Bruce Godfrey

DLLR: Prison inmates received unemployment

Baltimore Sun, March 7, 2015:

The audit of the Division of Unemployment Insurance, which was released Friday, found that the agency did not periodically review whether people getting unemployment benefits were incarcerated, had the same address as others also getting benefits, or were DLLR employees. In a sampling, auditors found that four incarcerated people were paid about $17,700 in benefits between June 2012 and December 2013.

I am surprised that it was not much more, especially after counting people who are only locked up for very short periods while they are getting benefits. $17,700 is about 40 weeks of max benefits or little less than 2 beneficiaries maxing out on 26 weeks of benefits over 18 months out of a total Maryland population of perhaps 4 million adults. The minimum UI unit is a week of benefits; not everyone gets the maximum payment in a UI week, but this is not massive fraud or overpayment.

Posted by Bruce Godfrey in Maryland law - general, Unemployment, 0 comments

Defense lawyer: “I would put petrol on her and set her alight”

BBC, February 27, 2015 (H/T Talking Points Memo):

Mukesh Singh, the bus driver who admitted driving the bus during the incident, but denied taking part in the attack, was one of five men convicted of Jyoti’s rape and murder and sentenced to death by hanging.

 

. . .

 

Speaking about the appalling attack, which he refers to as “an accident”, Mukesh Singh suggested the rape and beatings were to teach Jyoti and her friend a lesson that they should not have been out late at night. And he criticised Jyoti for having fought back against her attackers saying: “When being raped, she shouldn’t fight back. She should just be silent and allow the rape. Then they’d have dropped her off after ‘doing her’, and only hit the boy.”

 

He said that executing him and the other convicted rapists/murderers will endanger future rape victims: “The death penalty will make things even more dangerous for girls. Now when they rape, they won’t leave the girl like we did. They will kill her. Before, they would rape and say, ‘Leave her, she won’t tell anyone.’ Now when they rape, especially the criminal types, they will just kill the girl. Death.”

To me, that’s not the disgusting part. It should be, but I am hardened to sociopathic violent thugs blaming others for their crimes. So I am not disgusted.

What does disgust me? This, from this Indian death row inmate’s attorney:

In a previous televised interview, lawyer AP Singh said: “If my daughter or sister engaged in pre-marital activities and disgraced herself and allowed herself to lose face and character by doing such things, I would most certainly take this sort of sister or daughter to my farmhouse, and in front of my entire family, I would put petrol on her and set her alight.” And he confirms to Udwin in the documentary that his stance remains the same: “This is my stand. I still today stand on that reply.”

I don’t know what offends me more: that an attorney would so depravedly risk his death row client’s case by endorsing his client’s capital offense, or that an attorney would so brag that he would defy Indian law and commit homicide by burning his sister to death. In Maryland, you can face attorney discipline merely for calling your client vulgar insults, but I guess in India bragging about one’s intent to burn a female relative to death during a death row appeal is not a professional responsibility concern.

Posted by Bruce Godfrey in Criminal Law, Legal Ethics, 0 comments

The Enneagram: the least likely most useful thing I have encountered….

By temperament and culture, I am not given to “new age” thinking. If it came out of California and it isn’t a pair of Levi’s, it starts out with two strikes against it. There are no crystals in my apartment, unless I am indulging a nerd toy of a crystal diode radio (soon to be harder to find, since Radio Shack seems to be circling the corporate debt drain.) We speak Nerd in the Godfrey household, militantly so; bury us with our 20-sided dice.

Perhaps the only inside joke that my children’s mother and I still treasure from our marriage was our disbelief at fellow B&Bers in Canada sitting around the breakfast table talking, in all seriousness, about their “kundalinis rising.” For me, and I think for her, it had about the same level of dramatic irony that pervades the most hilariously indecent of SNL skits, but no one was laughing except me and my then-pregnant then-wife (laughing on the inside, to be polite.) She was at that time religiously conservative, I a secular-minded Nerd, but we found common ground at our near-inability to keep from bursting out laughing hearing our fellow guests holding forth on how their kundalini would rise up from their insides.

It is with this hard-nosed, woo-hostile outlook that I encourage (especially to attorneys) an open mind toward a model of human personality known as the Enneagram of Personality, and to examine the evidence for it and against it.

No single blog post can do justice to this model, but in summary, the model posits nine (Greek: ἐννέα) personality types with certain strengths and weaknesses, very roughly as follows:

  1. The Reformer – someone with a sense of mission (examples: Confucius, Pope John Paul II, Meryl Streep, Jimmy Carter)
  2. The Helper – someone with a desire to be needed by others (examples: Leo Buscaglia, Pope John XXIII, John Denver, Elizabeth Taylor, Dolly Parton, Mother Teresa)
  3. The Achiever – someone ambitious and highly driven for advancement (examples: Augustus Caesar, Muhammad Ali, Bill Clinton, Taylor Swift, Barbra Streisand)
  4. The Individualist – someone sensitive and seeking identity/personal significance (examples: Edgar Allen Poe, Sarah McLachlan, Amy Winehouse, Billie Holliday, Janis Joplin, Marlon Brando, Prince)
  5. The Investigator – someone intensely cerebral, eccentric, isolated (examples: Albert Einstein, Mark Zuckerberg, Bobby Fischer, Ursula LeGuin, Jodie Foster, Jane Goodall)
  6. The Loyalist – someone oriented towards security and relief of anxiety (examples: Chris Rock, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Dustin Hoffman, Woody Allen, Sally Field, Jennifer Aniston, Ellen DeGeneres)
  7. The Enthusiast – someone extroverted seeking variety and new experiences (examples: Mozart, Richard Branson, Sarah Palin, Bette Midler, Robin Williams, Joe Biden, Timothy Leary)
  8. The Challenger – someone dominating, confrontational and decisive (examples: John Wayne, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Roseanne Barr, Tony Soprano, Humphrey Bogart, Susan Sarandon, Serena Williams)
  9. The Peacemaker – someone easygoing, conflict-averse, supportive (examples: Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Stewart, Sophia Loren, Homer Simpson.)

The nine enneatypes are typically portrayed in relation to each other upon an “enneagram” – a geometrical figure of nine points on a circle connected with nine line segments of uneven lengths, representing the purported tendency of personalities at their highest and lowest points to take on some characteristics of other personalities. In some cases, personalities may be on the frontier between types; the model posits that some people may have a “wing” to any adjacent personality type (example: 5 with a 6 wing.) The personality numbers are arbitrary and are NOT intended to rank the enneatypes.

The enneagram and its associated personality models are the creations of G.J. Gurdjieff, Oscar Ichazo and Claudio Naranjo. Some have identified the roots of these personality types in early Christian mysticism and, per one account, even within Homer’s Odyssey among the hazards that Odysseus encountered. Those familiar with Catholic theology may be familiar with the concept of “predominant fault” – the tendency of people to do the wrong things again and again.

There is much more to discuss regarding this personality model, but for my purposes I will state that being able to figure out, reasonably quickly, which personality type I am dealing with has helped me immensely to predict conduct and avoid unnecessary conflicts, to be more forgiving of other people in my life and, unexpectedly, of myself as well.  (I am probably 5 or a 5 with “6 wing”, if it matters to the reader.)  For me, it’s a efficient shorthand, comparable to dividing politics into “left” or “right”.

Rather than indulging further discussion here, I would direct inquiring readers to take an enneagram self-test and see what you think of the results. A common result of taking the test and getting the results is something like “Oh God they really did nail me, didn’t they!” But don’t trust me: see for yourself.  Don’t trust me on this; test and see.

Posted by Bruce Godfrey, 0 comments

To avoid: calling your client, in written correspondence to her, an obscene name

Sometimes I can be downright grouchy, truth be told; I have many faults and, sometimes, that’s one of them.

But I haven’t yet lost my cool so badly as to write a letter to a client calling her an obscenity in print, wishing her malice and insulting her progeny.

From page one of AGC v. Basinger:

After learning that Keys had denied that she had retained him, Basinger mailed to Keys letters in which he called Keys “A TRUE C[**]T” who had “finally f[***]ed up one time too many”; called Keys “a reprehensible human being” with “worthless progeny” and a “pathetic and dysfunctional world”; accused Keys of being lazy and dishonest, engaging in “defamation” and “absolute evil behavior[,]” and “trying to weasel [her] way out of paying the full amount of [a funeral chapel]’s bill”; suggested that Keys perhaps was responsible for her grandson’s death; stated that, if he ever saw her again, “it [would] be too soon”; and wished Keys “only the worst from here on out.”

If you are that unhappy with a client, you should simply terminate the relationship (in a manner consistent with, and to the extent permitted by, applicable Rules.) Some clients deserve to be fired and a few rare ones deserve to be chastised; none deserve to be hit with obscenities.

Posted by Bruce Godfrey in Legal Ethics, Practice of Law, 0 comments