All sports have players like this. The athletes who come to mind are Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Wayne Gretsky, and any number of football luminaries (Joe Montana, John Elway, Lawrence Taylor, Jim Brown). That is top flight company. In baseball there is only one player on this level in the modern era.....Barry Bonds.

Baseball, and baseball fans, should treat him that way.