Email from the High School

Went to a seminar this afternoon about malpractice risks for attorneys, simply for the insurance discount, bored to death and thankful for the internet access. Halfway through, I get an email from my daughter's high school:

We were alerted by the Omaha Police Dept. that a student had left his home earlier today and was probably armed. While no threats of any kind were directed toward the school or any students, we followed our established procedures to ensure the safety and security of all students. Furthermore, we also worked with the Omaha Police Department who did find the student a short time after they had alerted the school of this matter, thus bringing this incident to a close.

Knowing what I do about bureaucracies, I cynically suspected either exaggeration or minimization, but also suddenly realized what was important, why I leave the house in the morning, and that risks can appear where you never suspected them.

Is TLC a Cult?

A commenter leaves a message:

Do you think TLC is a cult?

The question reminds me of a line from the movie The Survivors when Walter Matthau's character confronts Robin Williams' "Donald Quinelle" who's joined a cult of survivalists:

Sonny Paluso: You think Wes is God, don't you.
Donald Quinelle: No, not God, Just an ordinary man. Maybe a little ahead of his time, but just an ordinary man.
Sonny Paluso: Wes is an asshole.
Donald Quinelle: Blasphemy! Oh, you'll smoke a turd in hell for that!

In other words, Gerry isn't a God, he's just an ordinary man and anyone who says differently has blasphemed our Dear Leader and must be either reprogrammed or shunned! Boil up a batch of Kool Aid, somebody's starting to sober up!

Just kidding. My honest answer is that I don't think it is. But I fear it's becoming a cult of personality, more loyal to personalities in power than to the principles that made it such an amazing experience.

I'm on the F Warrior Board. One of our rules, newly created, is that we can't divulge internal discussions. I'm not saying I agree with it or not, but it's a rule, voted in, after a particularly heated argument.

I bring it up to demonstrate why I edited the email I sent to the rest of the FWB tonight. I didn't selectively edit for my own purposes, in other words, but to comply with the rules. What I said might answer the question:

I was looking forward to Dallas but responses like [X's] that accuse the questioner of being "distrustful" make me think our meeting, so helpful last year, will likely degenerate into personal attacks and tests of loyalty (which is defined as not asking any tough questions) rather than an honest dialogue about what's best for the alumni.

It's true that change is hard, but it's also true that what organizations need is a variety of viewpoints and people with a willingness to ask tough questions and debate honestly. It's also true that our mission is independent of the TLC Board and that our Board was designed to support the alumni rather than the TLC Board.

In fact, dig out your Spring '06 Warrior where [] describes the beginnings of the F Warrior Club as "from the moment of its inception, it was designed to be comprised of the Alumni, by the Alumni and for the Alumni.. While supportive of TLC the F Warrior Club was always meant to be autonomous, answering only to the needs of the Alumni."

He goes on to say that the FWB was then created and "was never meant to govern, but only to serve the interests of the club."

Are we living up to that foundation now, assisting the President as he drafts explanations of his decision to "reorganize" the board toward obsequiousness, accusing each other of being "distrustful" when someone respectfully asks questions or points out that what she saw at Grad II differs from the official company line, undoubtedly in the name of fulfilling her role representing her regions' alumni?

And rather than accusing people who ask questions like this of having [issues] or of [spreading innuendo] perhaps we should be asking ourselves what is the best way to carry out our mission statement, the best way to "answer only to the needs of the alumni" as [T] put it several years ago.

Our interpretations of how to serve the alumni will differ, which is why we're all necessary. My fear is that our meeting will quickly become part witchhunt (for whoever forwarded [Y]'s email to [Z]) and part loyalty test where anyone who asks tough questions won't have them answered but will instead be attacked personally, accused of being distrustful for daring to speak out. My other fear is that, much like the TLC Board, we will degenerate into sycophancy toward personalities rather than carrying out TLC principles.

Not exactly what the alumni need right now, at such a trying time, in my opinion. How about instead we strive for transparency to the alumni who may be, understandably, confused about what's going on inside TLC?

Why not encourage all of us to speak openly, without fear from personal attack, much like we're taught to honor the gifts jurors share with us in voir dire?

I'm glad you're optimistic, [] but I'm not so sure, given what I've seen so far. Gerry says "love is always the winning argument" but I'm afraid we've forgotten it and that it will tear us apart in Dallas when we so desperately need to come together...

P.S. [X], Thank you for your courage in speaking out and being real. We know what happens to people who dare to exhibit these traits on the TLC Board, but we should encourage them on ours if we're truly "answering only to the needs of the Alumni."

TLC Board Shakeup

Just heard that new TLC President Jude Basile made some changes to the TLC Board of Directors, the "Big Board" as it's known. Out are Kaitlyn Larimer, Fredi Sison, Carl Bettinger, Lynne Bratcher, and Gerry's wife Imaging Spence.

As I said on our F Warrior conference call when asked my feelings about these changes:

"I think it's bullshit. Those people are my heroes"

And they are. But they're gone. And they, other than Imaging, also were the three highest vote receivers in Norm Pattis' blog survey.

I was surprised, but apparently others, at least those who voted, were not.

Why We Need Healthcare Reform

My daughter asked if her 15-year old best friend could stay the week, as one parent is going out of town and the other doesn't have room in the apartment that she shares with a friend to save money. Last Friday morning, after I agreed to this, my daughter told me:

"Dad, we need to get there early since she's got a broken toe and they don't have health insurance and they can't afford to take her to the doctor so they're just letting it heal on its own which means she needs extra time to walk to class, so can you get us there fifteen minutes early all week?"

Thickening Blue Line?

I ran a 10K this morning in downtown Omaha with thousands of other runners. I came in just over 56 minutes, which isn't fast but about killed me, especially since I haven't run more than 10 times this year.

One reason I was able to run without stopping was the people who came out to cheer us on, to yell out our pace and simply to watch. It was uplifting to be out early on a beautiful Fall morning, running in perfect weather and for a good cause, as the proceeds went to the American Lung Association. At the end of the race, my lungs were expanded yet exhausted.

The only downside to the morning came from a few of the police officers who waited along the route. I knew most of them from court and waved at them as we ran by. I even knew a few of their first names and yelled them out. Most waved back, a few even remembering my name. It was great.

But a few simply stood there behind mirrored shades, neither waving or even acknowledging my presence as we ran by. I understand this when it happens in court, how when you're with your fellow officers you don't want to acknowledge that you occasionally have conversations with a defense attorney. It always strikes me as funny, however, sort of like high school, how one group can't acknowledge that they associate with a different group when their friends are around.

The good news is that for every officer who stands there like the man with no eyes in Cool Hand Luke, there seem to be more who are willing to wave back on a Sunday morning, who seem willing to follow the law rather than becoming it.

I hope the ratio stays that way.

Real Lawyer?

Met with a 19 year old today who is confronted with a choice: plead to a charge that he’ll likely win at trial or wait for two months to take his case before a jury. The story he told me, about joining a gang as a kid when his family wasn’t there, and then finding out that only a few of this new “family” was true to him, was terribly sad. He described “taking a charge” for two felons after being pulled over in a car with a gun under the seat. Since he wasn’t a felon, taking the hit for them gave him some cool points and saved them from going to back to prison.

My wish would be to take the case to trial, but I’m not the one who has to wait it out in a jumpsuit. Still, I try to tell my clients that it’s my job not only to take care of them in the short-term, but also to make sure they’re advised to think about the consequences, in the long term, of another conviction. When I was a Public Defender and a client would ask to come in right away, to plead guilty and thus get an “out date” to visualize, I used to say, “give me a week and I’ll save you a month” or “give me a month and I’ll save you a year” in some circumstances. Put in these terms, it brought home the fact that the certainty they wished for, that drove them crazy in jail, wasn’t something to grab at teh first opportunity. Better to wait until the time was right and claim the type of certainty that not only made you feel better in the short term but also kept you from sitting in jail any longer than necessary.

But who am I to decide? While I tell people whether I think they should go to trial, I always tell them it’s their decision. How easy is it for me to say, “wait in jail for a couple months to go to trial” when I get to walk out of jail and sleep in my own bed that night?

During my first year out of law school, when I was working as a p.d. in misdemeanor court, a client called me with a compliment I’ll never forget. He said, “you’re a real lawyer.” It meant a lot, but it was also a little double edged. What I’d done for him, that made him call me with this compliment, was to assist him in pleading guilty to a charge that he would likely have won at trial. He was simply happy because he’d gotten out of jail before his trial date, which was better that he’d expected. He’d disregarded my advice to go to trial and chosen to admit to a weak charge, being unable to make bond and likely a little nervous about going to trial.

He thought I was a real lawyer not because I fought to take his case to trial, but because I arranged a deal that got him out of jail earlier than he’d expected, but which had also planted yet another charge on his record.

While I was worried about sufficiency of evidence and innocence, he was more concerned with sleeping in his own bed. I couldn’t blame him, but I didn’t feel very “real.”

Removing Gang Signs

I have a client who is in inpatient treatment for meth addiction. She called me the other day, asking about getting the tattoo on her neck removed, as she’s reached the level of the program where she can begin working again. I guess there are only certain places you can find jobs when you have a visible gang tattoo on your neck. She wanted out of those type of jobs, even after just a few months of sobriety. A good sign, I guess. Her tattoo is of the number 13, apparently for the 13th Street Surenos. I’ve never asked her about it, but it’s hard to miss the numbers.

Last Sunday morning, when I woke up early, put the kayak on top of the car and kayaked around an almost deserted lake about a mile from my house in West Omaha, I saw this same symbol spray-painted on a concrete wall as I passed under a bridge, between a couple boats. The letters “Sur” were scrawled beneath it, a symbol of a South Omaha gang about 10 miles from 13th street, on the edge of the suburbs.

The morning kayak ride was a good way to forget about the pain, the violence and the drug addiction I deal with all the time. But the symbol, close to home, was a reminder that the problems on 13th street will eventually show up on our own streets if they’re not properly addressed.


My client tells me she’s heard of free laser tattoo removal of gang tattoos and wants to ask her friend about it. I thought of approaching the prominent Omaha dermatologist, the guy who founded lovelyskin.com, and asking him to donate a free laser tattoo removal, a reward six months of sobriety.

Do you think he’ll laugh? Since he probably lives “out west” where I do, I can show him the gang symbol on the bridge, tell him that if he takes the gang symbol off her neck, I’ll find a way to remove the sign from his neighborhood.

Do you think there’s a chance?