Dallas Texas DWI Defense Attorney

My Firm's Slide Show

2012-01-12T10:09:00.000-08:00

http://www.kizoa.com/slideshow/d2181972kP108560995o2/coffey-firm

How to Solve the Nation's Drug Issues

2011-12-19T10:17:00.000-08:00

As a criminal defense lawyer I am in the middle of the muddy judicial system which is broken and in need of repair. Moral crusading politicians get on their high horses pandering to the ignorant masses (as in not informed & educated on issues) that respond well to catchy tag lines, commercials & speeches. The next thing you know we have more harsh laws, more people arrested and we are building more prisons. The prosecutors try to justify to themselves that their punishments stop property crimes and other offenses related to drug use. Me & other defense lawyers are spinning around so fast on the merry go round of fighting the DAs' approach of harshly convicting or unreasonably probating everyone (probation conditions so onerous they might as well be in jail) that everyone including the judges lose sight of the big picture . What solves people's drug issues ? Is throwing a kid in prison for years over crack possession gonna change him when he gets out (he is worse) ? Are we spending our tax dollars wisely ? What is in society's best interest ?

I've always felt there was something not right with what started out as Reagan's "War on Drugs" (even though I love Reagan, an actor not a justice scholar does he make). I have shared the sadness of too many clients being punished for something that should be treated like a disease and health issue not one reflective of an evil minded real criminal. Well the government of Portugal was smart enough to think outside the box & decriminalized all drug offenses and assigned their Health Department to take over. The results ? Drug addiction declined as well as the crimes that addicted people desperate for drugs will do (property crimes). Their story is a remarkably successful one. How can the greatest country on earth be the meanest when it comes to caring for its weakest citizens (we incarcerate more people than most third world countries) ? Time we be smart on crime and not aimlessly & maliciously "tough". Time we reevaluate our DWI laws too that just aim at punishing social drinkers (otherwise we would not use non scientific circus acts called field sobriety tests and widely known inaccurate breath tests to incarcerate and wrongly convict people).

Here is one of the world's smartest and wealthiest men's take:Richard Branson's blog on the "War on Drugs":

Visited Portugal, as one of the Global Drug Commissioners, to congratulate them on the success of their drug policies over the last 10 years.Ten years ago the Portuguese Government responded to widespread public concern over drugs by rejecting a “war on drugs” approach and instead decriminalized drug possession and use. It further rebuffed convention by placing the responsibility for decreasing drug demand as well as managing dependency under the Ministry of Health rather than the Ministry of Justice. With this, the official response towards drug-dependent persons shifted from viewing them as criminals to treating them as patients.Now with a decade of experience Portugal provides a valuable case study of how decriminalization coupled with evidence-based strategies can reduce drug consumption, dependence, recidivism and HIV infection and create safer communities for all.I will set out clearly what I learned from my visit to Portugal and would urge other countries to study this:In 2001 Portugal became the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines.Jail time was replaced with offer of therapy. (The argument was that the fear of prison drives addicts underground and that incarceration is much more expensive than treatment).Under Portugal’s new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker, and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail.Critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to “drug tourists” and exacerbate Portugal’s drug problem; the country has some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. The recently realised results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, suggest otherwise.The paper, published by Cato in April 2011, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the problem far better than virtually every other Western country does.Compared to the European Union and the US, Portugal drug use numbers are impressive.Following decriminalization, Portugal has the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the EU: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%, Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%. Drug use in older teens also declined. Life time heroin use among 16-18 year olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8%.New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003.Death related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half.The number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and the considerable money saved on enforcement allowed for increase funding of drug – free treatment as well.Property theft has dropped dramatically (50% - 80% of all property theft worldwide is caused by drug users).America has the highest rates of cocaine and marijuana use in the world, and while most of the EU (including Holland) has more liberal drug laws than the US, it also has less drug use.Current policy debate is that it’s based on “speculation and fear mongering”, rather than empirical evidence on the effect of more lenient drug policies. In Portugal, the effect was to neutralize what had become the country’s number one public health problem.Decriminalization does not result in increased drug use.Portugal’s 10 year experiment shows clearly that enough is enough. It is time to end the war on drugs worldwide. We must stop criminalising drug users. Health and treatment should be offered to drug users – not prison. Bad drugs policies affect literally hundreds of thousands of individuals and communities across the world. We need to provide medical help to those that have problematic use – not criminal retribution.

Mimi Coffey's 10/18 Republican Debate Analysis

2011-10-24T16:07:00.001-07:00

Yes, I'm pretty liberal on social issues, often vote Democratic but believe in small government (less is more) and being fiscally conservative. Most people don't liven up to the Presidential politics till the year before but now is the time where wild cards succeed and there is unexpected entertainment. The Tuesday debate proved that early on candidates often shoot wild & loose in desperate attempts to fight to be forerunner. In the spirit of George Washington I am a believer in one party: the country. I care not for party acrimony, mud slinging and yellow journalism that seems to pervade our 2 party system. Although I may not agree or sometimes even like certain politicians I respect them all and am deeply grateful for their sacrifices and drive to make our country better. With that being said, my candid insight on the debate and the Republican candidates.
10/18 Mimi Coffey Republican Debate Analysis:

1. Bachman: right about not wise to create another tax (Herman Cain's 999 plan). The government will let it spiral out of control once started. Soft intro, focusing on "too cutesy" (pandering Las Vegas lines about 'what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas' versus touting solid credentials) or being bold (necessary for female politicians lest they look soft or bitchy). Very impressive background of being a tax attorney with expertise in IRS regs. Rigid beliefs on immigration demonstrating a narrow world view. Mandate English only ? Seriously ? Not openminded. Thinks by talking about women & moms on the housing crisis she somehow is a leader. Foreclosures affect dads & men too. Playing the gender card here not effective. Wrong on Iraq hated us because of Obama, they have been hating us since time immemorial due to deep rooted cultural and religious differences. Blaming Obama for conflict in the middle east on the Israel question ? Same deal, only it's not religious or cultural differences. The Palestinian problem has been Israel's thorn forever. Obama is simply not willing to be Israel's puppet as the rest of the world disapproves of Israel's actions on the Mideast stage. Definitely a debater opportunist, just short on substance. Great insight on Iraq being a threat however. She proves women can war as seriously as men just as history proved: Catherine the Great of Russia & Queen Elizabeth. May the chauvinists shut up.

2. Herman Cain: love the idea of a successful business man mavericking as President. Interesting new tax plan, however not a good idea to start even more taxes. In answering legitimate criticisms on his tax plan he constantly attempted to take refuge in the line "comparing apples with oranges", not applicable however as Romney asserted with his bushel example. Short on the ability to critically analyze policy. Experience may be his big weakness. Intelligence may however make this a moot issue.

3. Romney: speaks out of both sides of his mouth. States the Mass. health care plan is great for the state but not for the country. He can't say what he really wants as the Republicans gate health care reform and therefore no straight talk on the most critical issue affecting our country outside the economy. Great speech on how religion should not matter in choosing your leader. Presidential presence. Great restraint in holding back when he really wanted to punch Perry I'm sure. Like that he was extremely successful in the private sector. Dislike his Wall Street mindset. TARP & bailing out the banks and Wall Street while they profited off the money and it did not make it back to the public is robbery. We need leaders who will prosecute Wall Street not bail them out.

4. Santorum: great analysis of how public policy is run. Good grasp on how government works. Looks like a good policy man. The guy that gets things done in the boardroom. A doer. Married, practicing Catholic (demonstrating he likes social integration and mainstream values) with 7 kids proves that. Young. A true fiscal conservative who has reformed welfare. Impressive ... He is not a convenient party changer. He is very sincere about his beliefs. The real deal whether you like him or not.

5. Ron Paul: great mind. Lacks leadership and charisma. Great outside the box thinker. Brilliant but the question remains can he inspire people and lead rather than formulate ? "The empire is broke." Best line in the while debate. Bring our troops home from Korea, Japan & Germany for starters . Germany has great social services funding because we pay for their military. Great point. Time for basic bookkeeping before the US goes bust.

6. Newt Gingrich: moments of charm yet speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Romney called him on his support of the American Heritage Foundation & his former position supporting Romney's health care while he attempted to deny until impossible to deny. Newt spouting religion & emphasizing it more than education? Seriously, embarassing. Got to hand it to him for stamina. Surprised he's still hanging on after all these years. As Speaker of the House his " Contract with America" fizzled out. Great salesman though in the style of a preacher.

7. Rick Perry: knows what to focus on: JOBS. Will call a spade a spade and won't back down (his tete a tetes with Romney). Passionate about his beliefs. Does not speak from both sides of his mouth. Proven economic leader with Texas as the nation's economy eroded (40% of all new US jobs in Texas). Needs to better explain his position of rejecting TARP rebutting Santorum's claims. Off topic, I find the way he stands (like a cowboy with back bowed out) cute and tough. The real question the pundits haven't asked is: Is the country ready for yet another tough Texan ?

Worthy candidates: Perry, Paul & SantorumBest candidate to lead : Paul if he surrounds himself with an effective cabinet that can lead and carry out his brilliance. Lincoln created a cabinet of the best (Team of Rivals). Unstoppable progress from the country if Paul elected and he creates a power 'Team of Rivals.'

Realistic best candidate : Perry, not a Jimmy Carter type braniac like Paul but a charismatic (like Bush but much smarter) leader that will command and demand respect on the world stage.

Bless them all for their big hearts and vision.

Mimi Coffey's Reading List

2011-01-29T06:36:00.001-08:00

Mimi Coffey's 2007/2008/2009/2010/2011 Reading List

My favorite thing to do outside of work is read. I am always too busy working, but I have always said that my ultimate vacation would be to spend 2 weeks from sunup to sundown in either of the Dallas or Fort Worth public libraries so that I could read nonstop breaking with a host of different literary diversions. My favorite thing is news: I am an avid reader of the New York Times and cannot live without the Sunday edition. I go through each week's Time magazine in about an hour. I supplement this with watching a taped version of Keith Olberman's Countdown Monday through Friday. Just give me cold, hard facts, no spin… My favorite books are on the lives of our Founding Fathers. To understand those who formed this country and its constitution gives me the inspiration and guidance I need to carry on with those principles as I seek justice through the law to help others. Here is a list of books I have completed this year. The astericks mark my favorites. They are close in order to how they were read. Before television and radio, the intellects of generations past prized their books and shared their reading lists. To understand the books one reads is to have a window to their soul. Most of the Founding Fathers read the classics, I read them in turn as classics. Here is a bird's eye view to my soul and required reading for my children in their adulthood (and hopefully my descendants) if they are to understand diplomacy in whatever walk of life they should so choose:

Reading List 2007:

1*Joseph Ellis: Founding Brothers-the Revolutionary Generation. Pulitzer Prize Winner
2.Joseph Ellis: Passionate Sage: the Character and Legacy of John Adams
3.Joseph Ellis: His Excellency: George Washington
4.Joseph Ellis: The American Sphynx: the Character of Thomas Jefferson
5.Richard Brookhiser: Alexander Hamilton, American
6.Thomas Fleming: Duel: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr & the Future of America
7.*Nancy Isenberg: Fallen Founder: the Life of Aaron Burr
8.Walter Stahr: John Jay
9.*H.W. Brands: The First American: Benjamin Franklin , Pulitzer Prize finalist
10.Richard Brookhiser:Governeur Morris: the Rake Who Wrote the Constitution
11*Craig Nelson: Thomas Paine: Enlightenment, Revolution and the Birth of Modern Nations
12.Jeff Broadwater: George Mason: Forgotten Founder

Not only have I derived factual basis to understand our laws, these books have brought to life in my mind the cities of Philadelphia, New York, Paris,Boston, London and Washington D.C. as they existed in those times. It is with great excitement that I look forward to visiting (& revisiting for some but now with new knowledge) these cities to see monuments and tombs of those I most admire. Cicero once said: "Not to have knowledge of what happened before you were born is to be condemned to live forever as a child." Long live democracy through all it ugly aches and pains. – Mimi Coffey, Sr.

Mimi Coffey's 2008 Reading List
*1. General and Madame de Lafayette: Partners in Liberty's Cause in the American and French Revolutions by Jason Lane
*2. Samuel Adams: Father of the American Revolution by Mark Puls
3.A Son of Thunder: Patrick Henry and the American Republic by Henry Mercer
4. James Madison: The Struggle for the Bill of Rights by Richard Labunski
5. John Hancock: The Picturesque Patriot by Lorenzo Sears
*6. John Marshall: Definer of a Nation by Jean Edward Smith
7. Patriot Pirates: The Privateer War for Freedom and Fortune in the American Revolution by Robert H. Patton
*8. Boone: A Biography by Robert Morgan
**9. The Great Upheaval: 1788-1800 by Jay Winek (my favorite book covering the Founding Fathers period thus far, very well written and hard to put down)
10. American Creation by Joseph Ellis
11. American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House by Jon Meacham

2009 Reading List
1. Matthew Lyon "New Man" of the Democratic Revolution, 1749-1822 by Aleine Austin
*2. Rochambeau by Arnold Whitridge
3. Financial Founding Fathers by Robert E. Wright and David J.Cowen
*4. Two Fighters and Two Fines: Lives of Matthew Lyon and Andrew Jackson by Tom Campbell
5. Jefferson THe Scene of Europe 1784-1789 by Marie Kimball
6. 1776 by David McCullough
7. Revolutionary Characters by Gordon Wood
8. (Obama is a Founding Father on his own terms, hence his acceptance into my reading category) Dreams from my Father by Barack Obama
9. Forgotten Patriots by Edwin G. Burrows (the untold story of American Prisoners duringi the Revolutionary War)
*10. Adopted Son:Washington, Lafayette, and the Friendship that Saved the Nation by David A. Clarey

2010 Reading List
* 1. Undaunted Courage (the Lewis and Clark expedition) by Stephen Ambrose
2. The Intimate Lives of the Founding Fathers by Thomas Fleming
3. Libery to Lucy Moore (the Founders were influenced by France, this is a book on the French Revolution)
4. Signing Their Lives Away: The Fame and Misfortune of the Men Who Signed The Declaration of Independence by Denise Kiernan & Joseph D'Agnese
5. The Traitor and the Spy: Benedict Arnold and John Andre by James Thomas Flexner (no doubt Benedict Arnold would have been a huge Founding Father due to his military successes had he not lost his way, a sad tale on how he became a traitor)
6.Travels in North America in the years 1780-1781-1782 by The Marquis de Chastellux (fascinating to see the new America through the eyes of a French nobleman who fought our Revolution and was friends to everyone powerful at the time from Washington, Sam Adams , Thomas Paine to Madison...just proves that birds of a feather truly flock together)
7. Franklin and his French Contemporaries by Alfred Owen Aldridge 1957 New York University Press: great insight on how the French was influenced by Franklin and his attachments both scientifically, philosophically, diplomatically and socially with them. Amazing to know the French as a whole value Franklin even more than Americans.
8. The WOrks of Dr. Benjamin Franklin consisting of Essays, Humorous, Moral, and Literary: with his Life, Written by Himself, a rare book printed in 1835

2011 Reading List
1. The Private Franklin: The Man and His Family by Claude-Anne Lopez adn Eugenia W. Herbert 1975
2. The Secret Loves of the Founding Fathers by Charles Callan Tansill
3. Revolutionaries by Jack Rakove
4. The American Revolution 1763-1783 by William Edward Hartpole Lecky, M.P. arranged and edited by James Albert Woodburn, copyright 1898. This was a very interesting book as it is the American Revolution seen through the eyes of a British historian. Amazing to study our country's founding through this perspective. The British made way too many wrong assumptions and blunders. Had it not been for these, like Canada we probably would have remained British for a very long time.
*5. Aaron Burr: The Years from Princeton to Vice President, 1756-1805 by Milton Lomask, a great book on understanding how the natural cycles of politics work
6. A Magnificent Catastophe (the tumultuous election of 1800) by Edward Larson 2007, 2 valuable lessons from this book: 1) No way was Aaron Burr ever a traitor, he could have cinched the 1800 election easily and despite the tie vote did not for the good of the party (no wonder he was later found Not Guilty of treason in the western conspiracy). This proves that good character always pays off particularly in politics. 2) John Adams was hated by his own Federalist party for not declaring war on France when the country could least afford it but is respected for it now. Always do what is right in the situation, not what is politically expedient.
7. The Founders on the Founders by John P. Kaminski, a very interesting book on how the founders of our great country viewed eachother in their own words as found in their letters and writings
*8. Jefferson and Hamilton by Claude G. Bowers, 1925 Houghton Mifflin Co., so well written that you feel as if you are a fly in the room as Bowers takes you back in history and you witness so many great Founders in their bravery and wisdom as they interact between Hamilton and Jefferson. A true depiction of the genius of both of these two men.

2012 Reading List
*1. Stevens Thomson Mason: Misunderstood Patriot BY Kent Sagendorph. Turns out he was the grandson of the first Stevens Thomson Mason of Virginia who fought for freedom of the press when Congress voted to forbid printing of the controversial Jay Treaty. This Mason was the boy Governor of Michigan. An incredible story. He led the charge for Michigan to become a state, built railroads and personally would rode around the state helping people when cholera broke out and many people died. He truly loved Michigan and did extraordinary tasks while it was still a wild west territory.

New Year's Eve Advice

2010-12-28T14:39:00.000-08:00

New Year's Eve, Know Your Rights !by Mimi Coffey

New Year's Eve is around the corner. Important news ! If you have been drinking and get pulled over remember your rights:

1. Pull over immediately. Provide dl and insurance.

2. Don't talk, don't answer questions. Politely tell the officer you will not be answering any questions.

3. If asked to step out of the car, step out.

4. Unless you are an athlete with perfect balance inform the officer you will not be performing tests (they are circus acts designed to take you to jail).

5. Refuse blood tests (as they ferment) and if you have had more than 1 beer refuse a breath test (as they are inaccurate).

6. Know that you are being videotaped at all times. Say nothing under any circumstance.

7. Unless receipts will help you, throw them away before getting in the car.

8. Keep a lock on your cell phone as cops will try to read your text messages. Save your texts and call logs particularly if this contributed to bad driving. (Better yet, don't text and drive !)

9. If you are carrying alcohol put it in the trunk.

Police have turned to crucifying all responsible social drinkers, it is no longer just about getting the true DWI. Until scientific changes are made it is best to do nothing.

*Always be polite with the cop. Never lie to a cop, just don't answer questions or volunteer information. No matter how "nice" you are to a cop or no matter how much you think "cooperating" will help you KNOW THiS: IT WILL NOT !!! You are just acting foolish. Be wise and protect yourself. This is America, your private business and how you spend your time and who with is your OWN business. The whole system from the moment they approach your car, to the skewed testing and flawed chemical tests are designed to convict you and make thousands upon thousands of dollars for the state. Don't be a fool. Don't play the game. Most importantly, if you have had too much to drink and you are intoxicated please do not drive. It is a nightmare worse than you can imagine regarding the stress, humiliation, inconvenience and forever being branded a criminal that can affect everything in your life to obtaining housing to employment.

America, The Land of the Free ?

2010-06-29T12:11:00.001-07:00

America, The Land of the Free ?

As the 4th of July rolls around. Now is as good a time as any to reflect on our freedoms and what this country was based on. Europeans think Americans are stupid. They literally have tv documentaries that showcase America’s bizarre outer edge eccentricities. DWI field tests (walking a 18 heel to toe tightrope exercise and holding one’s foot in the air for 30 seconds without being able to use your arms for balance) is a concrete example of American lack of intelligence. No other country in the world uses these foolish tests to determine if someone is intoxicated except Great Britain and already their scientific peer review community has rejected the lack of scientific validity to these “tests”. The fact that one American jury after another across the country convicts someone on the basis of these “tests” is proof Americans are not thinking smart. Yesterday I tried a case in which my client was asleep in a private marina in his car and by the time the police got there his car was turned off. Yet he was given the circus tests, they could not prove whether or not he was drinking a nightcap in the car (meaning his alcohol level at the time he took a breath test did not reflect whether or not he was intoxicated when the police arrived), nor could they prove he was operating the vehicle (driving) for its intended purpose on any reliable testimony , and lastly he was not in a “public” place yet the jury convicted him anyway and in a swift 30 minutes. Dumb ? Sure, all this does is encourage people to risk driving home because pulling over and doing the safe thing will get you convicted. You would think the prosecutors would be smart enough to realize this public policy import but we can’t even give them any intelligence points either.

It really frustrates me that in America, “liberal” is a dirty word. Every American by definition should be liberal, we founded this country on the liberal notions of freedom and that freedoms should not be intruded upon. Yet in today’s age, our lawmakers continue to take away our freedoms (you can’t even drink alcohol in a parking lot with the car running). Live and let live unless one does harm to another is the definition of being a liberal. Yet, we have lived since the 1960s in a political time frame obsessed with regulating everything (eg. 7 words you can’t say on tv). For example, in Sweden there are no limits on words that can or cannot be said on tv and their court fines are scaled to one’s income. Here, court costs and fines (as in DWI cases) are dished out regardless of one’s ability to pay. I have a Swedish friend whose whole graduating class took a field trip to a natural spa and everyone (men and women) jumped in naked with no one being offended or concerned at all. Here, that would be on CNN Headline News and everyone would be arrested. One out of every 5 people in the world incarcerated are Americans (more than most third world countries, and you just thought you were afraid of getting thrown in jail in Mexico !) America is NOT the land of the free. America will regulate you to death and restrict every freedom you thought you had. I am proud to be an American. I am just sad to see that it not the land of the free as it was envisioned to be since the Declaration of Independence. On an intellectual plane we have turned into the laughing stock of the western civilized world. Texas (one of the largest textbook buyers in the US and hence many states follow their choices and curriculum leads) continues to fight the teaching of Darwin evolution in science textbooks and now Intelligent Design (world was created in 7 days, really ?) has equal space. The Christian conservatives have even managed to remove Thomas Jefferson from the history books as a great revolutionary leader because he coined the phrase “separation of church and state” to be replaced by Calvin Thomas and other religious leaders. Freedom of thoughts, ideas, beliefs ? Hardly.

I am doing what I can to change this tyranny as a criminal defense lawyer and defender of constitutional and statutory rights, but change must come from within: voters, jurors, judges, elected politicians.Hence, my current report card. You can’t change the world until the world is ready for change. We are long overdue. We need to get back to the visions of our forefathers who fought British tyranny and created a free country where rights are king. Time for us to start appreciating the meaning behind “liberal”. “Conservative” has turned into a modern doctrine that excuses the usurpation of freedom, liberty and progress.

Post note on Freedom when it comes to getting fair trials on breath test cases : Unbelievable. Here is the official position of the International Association of Chemical Testers and the federal government as stated in the position paper of Feb. 2009 of the National Safety Council Committee on Alcohol and Other Drugs as pertains to releasing the source of breath test devices:

"It is the position of the National Safety Council Committee on Alcohol and Other Drugs that access to the Source Code of the software of an evidential breath-alcohol analyzer is not pertinent, required, or useful for examination or evaluation of the analyzer's accuracy, scientific reliability, forensice validity, or other relevant characterisitics, or of hte trustworthiness and reliability of analysis results produced by the analyzer. These matters can be and have been fullyl assessed and examined by mulitple other well established and recognized methods and procedures in common use worldwide; and many other adequate and appropriate means exist to challenge evidential breath-alcohol analysis results."

Right, how about I program a breath test device and refuse to ever release its source code. Seriously ? Why would anyone ever blow into the machine ? Until the source code of all breath test devices are revealed and subject to peer review no one can get a fair trial. Yes, hard to believe we are living in Nazi controlled conditions in 2010 and we call this country America.

Courtroom Science Used to Convict a Joke

2010-03-29T14:51:00.000-07:00

Courtroom Science Used to Convict a Joke
The following is an article printed today in the Boston Globe on the poor state of science used to convict in courtrooms. I have been harping on this for years (my undergraduate degree has more hours in hard core sciences due to my Geology minor- which I have more hours than my major). Intoxliyzer 5000 breath testing: unacceptable. The margin of error is at minimum 50%. Blood testing with "grey top" test tubes (the ones used for forensic purposes and courtrooms): unacceptable (they do not contain an antifungicide which prevents alcohol fermentation. I am glad that at least one federal judge out there is doing something about this travesty being perpetuated on our own citizens. One day, I have 150% confidence breath testing will be obsolete and blood testing will have different chemical compounds in the test tubes to prevent fermentation, until then..... read on friends:

US judge urges skepticism on forensic evidence
Gertner says she’ll expect defense lawyers to challenge its validity
By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff | March 29, 2010

“CSI’’ may make for gripping television, but US District Court Judge Nancy Gertner says forensic evidence isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be.
In a move that some legal scholars said may be the first by a federal judge, Gertner has ordered defense lawyers and prosecutors not to assume that evidence routinely accepted in the courts for decades is reliable. Defense lawyers, she wrote, should vigorously challenge fingerprints, bullet identification, handwriting, and other trace evidence, and prosecutors should be prepared to show it is valid.
“In the past, the admissibility of this kind of evidence was effectively presumed, largely because of its pedigree — the fact that it had been admitted for decades,’’ Gertner wrote in a March 8 order. “As such, counsel rarely challenged it, and if it were challenged, it was rarely excluded or limited.’’
That needs to change, she said. A critique last year by the National Academy of Sciences, she noted, concluded that forensic evidence used to convict thousands of defendants for nearly a century is hardly the infallible proof of police procedurals on television. Too often, the study found, it is the product of sloppy practices that should be improved and standardized.
Spurred by the report and criminal cases she has presided over, Gertner wrote that the validity of such evidence “ought not to be presumed’’ and that defense attorneys should contest it at pretrial hearings, or explain why they do not. She will allow the evidence to go before a jury only if it meets sound scientific principles.
Defense lawyers and advocates for people who have been wrongly convicted of crimes welcomed Gertner’s order.
“It’s a wakeup call not only to other judges and to prosecutors but frankly to defense attorneys who for years — despite the rising tide of scientific reports indicating that many of the so-called tried-and-true disciplines were not in fact so true — rarely did their homework to mount serious challenges,’’ said Peter Neufeld, a cofounder of the New York-based Innocence Project. The nonprofit group uses DNA evidence to exonerate wrongly convicted prisoners.
Neufeld, who testified before the panel of scientific and legal experts that produced last year’s report on forensic evidence, said a recent study he co-wrote for the Virginia Law Review found that flawed forensic testimony contributed to 60 percent of 137 wrongful convictions later overturned through DNA evidence. That makes misapplied forensic evidence the second-leading cause of wrongful convictions, behind eyewitness misidentification, he said.
A spokeswoman for US Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz of Massachusetts declined to comment on Gertner’s order.
Jennifer Mnookin, a professor at UCLA’s School of Law and leading scholar on expert and scientific evidence, said she was unaware of any other federal judge who has issued such an order, although judges have refused to let shaky scientific evidence go before juries after pretrial hearings.
Mnookin said forensic testimony is highly persuasive to juries but that the February 2009 study by the National Academy of Sciences, the nation’s most prestigious scientific body, underscored that the evidence often does not meet the basic requirements of good science.
She said, for example, that fingerprint experts often make extravagant claims on the stand, such as that a latent fingerprint recovered at a crime scene could only have come from the defendant and no one else in the world.
Gertner, who is generally popular with the criminal defense bar but viewed skeptically by some officials in law enforcement, has long been critical of such claims.
In 1999, she held that a handwriting expert could testify to similarities between handwriting samples but not give an opinion about whether the same person wrote both notes. Six years later, she issued a similar ruling concerning ballistics, blocking a Boston police sergeant from testifying that marks on shell casings proved they came from a recovered pistol and no other firearm.
In recent years, the reliability of some forensic evidence has been attacked because experts misinterpreted it or because the science behind it was discredited.
In 2004, for example, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report discrediting the FBI technique of matching the chemical signatures of lead in bullets at crimes scenes to similar bullets possessed by suspects. The FBI discarded the technique.
Also in 2004, a prison inmate, Stephan Cowans of Roxbury, was exonerated in the 1997 gunshot wounding of a Boston police sergeant after law enforcement officials acknowledged that a thumbprint on a glass mug found near the crime scene had been misidentified as his. In the wake of the blunder, the city shut down the police fingerprint unit until it was overhauled.
John H. Cunha Jr., a Boston lawyer who failed to persuade the state Supreme Judicial Court in 2005 to bar fingerprints analysis from being presented in all state criminal trials until it was subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny, said he hopes Gertner’s order means judges will be more vigilant about letting juries hear forensic testimony.
“Just because something’s been around for a hundred years doesn’t mean it’s reliable. Astrology has been around for centuries,’’ he said. “The stakes are too high in our society to be using junk science and putting it before juries which think that it’s gold.’’
Jonathan Saltzman can be reached at jsaltzman@globe.com.

Modern Jurisprudence

2010-03-24T07:22:00.000-07:00

Modern Jurisprudence

Modern Criminal Jurisprudence

My report card on the judicial system that the Founding Fathers came up with ? Very discouraging in modern times. There is an attitude in the air of guilty until proven innocent. This is not just with jurors but with prosecutors. Rather than look at a case (as our law has designed to seek justice affording all constitutional and statutory rights to the citizen accused) to see if there is probable cause for an arrest, or guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to convict, I am constantly faced with people who cannot accept or understand the way our judicial system works. Tarrant County, Texas, the 2nd most conservative county in the United States, is not the bastion of justice I wish it could be. I constantly argue motions to suppress where there is a reasonable doubt as to whether or not a police officer had reasonable suspicion or probable cause to initiate an investigation and find that judges are thinking just the opposite (not looking for reasonable doubt but for ways to negate the reasonable doubt). They (my own professional opinion of course and not all judges fit in this category) readily dispose of the reasonable doubt that looks them in the eye and scramble for "fillers" that are just not legally relevant to the facts at hand (courts are constantly opting for "time and place" nonsense on traffic stops because no real violations of law exist.. just because it is late at night does not mean my client should be pulled over for no reason !). What is even more discouraging to me are the prosecutors who despite seeing evidence or reasonable doubt that someone is not guilty press forward anyway due to political "office policies" in place when the law requires they seek justice and not convictions. What used to be sacred, asking a fact witness whether or not someone is intoxicated has become a joke as prosecutors object to such relevant information in court and essentially intimidate witnesses who will testify to the truth. My last DWI trial (all a matter of public record) involved a state subpoeaned witness who told me she was literally sick before testifying because she had made it clear that my client was sober and the prosecutors just were not having it. They objected when I asked her on the witness stand as to her opinion of intoxication (based on all the evidence). Sickening. When prosecutors want to win so bad they will do anything in trial (despite the truth and justice of the facts) it makes you wonder how they got to be lawyers in the first place or what kind of parenting did they receive ? Where have all the ethics gone ? Just as bad ? Jurors who refuse to look at the truth because they think it is their job to convict. This "Law and Order" "Tough on Crime" mentality some people have these days makes laws and constitutional principles nonexistent. Many of them only recognize and value constitutional rights when it is too late, when it is them on the hot seat- otherwise they would rather sacrifice rights for temporary safety. Benjamin Franklin once remarked that those who are willing to sacrifice rights and liberty for temporary safety deserve neither.

My how far we have come. In the days of modern conveniences and information readily available, we find our forefathers smarter on the sacred principles that matter. Many jurors do not understand, until it is them, that what police officers say on the witness stand (more frequently than not) is a playscript out of their DWI police report training class full of "typical descriptors". Many jurors do not understand that what essentially in a cop's mind serves as "embellishment" of the truth as they see it, is really just the opposite: nonexistent ! Just because a cop says someone is swaying and clearly they are not, does not make it so !

Well, Europe has largely moved away from a jury system. They don't believe average intelligence people are smart enough to make legal distinctions and determinations of law and facts. Europe also has trained judges for the particular subject matter. It is disturbing we elect judges with nonscientific backgrounds and expect them to make proper rulings on breath and blood test cases. And who is providing judges DWI training in the State of Texas ? Texas DPS ! Yup , the large governmental agency that receives a minimum of $3k for every DWI conviction to put in the slush fund (at one point designated to fund the Texas Transcorridor highway project). Moral of the story ? It's not good for society when the government lies. It perpetuates injustice. No wonder jurors convict without moral misgivings of conscience, our own highway signs say "Drink.Drive.Go to Jail" and that's not even the law !!!! Citizens are led into believing government lies and make the ends justify the means throwing law right out of the process. Solution ? Let's elect people who will hold the government accountable and not lie to the people. Attorney General Greg Abbott should have already had those incorrect signs funded by our taxpayer dollars taken off the highways. After all, he is challenging the Health Care Reform that just passed because he claims it is unconstitutional. Let him first start with our DWI laws ! (the highway signs, the illegal and double jeopardy surcharges, equal protections claims of classifications of crimes where murder defendants are afforded more right than first time DWI offenders). We also need to reward prosecutors who do the right things. They are the ones who should be receiving awards at local VFW and community dinners. Let's hold the prosecutors who are unethical accountable. Their actions deserve to see the light of day. Their actions speak for themselves. Let them defend their lack of respect for what's right. The judges that do uphold the law deserve our respect and praise. Let's stop endorsing judges that don't have this spirit. It's not that they are bad people, it's just that you can't take sides when you are a judge. Our modern day judges who can't seem to separate "Tough on Crime" politics from their jobs need to quit and work for the DA's office.

I have been practicing law for 15 years, long enough to understand the modern jurisprudence trends and it is part of my job to speak up for what is right. I regretfully lament the "Guilty at all costs" environment that I constantly find myself in. Time to go back to 1776, the Sons of Liberty, and remember that we broke away from a tyrannical monarchy because we believed in notions like "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt." I love my job and its challenges. I just think that what's currently happening in modern jurisprudence is sad and history will judge as dark and unenlightened days. Doing my job to stop the train of injustice and sincerely hope for future generations it will be easier. We just need to bring back the hopes and spirits this country was founded on.

DWI Morality

2009-05-29T10:41:00.001-07:00

How would a cop feel if someone just took out $7,000.00 out of their paychecks (automatically deducted) just because they could and it was legal ? Highway robbery, theivery, call it what you will- BAD MORALITY. They would be pissed, suffer enormously and forever hold the burden of a bitter grudge against the entity that did it. Well, cops are doing this to nonnecessary DWI suspects. The average person in America will spend about $7k defending themselves (surcharges, fines, court costs, atty fees... this does not even account for a trial fee) because they too are being robbed. Most DWIs are people who are minding their own business, driving in nondangerous manners (speeding along with the traffic- not accidents or call ins), and cops take advantage of them because out on the side of the road they can't perform nonscientific field sobriety tests that most of the rest of the world refuses to use. Cops get pissed when the driver says they haven't drank. They get so personally offended (which is not appropriate, I'm sure I get lied to in my job but it does not affect how I do my job... I am a professional) that they make sure the driver gets arrested even if his performance on the circus tests is questionable. Now just because the cop can justify this on "probable cause" does not make it right or moral. True probable cause is reality and common sense, neither of which most cops employ on nonnecessary DWI arrests. CNN is airing a special on highway robbery by cops (and legal under the law but not right) of drivers in east Texas. They may have spurious bad laws that attempt to justify the money forfeitures of people driving through who get traffic tickets but bad laws don't make it right. Bad judgment, getting personally offended and bad investigation tools that are not scientific (non of which are including the HGN eye test as numerous court have now opined despite its continued use) don't make it right to rob a driver of at least a $7k fee and false DWI conviction (many people just give up or don't trust jurors to see the fallacy of these tests in this "tough on crime" at all costs era. I am angry. I hate hyprocrisy. I think cops and law enforcement including district attorneys offices should stop robbing people because they can in the name of this false MADD dwi hysteria (reality is only 1 out of every 100 dwi drivers arrested killed someone, twice as many people die from the flu every year yet you don't see doctors getting arrested for failed treatment, duh !). Just because you drive with alcohol on your breath does not mean you deserve a DWI. Cops, stop acting like the law (probable cause based on bad tools) makes it right when you know it doesn't. You guys are no different than theives or hypocritical Christians who screw people every day in business and life and go home at night and think that by praying they wipe their slate clean. Ugh. I work in a nasty profession, quite sickening to say the least for the most part (very few of my cases are genuine DWI deserving clients- maybe 30% at most). I have no respect for those with bad morale and I'm not talking about what people are free to do with their personal lives. World, fellow proud Americans... we must stop these wrongs.

DWI Blood Tests Suck

2009-05-06T21:58:00.001-07:00

Blood Tests Suck Worse than Breath Testing
Dose of Reality

I just tried a felony DWI blood test case and after 6 hours the jury of twelve found him guilty. As a defender of the constitution and our laws (criminal defense lawyer), I know that I am suppose to walk out of that courtroom and move on to the next case. Part of my job, right ? You win some and you lose some, right ? I wish. For me, where injustice occurs, we all lose. When injustice occurs, not only is our society unsafe (our citizens being falsely accused and their rights trampled on) but the beauty of humanity leaves us all. In State of Texas v. James Ryan Giles (everything occurring in trial being public record), the facts are the Fort Worth Crime Lab is so incompetent they use the same pipette and beaker of water for all 25 samples they run through the gas chromatograph when testing for blood. Industry practice is to change the pipette tip and use a different beaker of distilled water for each sample to prevent contamination (blood samples must be prepared in a different tube with an internal standard, the blood is not actually tested but the heated headspace above it). The blood is pushed through a gas chromatograph column (type of coating and thickness important in that it affects the retention time and therefore the result, yet the Fort Worth analyst did not even know what type of coating or thickness she used on Mr. GIles) that must be cleaned at least once a month (industry standard for as many samples as Fort Worth analyzes) to prevent contamination. They had not cleaned the columns a single time in 6 months before and Mr. Giles' samples showed contamination on all 4 of his gas chromatograms. The analyst even admitted that she found Toluene contamination in his sample of which he would be dead if he ingested it. Funny how she admitted that on the stand but marked "unknown" in the record. These are just the analyst problems, not even touching on the improper storage (refrigeration, lack of temperature high/low check documentation) or the improper collection (using a swab that may have contained alcohol and not sterilizing the tube). Despite 3 fact witnesses who were with Mr. Giles who testified he could not have had more than 3 drinks over 3 hours, and 4 of the state witnesses including a police officer never testifying that Ryan was intoxicated, the jury after 6 hours found him Guilty. Not being privy to the jury deliberations, I cannot claim to understand the basis of their decision. As would be my job, I must accept the verdict; however there is not a shadow of a doubt that I know not a single one of those 12 jurors would trust the Fort Worth Crime Lab with their blood. Their verdict just tells the Tarrant County District Attorney's office that improper scientific methodology that tainted results is acceptable. As a matter of fact, the prosecutor commented in close "If you don't like how they do things in the Fort Worth crime lab, move out". I wish everyone involved in tainted blood test procedures and those that support such unacceptable methodology would move out, not the other way around.

The point of all this really boils down to one simple thing: a great human being. I have known Ryan for years. I represented him on his previous DWI. He is a good looking, clean cut, charming 33 year old man. The courthouse was full 3 days with his supporters numbering close to twenty. He has always been straightforward with me, respectful and somehow always seemed to make me laugh or smile. Testimony even came out in trial how he can't even go to his local TGI Friday's without almost all the employees knowing him and him befriending everyone. After the punishment phase (he agreed to the 2 years prison versus Tarrant County's insane 10 year/4 month jail probation office policy designed to put a probationer back in prison), with utmost dignity he told me how much he appreciated my services, how he hated to make his mom cry and how he did not want his family spending anymore money on him on an appeal. The bailiff took him behind the steel door and the last glimpse I caught of Ryan was his look of dignity wiping back a tear as he glanced out at the gallery to his many friends and family. He said 2 things that struck me. First thinking postively, he said "Mimi, you know I might be a positive influence in prison but it amounts to so very little." He next said, "You know Mimi, going to prison is not going to somehow make me a better person. It won't be good for me at all." He knows, but little does he know. What I know of our jails and prison system, is that you get treated less than a human being. When a guard looks at you, he sees a criminal- not a person. They herd you like cattle and take away every ounce of dignity you ever had. Problem is, a person like Ryan does not deserve prison. Prisons should be for people who hurt people and animals- kidnappers, rapists, robbers and murderers. Ryan and others charged with alcohol or drug problems that do not involve serious death or bodily injury should be in various forms of rehab and counseling, allowed to continue to contribute to societal good. Yet our society would rather spend $40k a year caging people like Ryan like animals in prison. Europe (the Netherlands) has left this moralistic, Calvinistic thinking decades ago. America cannot be the greatest country when we put good people like Ryan in prison where he does not belong. Probation in Texas on nonviolent felonies on alcohol and drug cases is not rehabilitative either. It is designed to bilk you out of bunch of money and land you back in prison anyway once you have been totally humiliated. When I think about Ryan, I can honestly say that I prefer his company ten million to one compared to both prosecutors and those jurors who choose to put their heads on their pillows at night and ignore the real problems. I accept they found Ryan guilty. I don't agree with it but I don't accept the fact that their verdict will put a lot more innocent Ryans in jail just because they have drank alcohol (not intoxicated) and their blood ends up in a crime lab that is worse than what a 7th grade classroom would do (at least they would follow protocols).

The bigger problem in all of this is that people should try to be good to other people. We should not have "office policies" in district attorney offices that fail to look at the individual facts and the human beings behind the cases. We should have DWI/ drug possession laws that take prison out of the formula and focus on positive counseling and rehab. Probation in Texas is another word for punishment. Probation should not be punitive (that is what prison is for) but positive and helpful to people. If our criminal justice system aimed to help nonviolent people who have just made mistakes and give people chances rather than punish (we are light years away from European enlightenment when it comes to criminal justice), all of society would be helped. Bottom line from Mr. Giles case, blood testing is anything BUT accurate (my chemist expert said the margin of error on blood testing is infinity) and our justice system is about convictions at all costs not what is right from wrong when it comes to DWI. This is wrong. Somehow this overhyped DWI madness makes everyone not worth knowing feel good. My heart hurts tonight, but I will move forward to continue to fight in honor of those like Ryan. Let us all try to be openhearted and good to one another whether or not they are social drinkers is my message to MADD and district attorney's offices everywhere.

Sidenote- The Swine Flu strikes again ! 80,000 students in the Fort Worth Independent School District not going to school. ALL Ryan's (33 years old) jurors were middle aged to senior citizens. The youngest juror being older than me, 41 ! There was a reason the Founding Fathers created a "jury of your peers."

The Dark Age of Justice

2009-02-22T20:21:00.001-08:00

The Dark Age of Justice
We are living in the dark ages of justice in the criminal law field. The overriding sentiments and motivators among the majority are to do anything to sustain convictions even when it means ignoring the law, our Bill of Rights and Constitution (George W. Bush said the Constitution "was just a piece of paper"). The spirit of community has been overtaken by a spirit of meanness where cops are not there to help people but to arrest them; and district attorneys can't see the greater good (some people need convictions, but many just need direction, guidance and a chance to get on a better path whereas a conviction will ruin their chances at employment to good jobs) and prevents them from supporting their families which produces more crimes). We literally live in a day and age where rapists, murderers and thieves get better treatment and options by the criminal justice system than a misdemeanor DWI who got pulled over for a broken tail light, looks and is completely sober on video and has harmed no one. Even those who are intoxicated on DWIs but have not hurt anyone (most DWIs involve minor traffic offenses) are getting railroaded by fines and surcharges over 3k and many are losing jobs and their families are being broken apart with their punishment being the maximum in most cases by district attorney "office policies". The punishments do not fit the crimes and are way disproportionate. Everyone is so quick to judge in the legal system they no longer care for the facts (district attorney office policies in Tarrant County and many other parts of Texas). They have gone so far as implementing court procedures that seek to punish the criminal defense lawyer for doing things such as setting trials (not giving citizens enough time to pay or defense lawyers enough time to prepare for trial) as if that will somehow make us stop doing our jobs in protecting people's rights. ! Our system is drastically broken. I am ashamed of how our criminal justice system treats people. I just know at the end of the day I am one of the good ones, trying on a daily basis to interject dignity, compassion and reasonabless. I am the only one that stands between a citizen accused and a biased freight train coming down the track to demolish someone. Most judges that I deal with, although many are decent people, are not doing enough to stop the Naziism they are inflicting on our own citizens, particularly when it comes to DWI. I at least go to bed at night, knowing that I am the mighty lion who will not back down. I don't care what meanhearted and misdirected judges and district attorneys and cops think of me or do to me. They better know, that unlike the many .. I roar like a lion and pounce with unstoppable fury to their folly and abuse of my clients and their rights. Yes, as an analogy, I bite (I appeal bad decisions; I publish scholarly articles on what is wrong with the justice system and DWIs; I don't shy away from telling people facts; I blog because information is power; I advise my clients on who not to vote for)! I am diplomatic but do not play politics that contributes to a wrong system, unlike the good people of Germany who said nothing at Naziism because they were scared. I fear no one. We are living in Nazi dark ages in the eradication of rights in the criminal justice system, particularly when it comes to DWI offenses. I will not back down. May history know that ! I have faith that it will change for the better one day. I'm doing everything I can in the meantime

DWI Laws

2009-02-16T15:41:00.001-08:00

What is a true leader ? Today on President’s Day, it is the perfect time to reflect on what makes a true leader. Leaders are not born. They are made. Look at the men who rose to the occasion to fight for and create the first democracy in the world ? It would have been a lot easier for them to have rested on their laurels and continued to have life made easy by the British, at the time the most powerful country in the world. Those Founders had a vision: one where the people could have a say in their own governance, a government ruled by elected people opposed to monarchies and merely the rich. They sacrificed their time, money, efforts and opportunities in hopes that something better would come from their efforts. Leaders do things that go beyond their own bottom lines and self interest. They venture out of their comfort zone to make the world a better place for others.

Today, I am saddened by the 80s mentality of Wall Street greed where money is king. Twenty years after that famous movie the only thing that has changed is the fact that this greed has gone from an admired trait to a pervasive sickness. Case in point, I know very few lawyers who will do anything unless it involves money. You can’t get them to drive to Austin or their state capitol to lobby for good laws because they aren’t getting paid. They could care less even when the laws being passed hurt their clients. This isn’t just in Texas; it is nationwide. Kids just aren’t graduating from lawschool with the right principles. Everyone just wants to make money, justice is a hoped for side benefit for most. Lawyers come from an old school of thought where your license allowed you to make money but more importantly it shouldered you with a responsibility to make the world a better place armed with the power of the law. Of all the lawyers I know besides myself I can only say that Chris Hoover , Charles Kingsbury and Larry Boyd are the only DWI lawyers in Texas that have genuinely cared enough to venture out to Austin on a regular basis voluntarily when it really mattered even though it didn’t make us any money (many of the laws we fought for meant losing money as lawyers but better for the citizens). To me, we are the Presidents of the Constitutional Law crowd- trying to make a difference. Even on a national level, it seems damn near impossible to meet a DWI lawyer who cares about fighting for good laws. I don’t know a single one outside of Texas besides Steve Oberman of Tennessee and Patrick McPherson of Hawaii that is involved legislatively. So there you have it folks, out of this whole country less than 2 handfuls really care about leadership when it comes to DWI justice where the laws are made and DWI is the number one crime in America (in terms of numbers of arrests).

On a personal level (maybe it’s because I am surrounded by lawyers and red neck rich wannabes), I am disgusted by the pure selfishness of people when it comes to their government. I am so sick of people crying for capital gains tax cuts and at the same time screaming about paying for welfare yet preaching abstinence among teenagers. That makes a whole lot of sense now doesn’t it ? Why is it that your “wear their religion on their sleeve” right wing Republicans can’t see their own hypocrisy ? They cry for teaching religion in the schools (creationism, such a joke) yet can’t teach basic human decency at home. They think as Sean Hannity said “government’s job is the national defense.” They forget that even monarchs took care of the mentally sick, disabled and diseased. It’s just sick to see a cycle of intellectual inferiorism be perpetuated all in the name of the Bible. Ugh. My leadership exercise this President’s Day is to proudly stand up and call bullshit. This country would be a lot better off if people would start thinking about their fellow human beings and ask how to make this country better. As a great leader named John F. Kennedy once said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” I will end on this note. Happy President’s Day in honor of the many leaders before us who put others first to make this country a better place. Young people, strive to define a better generation. It shouldn’t be that hard.

Common Sense

2006-06-29T15:38:00.000-07:00

Arthur Anderson goes down. Enron goes down. Big CEOs in jail. The nation woke up one day and said enough is enough. Don't tell us that just because you hire the best accounting firm you can create your own tax breaks by creating sham companies; just because the SEC in the past has winked at insider trading we are going to continue to allow the big CEOs to get rich because they know when to trade or sell (even going after small trades like the Martha Stewart case). Whether or not all those involved in the crackdown were deserving (in the Anderson case apparently one nose bleed CPA type brought the whole firm down due to bad ethics) I cannot say but what it obvious is that the press through the nation got the legislators and judges concerned and the rest is history. The same needs to happen for DWI. Bad ass lawyers have a job to do but we don't serve as the press. Some of the 1.4 million DWI arrestees (this statistic in contrast to NHTSAs approx. 17k alcohol related deaths) need to stand up and cry foul !! This country has a huge embarrasing problem when we are arresting 99 people for the one idiot who drank too much and killed someone. I WILL BE THE ONE TO SAY IT AND CALL A SPADE A SPADE: BASICALLY ANYONE WHO GETS PULLED OVER WITH ALCOHOL ON THEIR BREATH IS GOING TO JAIL. The field sobriety tests are designed for failure and are ridiculous (this country would go into fullscale war if we made people do these tests to get their driver's licenses on the same NHTSA grading scales). Why the hell do we use breath test technology for evidentiary purposes when for all practical purposes you cannot retest the samples and the tolerance between two samples is so damn high that the body cannot even physically metabolize the difference (.02) within the 2 required minutes ?!? Give me a break why don't ya ?! Now we have a MINIMUM $3k surcharge from Texas DPS you have to pay once you get convicted on top of fines, court costs and court related expenses ?! That is double punishment (OR DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR YOU JUDGES AND LEGISLATORS READING THIS BLOG AND CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT) and serves NO purpose except for people like me to say "Texas DPS is in the business of making money." This is no different than in the wild west days the local powers that be (the women's Temperance unions because you know the sheriff's were enjoying some drinks at the local saloon) would tax the hell out of liquor establishments to try to get rid of them. Women would parade around town with sign that said something to the effect of: "No lips that have touched liquor will touch mine" (the pics one can find are hilarious !). Yet history repeats itself - the women's temperance union of the 1800s have now turned into MADD. MADD is not about helping victims anymore (even their founder claims this and has left the organization: Candy Lightner whose daughter was killed in a DWI) they are about creating victims: the responsible social drinker into an undeserved criminal. Mend need to quit being impotent and stand up to this nonsense- pillowtalk aside, geez ! Women need to quite lumping everybody together in blind distraction of the real victims out there. Common sense which is not so common anymore......... QUOTE ME, BRAND ME, MAKE ME THE WHIPPING BOY (girl that is) I DON'T CARE. I CONSIDER IT AN HONOR. I AM NOT IMPOTENT, POWERLESS. I HAVE COMMON SENSE AND I AM NOT AFRAID. I AM A PROUD AMERICAN AND AMERICA NEEDS ME AND YOU RIGHT NOW ! HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF.... 100, 200 YEARS FROM NOW SOMEONE WILL REMEMBER AND CALL A SPADE A SPADE. I WILL BE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS WAR. Now everyone: if you do drink, go forth and drink responsibly. Mimi Coffey