INFP at Law

Allen West on the USMC Pissing Video

2012-01-14T11:15:00.000-08:00

“The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.

“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”

Psychiatric Treatment and Custody or Visitation

2012-01-13T08:09:00.000-08:00

First, I am not a mental health professional. I cannot and do not make diagnoses or offer treatment for any medical condition. However, allegations of mental illness are often made in the family courts and I have to deal with those allegations, both by making them and defending people against them. Below I set forth my observations; your mileage may vary.

A mentally ill parent will have difficulty obtaining sole custody of their children if it's contested as compared to an otherwise equivalent non-mentally ill parent. How difficult depends on how mentally ill the parent is; having the blues occasionally is not a substantial impediment to caring for your children while hallucinations or threatened suicide or homicide are quite worrying to any reasonable judge (and your local child protection agency).

Optimally a parent seeking custody is not mentally ill at all. Unfortunately, life doesn't work that way; people who are (more or less) blameless for their mental illness often need help to overcome it.

If you are fighting with the other parent or a guardian (or whoever) for custody of your child(ren) and you are alleged to be a person in need of psychiatric treatment, then you should probably seek it. If the allegation is false or is greatly overstated then your counselor can come testify to that fact or offer a report to the court and thereby undermine an important part of the argument against you. If a professional concurs that you do need treatment you can obtain the treatment and undermine an important part of the argument against you.

Generally, in my experience with family court, if you are, in fact, mentally ill:

Everybody who's going to testify thinks you're mentally ill, and will generally, under cross-examination, admit to those elements of your behavior and to past incidents that reinforce that narrative, even your mother; your attorney will attempt to get them to "explain away" the behavior in a way that doesn't undermine your case, but it won't be as effective as you want because the objective facts are damning while the "explaining away" is self-serving;
Lots of your past behavior, behavior that seems reasonable to you and which you can explain to your own satisfaction and that of your close friends, can be cast in a way that will illustrate your illness even if the behavior or incident is actually unrelated to your mental illness;
There is usually an audio recording (usually a message left on a phone, but very often a video) of you saying something that sounds mentally ill or threatening, and the judge will hear that, and;
Your denials will generally be ineffective since your even your mom admits to your crazy behavior.

However, all is not lost. Overcoming mental illness by taking responsible action actually creates a useful narrative for court purposes: (e.g.) you have, because of the strength of your character, obtained the help you needed, overcame a substantial difficulty and you will use that same character to guide your children. The testimony of the counselor you sought out when you were confronted or accused of mental illness will generally be very credible and your counselor is generally very sympathetic to you as well. The alternative narrative is that of the unstable person who is in denial and refuses to get help. Which person would you rather have raising your children? This is the sort of thing a judge has to decide when confronted with allegations of mental illness when they are required to make a custody decision. This kind of narrative is something you have to consider if you're fighting over custody.

This is what always get lost in debate...

2011-07-18T19:21:00.000-07:00

Rubio: The Real Problem Is Not The Debt Limit, It's the Debt Itself

Sounds Like Fun

2011-04-26T05:19:00.000-07:00

Gas Pump Activism.

Joint Custody Plans

2011-04-20T19:22:00.000-07:00

Reasonable people can make the most unreasonable joint custody plan work....

Unreasonable people can make the most reasonable joint custody plan fail.

True That

2010-10-13T05:59:00.000-07:00

"It should be taken as an axiom of political life that if your argument is about the other side’s advertisements, you’re losing. If your argument is about who’s funding the other side’s advertisements, you’re losing badly. And if your argument is about how foreigners might — lack of evidence notwithstanding — be secretly funneling cash into the other side’s advertisements, you’re losing in a historic landslide."

Real Feminism at Work

2010-05-18T07:04:00.000-07:00

Saudi woman beats up religious police...

h/t NRO

Fake Tea Parties? Democrats hard at work as usual...

2010-05-17T19:25:00.001-07:00

See BlogProf for more.

Let It Burn...

2010-05-16T15:27:00.000-07:00

Is America so addicted to government that it is doomed?

All this for some pot residue inside a pipe...

2010-05-12T11:38:00.000-07:00

The Most Unpopular Divorce Statute

2010-05-07T13:00:00.000-07:00

43 O.S. 107.1 A. 1. In an action for divorce where there are minor children involved, the court shall not issue a final order thereon for at least ninety (90) days from the date of filing the petition which ninety (90) days may be waived by the court for good cause shown and without objection by either party.

I get at least two calls a day asking if I can get the judge to waive this requirement for no really compelling reason. Answer? It depends on the judge; each one has his own standard of what amounts to "good cause" for waiving the 90 days.

Barack Obama Hates White People?

2010-05-07T03:28:00.001-07:00

Say it ain't so!

It Was For the Children

2010-04-20T09:33:00.000-07:00

Information about the Waco Incident. Evidently the FBI was targeting the children with the CS gas.

Very shocking and would probably constitute a war crime.

"We're from the government and we're here to help!"

My First Tea Party

2010-04-14T18:12:00.000-07:00

It's nice to be among friends. I'll post pictures later if I can get them from my phone to my computer and maybe post a few of my thoughts.

Tons and tons of Gadsen flags.

When Police Mistake Candy for Crack...

2010-03-29T12:41:00.000-07:00

When Police Mistake Candy for Crack...

"Lesson #1: Never, ever, ever, ever, agree to a search. If you’re guilty, you’re helping them catch you. If you’re innocent, you’re wasting your time, you’re taking a chance since they aren’t required to fix anything they break, you’re leaving yourself open for being charged for something you didn’t know about that fell out of a friend’s pocket, and you’ve got the possibility that a couple of morons will think your coconut candy is crack and throw you in jail for a week."

Read the Whole Thing.

You Can Judge Yourself by your Enemies

2010-03-25T12:17:00.000-07:00

At least Castro likes the health care bill.

National Suicide

2010-03-24T04:34:00.000-07:00

By way of Critical Condition on NRO:

"All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa . . . , with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time, or die by suicide." -- Abraham Lincoln

Timely words from a president who actually was great and as unlike our current presidents as could possibly be imagined.

QOTD

2010-03-23T17:42:00.000-07:00

"The means live on; the ends are ephemeral — and Pelosi's conduct tarnished the Congress and will unleash a no-holds-barred reaction when she is out of power that will make historians think very carefully about the real lasting wages of her most unpopular tenure."

Truer words were never spoken by Victor Davis Hanson.

VIDEO: Why the Stimulus Isn’t Working

2010-03-23T11:43:00.000-07:00

Via Mr. McCain

VIDEO: Why the Stimulus Isn't Working

We are doomed....

Whistling Our Way to National Bankruptcy

2010-03-23T11:42:00.000-07:00

"I'm looking forward to finding out what happens when investors stop lending our government money."

So am I.

Child Support in Oklahoma

2010-03-23T10:11:00.000-07:00

Child Support Spreadsheet used by the Oklahoma Department of Human Services.

Go nuts.

Remember that if a party makes less than minimum wage they will still be imputed minimum wage for calculation of support owed (this applies equally to the obligor and obligee).

QOTD

2010-03-18T08:55:00.000-07:00

"For Mongo, this is all very natural. As far as he’s concerned, the point of the lawsuit is not to get a favorable verdict but to kill the other lawyer."

I have a Mongo inside me, and he gets me in trouble, too.

Visitation

2010-03-16T07:22:00.000-07:00

Sole Custody. In a sole custody situation, visitation refers to that time set aside by the court for the child to be with the non-custodial parent. The custodial parent (the one with the legal decision making authority) is not ordinarily described as having visitation, though, to my mind this is an error. Visitation in a sole custody situation should refer to the time both parents spend with the child.

Joint Custody. In a joint custody situation, visitation just describes the time both parents spend with the child. Each parent has both custody and a visitation arrangement.

In other words, visitation refers to the time spent with the child and has almost nothing to do with who has legal custody of the child. A common error is to assume that a parent can't spend half the available time with the child without having joint custody. It's not true. I know parents who do not have custody of their children but still get one-half of all the days in a year with them.

To make a long story short: custody and visitation are different animals, so don't confuse them.

Next time: Child Support.

QOTD

2010-03-12T11:15:00.000-08:00

"Our contemporary system of race laws is both stupid and evil, and thus supported by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress."

Thinking About Joint Custody?

2010-03-08T07:40:00.000-08:00

In Oklahoma, legal custody is an arrangement that primarily defines which parent or person gets to make what decisions for a minor child. Who spends what time with the child (visitation) is a separate matter.

Married Parents. When parents are married they have de facto joint custody, that is, neither has more authority in decision making than the other. Each parent can make any (otherwise legal) decision they want regarding the minor child; e.g. enroll him in this school as opposed to that school, etc.

Unmarried Parents. When the parents were never married and paternity has not been established then (in Oklahoma) the mother has full custody until a court with the appropriate jurisdiction says otherwise. Once paternity has been established by a court then it will also have the power to enter a custody order which is appropriate to the circumstances. If DHS is instigating a child support action then often the court will not enter a custody order after paternity and support obligations are established. It is up to the parties to ask the court to do so once the DHS judge is done with the case.

Divorcing Parents. In a contested divorce the parents will often ask the Court to enter a Temporary Order. The Court will often enter a child custody order that grants the parties temporary joint custody as an experiment to see how it works until the final hearing unless there is a strong objection by either parent with good cause (drug use, physical abuse, etc.) shown. Visitation can also be split equally at this point.

Divorced Parents. In this scenario a court has already entered a custody order, generally one of the following:

a. Sole Custody. One parent has final decision making authority regarding the minor child. Where will he go to school? Ask the sole custodian. Will he get braces this year? Ask the sole custodian.

b. Joint Custody. The parents have joint decision making authority regarding the minor child. Where will he go to school? The parents decide together. Will he get braces this year? The parents decide together. What if they can't agree? One of two things generally happens (depending on the Joint Custody Plan and the Court): (1) they go to mediation or arbitration, or; (2) one parent gets to decide after conferring with the other in good faith.

c. Modified Joint Custody. One parent decides about some things (e.g. education) and the other parent decides about other things (e.g. medical). This is pretty uncommon, but some parents agree to it.

Final Note: the State of Oklahoma and the Courts therein prefer joint custody when that is a reasonable option. Next time I'll talk about visitation and child support and their relation to legal custody (who the child actually spends their time with and who pays whom money).

Why I don't like plea bargaining (in theory)

2010-02-13T08:57:00.000-08:00

Scenario 1: You look like the guy who robbed the liquor store down the street the other day. The cops pick you up because you look like the suspect and you live nearby, you were even wearing a hoodie when they picked you up. You were playing Xbox by yourself and have no alibi for the time the store was robbed. You end up in a lineup and the clerk picks you out. The cops conclude you did it and write a report to that effect. The report goes to the prosecutor who files an information against you based on what the cops said. You borrowed a lot of money from your grandma and you pay a bail bondsman and you pay a large amount of money to a private attorney. He says the state's case is weak and you could go to trial and get acquitted, but there's no guarantees; he estimates your chance of acquittal at 55% because the clerk is gonna testify against you and you have no alibi. Then he tells you that the DA offered a plea bargain; you plead guilty and you'll get a couple of months in the county jail with the rest of your sentence suspended, you pay fines and court costs as well; no prison time for you unless you violate the law during your suspended sentence. You're not guilty, you know you're not guilty but if you continue to assert you're not guilty you run a pretty good risk of spending years in prison because of circumstances beyond your control. Do you take the deal?

Scenario 2: You robbed the liquor store. They got you on a fuzzy video. You got picked up by the cops with a wad of money in your pocket, but you were smart enough not to confess like all those other dummies who do. You asked for your lawyer and you weren't further interrogated. You're lawyer says you're screwed and it'll be an easy conviction for the state and you should look for a plea deal since this is your first offense (first one they know about anyway, suckers). You have no reason to doubt what he says. The DA offers you a deal, take a few months in the county jail, pay some fines and court costs and a suspended sentence; otherwise, the DA will go hard on you and ask for 5 years in the penitentiary, you probably won't get out until a little after 4 years pass. Do you take the deal?

-- I don't practice much criminal law, but this seems to be a systemic sort of problem. We have, in the first place, far too many laws and not nearly enough resources to enforce them all evenly. We probably need to do something like halve the number of laws that result in criminal penalties while doubling the amount of resources prosecution and defendants have to adjudicate meritorious cases.

-- My buddy Erik thinks this is Pie in the Sky. I agree, but it's still what I think. And, no, I don't trust "the cops", only individuals that I know.

Robert Conquest's Three Laws of Politics

2009-12-14T09:05:00.000-08:00

Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.
Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left wing.
The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.

I've read this before and it, of course, makes perfect sense. (h/t Useful Fools)

Poor Widdle Tewwowist

2009-11-24T14:36:00.000-08:00

Three navy seals are being prosecuted for punching a terrorist in the face while capturing him. He's got a bloody lip to prove it.

This sucks, they should have just shot him.

"... sneaky-ass lawyer"

2009-11-05T03:53:00.000-08:00

So I send a guy a letter in the mail saying, look, your wife wants a divorce, here are some terms we think are fair (too fair probably). He calls me a "sneaky-ass lawyer" for sending him this in the mail (the horror). He seemed genuinely upset that I hadn't served him, I suppose by process server. Of course I hadn't had him served, I hadn't even filed the case yet.

Anyway, if I were a really dirty sneaky-ass lawyer I'd have gotten service by publication and just sent him the decree when it was done with.

I think I understand their position on animal rights...

2009-10-29T04:32:00.000-07:00

... but what's their position on human rights?

Mediation?

2009-10-16T10:29:00.000-07:00

I'm taking a course on divorce and family mediation from the esteemed Jim Stovall at the Mediation Institute in Oklahoma City. The goal is to learn how to get divorced/divorcing couples to agreement on issues that exist between them such as custody, property division and child support. The other students include attorneys, counselors, ministers, and lay people (so to speak) who want to learn mediation.

It's been a pretty good course and I feel like I've learned a lot even if I don't end up practicing mediation.

How Messy Should My Desk Be?

2009-10-06T18:21:00.000-07:00

There seem to be lots of theories about this. A prominent one is that your desk should look "busy" so that people think other people are hiring me and they want to hire me too. Another one is that your desk should be empty so that people can see you are organized. I think personality has a lot to do with what people's desks look like and doesn't really impact their performance at all, but I wonder if it impacts what people think of you.

My desk looks like the first option on steroids. Any thoughts?

Update: Corrected redneck grammar.

Why You Should be Represented by Counsel in Your Uncontested Divorce

2009-10-06T08:08:00.000-07:00

Divorce is a serious legal matter even in the best of cases. You need representation to ensure that you get what you're entitled to even if the matter seems to be amicable.

Example: This is a nice lady I'm representing in a post-divorce modification proceeding. Her ex-husband is an employee for a large municipality and he gets relatively good compensation compared to the average Oklahoman. Before their divorce, she stayed at home to raise their children. She gained some weight from child-bearing, so he started sleeping around on her and eventually decided to divorce her because he liked an extra-skinny 18-year-old girl better. So he got a lawyer and his lawyer drafted up a decree saying that he got to keep all the retirement accrued during the marriage, didn't need to support his now indigent (dirt poor) wife even temporarily, and that he only had to pay an extraordinarily low child support payment. He got everything, but she didn't want to cause a row, or pay for a lawyer, so she just signed the papers hoping to keep things peaceful. She didn't even get full custody of the kids even though she raised them alone while he was out screwing around. She literally got nothing. And now he's dragged her back into court to bully her over the kids based on this same crappy decree.

Take your divorce seriously. If you don't know your rights you're gonna get the shaft and the worst part will be that you agreed to it.

That is all.

Intellectual Property Unnecessary?

2009-10-01T03:33:00.000-07:00

This article by Kevin Carson in The Freeman basically says that intellectual property is a stumbling block to the growth of human freedom (competition) in that it makes demands about how we use our physical property. By way of example:

All-pervasive DRM prevents the easy transfer of content between platforms, even when a CD or DVD buyer simply wants to play the content somewhere more convenient. And the DMCA legally prohibits circumventing such DRM, even when–again–the purchaser simply wants to facilitate his own use on a wider and more convenient variety of platforms.

Obviously this is overreach by the publishers of the media colluding with government and demonstrates that the current regulatory regime is profoundly flawed. I think that I should only have to buy media once. I shouldn't have to buy a new copy of Pink Floyd's The Wall or Smashing Pumpkins' Siamese Dream every time I want to listen to it in a different format.

That said, I think that the implied solution, no intellectual property at all, is throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Carson gives the examples of phish and radiohead who essentially give away certain versions of their intellectual property with the expectation (realized in their cases) that users of their media will pay them anyway or pay them for auxiliary services like live performances. I don't, however, see how this can work for all artists.

I'm wondering in particular how novelists would get by if there were no prohibition on the endless electronic distribution of their materials. For full disclosure's sake my wife is a novelist currently trying to get published. She writes books for teenaged girls.

Supposing she writes something that becomes fairly popular, how would she get paid for it without copyright protection? Anybody who wanted it could have an electronic copy for free since anyone with a scanner could scan it in and post it as a torrent (this happens with books all the time). A few good-hearted souls would fork over the money, but most people would pay exactly zero, and I expect that the average profit per copy distributed would also approach zero.

I like libertarians because I like independent, liberty-minded people. But full execution of the libertarian idea almost always ends up going one step too far.

Roman Polanski

2009-09-30T10:13:00.000-07:00

This dude should most definitely be prosecuted. The dude (44 yrs old at the time) got a 13 yr old girl drunk, drugged up, then, among other things, anally raped her.

I'm amazed this is even a question. Who defends this? (h/t Patterico)

Update: Well, now I know who defends child rape (through Bill Bennett on the Corner).

Bizzaro World

2009-09-27T03:37:00.000-07:00

It's a bird, it's a plane, its... Barack?

New Business Website

2009-09-26T20:07:00.000-07:00

After messing with things for four days I'm much happier with my new website. It's much better than my old site which I was making with netscape composer 7.2, which isn't bad stuff but requires you to know much much more about what you're doing. I recommend tandem server's software. You can make a fairly professional site without spending any great deal of money (well, time is money, but that's another conversation).

I don't know if the website will actually bring me any great deal of new business, but that's not really what it's for.

Anyway, good night.

More Cowbell!

2009-09-18T18:54:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of J. Goldberg. (I don't know where he got it.)

Why I Can't Be an Oathkeeper

2009-09-15T00:29:00.000-07:00

I stumbled across the Oathkeeper website. This is a Ron Paul inspired organization. I was kind of excited when I first found it, but then I found their list of orders they won't obey and saw that, as with pretty much all things inspired by or associated with libertarians, they go one step too far. This one in particular strikes me as the one that is most troublesome.

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the denial of the right to jury trial, the use of admiralty courts (military tribunals) instead, and the application of the laws of war to the colonists. After that experience, and being well aware of the infamous Star Chamber in English history, the Founders ensured that the international laws of war would apply only to foreign enemies, not to the American people. Thus, the Article III Treason Clause establishes the only constitutional form of trial for an American, not serving in the military, who is accused of making war on his own nation. Such a trial for treason must be before a civilian jury, not a tribunal.
The international laws of war do not trump our Bill of Rights. We reject as illegitimate any such claimed power, as did the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1865). Any attempt to apply the laws of war to American civilians, under any pretext, such as against domestic “militia” groups the government brands “domestic terrorists,” is an act of war and an act of treason.

Now, I'm pretty much a libertarian, so I support most of the things that libertarians are in favor of, but there is always the wacky little bit that I just can't go in for and each little libertarian group seems to have its own wacky bit. So, although I used to be a card-carrying LP member, I no longer am because I don't support ridiculousness such as abortion-on-demand, open borders, and isolationism abroad.

The problem with Oathkeepers' #3 above is that if I took that seriously it means that I can't participate in warfare against anyone who happens to be an American citizen regardless of their ideology. So if Osama bin Laden happened to possess US citizenship while doing what he did on 9/11 this group would want him arrested in the mountains of Afghanistan with a warrant, etc. by proper police forces.

Screw that, if someone attacks us in a way that is unlawful under the international laws of war then I'm perfectly willing to have them be defined as an "unlawful enemy combatant" regardless of their citizenship and shoot them on sight. Assymetrical warfare ain't beanbag and libertarians should stop pretending that it is.

Update: Added a label.

2009-09-11T06:17:00.001-07:00

This is pretty much what I dislike about the left:

On the one hand, the Left believes that no laws or rules govern their own effort on behalf of "social justice" -- the end justifies the means. But when the Left gains power, they rigorously enforce laws against their enemies.

At least with the right, they consistently enforce their standards against their own (contra Rangel, Geitner, et al, but let a private citizen or political enemy do that and see what happens).

UPDATE: Edited for formatting (sue me, I'm a noob)

Expertise needs to be confined to what it's good for

2009-09-11T05:53:00.000-07:00

I pretty much agree with everything in this article, except that I don't really trust any authority totally. I need experts like doctors to tell me facts such as: smoking contributes to lung cancer. I don't need them to tell me not to smoke, it's none of their damned business whether I do or not. I practice law pretty much the same way. I advise my clients so that they can make their own decisions; I don't tell them what to do unless they beg me to.

Tribal Court

2009-09-10T18:40:00.000-07:00

I'd never been to a tribal court before (I'm not going to specify the tribe). It was a very low key affair and actually pretty comfortable for me personally. Here are a couple of things I noted (which will possibly be obvious to Indian Law people, one of which I am not):

1. The tribal court I saw was very protective of, even defensive about, its jurisdiction (my client is a non-Indian being sued by her Indian husband for child custody; the notion that the tribe has personal jurisdiction over her through the mere fact of her marriage to a member strikes me as a breathtakingly broad assertion of jurisdiction, and, oh yeah, neither of them or any child of theirs live on any reservation or anything else that could be classified as Indian land.) BLEG? Is that even legal? I can't really find a case on point that talks about whether intermarriage is enough of a contact, by itself, to give the tribal court personal jurisdiction over a non-Indian. I objected, but more or less got over-ruled and told to file a motion and briefing, etc., even though I entered a special appearance to argue about jurisdiction over the non-Indian.

2. The tribe's statutes aren't secret, but they're very hard to access (you can buy them for $30 per title, and there are about 50-60 titles which all fit into 3 large binders, so about $1800.00 for three binders that all go on one CD). Or if you're nice to the court clerk she'll let you look at them (especially if you plead to her that your client is indigent), which is what I did. This isn't a universal deal, just this particular court, other bands of the same nation publish all their statutes online.

3. The conduct of court itself was very open and comfortable for me personally. I was able to ask the judge questions in open court about how his court worked, etc., and he just answered which was unusual to me.

4. Pleadings are very free form and not necessarily related to anything state courts might require. This case is based on a Petition for Temporary Custody and that's all the pleadings asked for (this I found out is a court form that the court clerk fills out for people who wander in not knowing what to do). I asked the judge what the final resolution on this type of matter would be and he said he would eventually enter a final custody order. This strikes me as odd because (1) the plaintiff didn't ask for a permanent custody order in any pleading and (2) I can't for the life of me see how this was a sufficient pleading at all because there is no underlying court case, no divorce, no separation, no paternity, nothing, just a temporary custody order between still married parents. CONSEQUENCE: Plaintiff files a one page pleading asking for nothing specific (or even delineated by the tribal code). But, apparently, that's just how they do it there.

Overall, honestly, except for the jurisdiction part and the non-publication of statutes, this is how I'd run a court if I got to do whatever I wanted. It would be low-key, less confrontational, and have a more settlement-oriented culture. I would practice in courts like that all the time if there were enough clients (this was only the 15th civil case filed all year in that court).

Anyway, that was my day. How was yours?

...smooth, generally flat, occasionally a bit whiny...

2009-09-10T04:23:00.001-07:00

I am very glad that i don't have the job of actually reading the speeches of or listening to the most boring speaker alive, our illustrious president. Instead I can just read about the speeches. No offense to any who love the man, but I just don't see what inspires the love.

For the record I couldn't really stand listening to President Bush either. President Clinton on the other hand...

EDITED: Link updated. (I'm a noob)

Inaugural Post

2009-09-09T10:30:00.000-07:00

Hi, I'm E. W. Childers. I'm a lawyer in Oklahoma. And I'm an INFP. I just learned some of this personality stuff maybe two weeks ago and I was wondering what to do with it. I'm self-employed and this has lots of ups and downs to explore as well. Hopefully anyone who stumbles upon it will find this stuff at least a little edifying, but if not, oh well.

I just got back from Iraq with my National Guard unit and I've re-opened my shop in a new (but not that far away!) location and I've been thinking heavily about marketing, particularly internet marketing as I'm presently on a shoe-string budget. People keep trying to sell me outrageously expensive advertising options most of which in my prior experience don't work. I plan on writing about them and anyone who stumbles upon this may as well benefit from my mistakes. As far as networking goes, I think my personality type may have a lot to do with why I'm not much of a self-promoter; I have difficulty striking up conversations with strangers and I'm not super good with chitchat with people I do know well. So I'm mostly exploring what might work for me. Comments, of course, are welcome.

Another thing I've been thinking about is employment relationships, supervisor/subordinate, that sort of thing. This also ties in to the National Guard stuff because I wasn't very happy during my deployment. This also seems to be related to personality type. The short story is that I don't really ever want to work for (in a semi-permanent relationship like that of employee/employer) anyone again. If I did it would have to be a pretty special deal because I don't think I could stand it otherwise.

Anyway, writing this blog is my attempt to "stretch" my emotional muscles, so to speak and ruminate on better ways to do what I'm already doing anyway.

INFP at Law

Allen West on the USMC Pissing Video

Psychiatric Treatment and Custody or Visitation

This is what always get lost in debate...

Rubio: The Real Problem Is Not The Debt Limit, It's the Debt Itself

Sounds Like Fun

Joint Custody Plans

True That

Recommended Reading for Divorce Clients

Real Feminism at Work

Fake Tea Parties? Democrats hard at work as usual...

Let It Burn...

All this for some pot residue inside a pipe...

The Most Unpopular Divorce Statute

Barack Obama Hates White People?

It Was For the Children

My First Tea Party

When Police Mistake Candy for Crack...

You Can Judge Yourself by your Enemies

National Suicide

QOTD

VIDEO: Why the Stimulus Isn’t Working

Whistling Our Way to National Bankruptcy

Child Support in Oklahoma

QOTD

Visitation

QOTD

Thinking About Joint Custody?

Why I don't like plea bargaining (in theory)

Robert Conquest's Three Laws of Politics

Poor Widdle Tewwowist

"... sneaky-ass lawyer"

I think I understand their position on animal rights...

Mediation?

How Messy Should My Desk Be?

Why You Should be Represented by Counsel in Your Uncontested Divorce

Intellectual Property Unnecessary?

Roman Polanski

Bizzaro World

New Business Website

More Cowbell!

Why I Can't Be an Oathkeeper

Expertise needs to be confined to what it's good for

Tribal Court

...smooth, generally flat, occasionally a bit whiny...

Inaugural Post