Have you ever heard the quote "tall fences make good neighbors?" Maybe you've had a nosy neighbor who was always looking over the fence commenting on how trashy your yard looks or saw you peeing on your azaleas and makes some off handed comment about how sick it is that neighbors think because they have fences that they can do whatever they want in their backyards.
Maybe, as you're dealing with nosy neighbor, you think,...there ought to be a law to keep neighbors from looking over fences. So you call your friendly, neighborhood congress person and say, "There needs to be a law to prohibit nosy neighbors from looking over fences.
Congress person, not having anything better to do, agrees and drafts a bill to make it a felony to look over a neighbor's fence effectively amending penal code 142.22(a) which, up to that point, had never been amended over the course of the last 110 years.
Sound like a silly law?
So, picture it, you're eating a sandwich and as you're going about, a piece of sandwich gets lodged in your windpipe and you start to turn blue. You're nosy neighbor hears what sounds to be gacking noises but, because it's now a felony to look over a neighbor's fence, neighbor decides to go back to drinking lemonade and watering his kudzu vines and you choke to death.
Still a silly law?
Turns out, there a lots of laws on state and federal books that either ought not to have been drafted let alone written into law but are still on the books causing mass mayhem and carnage.
Take, for example, the "Rule of Five" law recently invoked by Rep. Chuck Schumer. See, back in 1928 (May 29, 1928, ch. 901, § 2, 45 Stat. 996), congress created this rule (called the Rule of Five) to compel executive agencies to provide information relevant to the committee's jurisdiction. Codified under 5 USC 2954, the Information to Committees of Congress on request law states:
An Executive agency, on request of the Committee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives, or of any seven members thereof, or on request of the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate,
or any five members thereof, shall submit any information requested of
it relating to any matter within the jurisdiction of the committee.
On it's face, it's not all the problematic and pretty straight forward. The problem is that it doesn't give any timetables in way of how long the person(s) on whom the request is made has to comply with any particular request.
So, imagine you are an investigative body and are ripping through thousands of pages of something and you get a request from an agency that wants EVERYTHING on its desk in, oh,....say....a couple of weeks.
Hells Bells, you haven't even gone through everything and everything is still a jumble and said agency/committee want's EVERYTHING!?
Such, I suspect, was the situation back in July 2025 when Chuck Schumer invoked 5 USC 2954 to compel the DOJ to release the ENTIRE Epstein file. Still digging through stuff and the DOJ has to stop and put it all in a neat pile and deliver everything? Really?!?
I'm guessing it's a ruse to obfuscate some other issue brewing. You know - look at my right hand but don't look at what I've got in my left. All smoke and mirrors and I'm betting someone is thinking why exactly do we need to keep 5 USC 2954 still on the books?
In the very least, maybe the law should be modified to include a timetable - something in the way of give us some slack; we're doing the best we can and need time to get this stuff together in a readable manner.
I also suspect that once all the Epstein files have been gone over that there will be information that the requesting parties wished wasn't made public - which, I suspect is the purpose behind the request (ie to keep silent/bury that which certain parties don't want to be made public).
Have you ever come across a person who thought they knew everything about everything but what they don't know is that they don't know anything about anything but have the confidence of someone who does know what they're talking about?
As it turns out, there is a condition called the Dunning-Kruger Effect that covers this concept. Essentially, The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities. Basically, they don't know what they don't know but hold out that they know everything about everything.
You've seen these people. Uncle Bob gets wasted at Thanksgiving and starts to pontificate about thing political like he's a well-versed pundit. Neighbor Alice drones on about how to properly grow flowers despite the fact that she has a brown thumb (i.e. kills everything).
Still unclear? Some other examples might help identify these types of people, for example:
A new employee who has
only a basic understanding of a task might believe they are an expert
and refuse feedback or further training, leading to mistakes and poor
performance aaaaand, subsequently, gets fired.
A manager (hired as a manager because of their relationship to a family member) who lacks experience in what a company/employees actually do makes poor decisions due to
overconfidence impacting team morale and productivity.
A person who’s watched a few episodes of a cooking show decides to host a 10-person dinner party with a five-course French menu winds up making hamburgers and soggy "french" fries.
A non-technical startup founder insists on coding the company's website using only YouTube tutorials resulting in a site that is buggy, slow, and not secure.
A new driver right out of high school who has only driven a car in a video game overestimate their actual driving skills and take unnecessary risks.
A new law school graduate opens a solo practice and takes on a complex case, believing it’s “just filling out forms.”
It is to this last one that our story proceeds. Years back, I had an buddy who had a wife who had money to burn. Acquaintance (who had just graduated from law school) convinced wife to help him open a law office complete with flashy new furniture and an impressive library (think small Library of Congress).
Nary three (3) months into his law "practice" and without any law experience, Buddy calls me (who had, at that time, about a year of legal experience under my belt) asking for help. Seems Buddy had taken on an appeal, taken a retainer, and promised client 100% success.
Apparently, Buddy had convinced client that by virtue of his graduating from law school AND having a fancy law office AND throwing around classic Latin terms like res ipsa loquitur, de novo, habeas corpus, and actus reas, that Buddy knew everything about how to appeal a case.
Buddy didn't but client didn't know that (and, clearly, neither did Buddy).
I don't know if you know, but appellate cases are much harder (and more costly) to represent than trial cases for a number of reasons, including:
Appellate law is more technical and research-heavy. You're arguing about legal principles, statutory interpretation, constitutional issues, etc.—not just facts.
Briefs must be meticulously researched and crafted, and oral arguments involve intense questioning by a panel of judges.
Appellate deadlines and formatting rules are rigid. A missed deadline or a procedurally deficient brief can sink your appeal, no matter how valid the issue.
You must often identify “preserved errors”—issues objected to during trial. If something wasn’t preserved, it's often waived on appeal.
Appellate courts only review the record from the trial court. You can't introduce new facts, so if something wasn't brought up or preserved at trial, it's gone.
Trial strategy is often collaborative with witnesses, experts, and clients. In appeals, it’s often just the attorney and the law.
Unlike trial, where emotional appeal and charisma can sway a jury, appellate work requires pure logical reasoning and legal precision. It's a more academic form of advocacy.
You're persuading experienced judges, not laypeople. They will spot weak arguments instantly.
You often start from the position of defending a losing argument (if you’re appellant) or protecting a lower court win (if you’re appellee).
Because trial court judges don't like having their decisions overturned, they are (often) careful how the trial is conducted. Consequently, the majority of trial court decisions are affirmed (meaning you'll often lose and look bad in front of a now angry client).
The problem here was that Buddy was clueless about how the legal process worked and needed help with his 5th amended brief (the court was kind but patience was wearing thin). To provide added clarity, the client had started the appeal process and already had had to do 3 amended briefs before encountering Buddy.
Reaching out to me, Buddy wanted me to re-write the brief. Now, I had never done appellate work. In fact, the closest I had ever come to appellate court was sitting in the gallery listening to oral arguments. So, even though Buddy was offering me $80 an hour (remember wife with deep pockets?), I was not willing to help out or put my stamp anywhere near that case.
Consequently, Buddy and the case was bounced out of appellate court and Buddy, consequent to narrowly avoiding a malpractice action with some more well-placed legal terms, quickly down-sized his law office (moving into a closet), and wound up helping neighbors and friends on more simpler cases.
The moral to this story: if ever you are in need of a legal expert, hire someone who knows what they're supposed to know.
Been in a car accident? Hire an attorney with experience in car accidents.
Need help drafting a Living Trust or durable power of attorney? Hire an estate planning attorney.
Having problems with the IRS? Hire a tax attorney (i.e. someone with accounting and legal experience).
Looking to get a divorce? Hire a family law attorney.
Looking to file a bankruptcy? Hire an attorney familiar with bankruptcy in your jurisdiction.
Looking to avoid ICE and want your very own (and legitimate) green card? Hire an immigration attorney.
Now, you could represent yourself by buying a book about what it is you're trying to do from Nolo Press or looking at You Tube videos, but would you really try to build a house not knowing the difference between things electrical and things plumbing?
Funny thing about going to law school, when people hear you went to law school, they tend to gravitate towards you when they have problems. Doesn't matter if you practice law or not - they all have problems and the all seek answers.
Such was the case when I was approached by a neighbor the other day. Seems Neighbor had been rock climbing with his familial relations and slipped injuring himself. Ouch!
What was important to Neighbor was that somehow the insurance company that carried his policy for life insurance found out and informed him that rock climbing was one of the things that allows an insurance company to cancel a life insurance policy (high risk, and all). Consequently, insurance company informed Neighbor that his policy was hereby cancelled and Neighbor was wanting to know if they can do that.
Turns out, they can.
Before we get into this, let's define a high risk activity. As it relates to cancellation of a life insurance policy, a High-risk activities are ones that have a significant potential for adverse safety outcomes and which have a greater likelihood of resulting in significant harm, injury, loss, or harm as compared to standard activities. Such activities take the form of a hobby or might be a particular line of employment.
Examples of high-risk activities might include:
Scuba diving
BASE jumping
Hang gliding
Race car driving
Flying a
plane
Horseback riding
Bungee jumping
Parasailing
Off-roading
Some employment falls into this category such as:
Logging
Aircraft pilots
Offshore oil rig worker
Offshore fisherman, Structural steelworkers
Underground mining
As all this relates to Neighbor, turns out that rock climbing is also considered a high-risk activity by life insurance companies.This
is due to the inherent dangers involved, such as falls and injuries,
which increase the likelihood of accidents and even fatalities.As a result, rock climbing can impact both the cost and availability of life insurance policies.
Now, given the fact that this is a legal-related blog and may be wondering if this discussion borders on providing legal advice, it might be and probably would be were it not for the fact that most all of this information can be found via a simple Google search - which I suggested Neighbor to do after giving Neighbor some suggestions on what to look for (i.e. high-risk activities and rock climbing).
What is most interesting to me is that every state in the union has statutes related to insurance stuff. In fact, after digging around on the Internet, I found a listing of what statutes relate to insurance stuff in each of the 50 states which can be found by visiting Fidelity Life Insurance's webpage.
Great resource Fidelity is and so easy to find/use.
Anyway, Neighbor was satisfied and went on their merry to find answers to their most pressing needs.
Moral to this story, if ever you need help finding what you need, hesitate not a bit and seek out your local law librarian who will be more than happy to help you find what you're needing to be found.
Once upon a time, I was a legal researching God working in a law library. The library in which I worked was, essentially, divided in half with state materials on one side of the wall and federal and general materials on the other.
Another key feature of the library in which I worked was that it was not sound-proof. What this means is that if you spoke over a whisper, you could be heard on the other side of the building.
Can you see where this is going?
One day, as I was going about my business I noticed an attorney conversing with his client. They were in the middle of a deposition and attorney was relaying attorney/client privilege stuff to his client.
NOTE: That's privilege as in they wouldn't want anyone to know what they were saying.
The problem was that attorney was speaking louder than a whisper and opposing counsel (who was situated on the other side of the building) could hear what was being said and was taking copious notes. I mentioned this to attorney annnnnnnnnnd attorney became upset stomping over to and started arguing with opposing counsel.
Of course, all this could have been avoided had attorney implemented safeguards to protect his client's interests such as lowering his voice to a whisper.
Back in the day, simply keeping your voice down was enough to safeguard secret client information. These days, however, low volume is not enough.
Picture it: Paralegal, “Sarah,” receives an email from “Attorney Michael” at your firm on a busy Thursday afternoon. The email reads:
Subject: URGENT: Client Wire Instructions Needed From:michael.attorney@gnnail.com (looks similar to your firm’s domain)
Hi Sarah,
We need to send out the wire for the Johnson closing today. Please open the attached PDF for the updated instructions and confirm you can process this ASAP so we don’t delay the client’s funding.
Thank you,
Michael
An attachment named “Johnson_Wire_Update.pdf” is included.
As it happens, Sarah knows Michael is working on the Johnson file. While the message feels rushed, that’s normal on closing days so she clicks the attachment without verifying that Michael actually sent the email.
As soon as she click's the attachment, malware capturing Sarah’s keystrokes installs to her computer sending her Office 365 credentials to the attacker. The attacker then logs into Sarah’s email, monitors communications, and sends modified wire instructions to the title company directing $150,000 of the client’s funds be wired to a fraudulent account.
Sound far fetched? I mean, things like this don't actually happen, right?
Turns out it happens all the time. There are a number of ways hackers (i.e. bad actors who steal people's information from their computers) can access data illegally. Following are some of the more popular methods:
Phishing
Fraudulent emails, texts, or messages tricking victims into clicking malicious links, opening infected attachments, or giving personal information.
Attacker creates a fabricated scenario (pretext) to obtain information, e.g., pretending to be IT support or a bank representative to get login credentials.
Baiting
Attacker leaves malware-infected devices (USBs, CDs) in public places hoping someone will use them out of curiosity. When the USB drive is inserted in an unsuspecting computer, the malware installs its self and facilitates the stealing of information.
Quid Pro Quo
Attacker offers a benefit (e.g., free software or IT help) in exchange for sensitive information.
So, in the example above involving unsuspecting Sarah, the method used was a phishing attack. There were a few things Sarah could have done to protect herself.
Red Flag #1 was the slight misspelling in the sender’s email domain (gnnail.com). It's looks close to "gmail" but is not quite right. Spider senses should be tingling.
Red flag #2 would be that it was contained urgent, pressure-filled language. Even if it was urgent that action be taken, there's always time to step back and look at the big picture.
Finally, Red Flag #3, think whether the sender would normally send wire instructions. If this is not a normal occurrence, then maybe wait to verify before acting.
So, what could Sarah have done to protect herself? Sarah could have used her mouse to hover over the sender’s email address to verify the email's authenticity. She could have confirmed with Attorney Michael in person or by phone before opening the attachment - especially for financial transactions.
History is replete with examples of organizations that have been attacked.
Example 1: In 2020, Grubman, Shire, Meiselas & Sacks (one of the premier entertainment and media law firms in the country) was attacked when an employee reportedly clicked on a phishing email, allowing REvil ransomware attackers to access the firm’s network. Consequently, the law firm experienced a theft of 756 GB of celebrity client data and a $42 million ransom demand.
A ransomware attack typically involves malware that locks users out of their computer files, systems, or networks, demanding a ransom payment for their restoration.Ransomware attacks involves a “one-two-punch” (1) cybercriminals lock your system; and (2)
cybercriminals steal your most sensitive information.
This was what happened in the attack on GSMS. The REvil group demanded a ransom payment to
release encrypted files as well as an additional payment to permanently
remove stolen information from their own system. Increasingly, even when a ransom is actually paid, these attackers still release small pieces of stolen data to their
website and make it available for purchase by the public to encourage payment.
Example 2: In 2019 at a mid-sized real estate law firm in Texas, an employee clicked a phishing email that led to credential harvesting. Hackers accessed the attorney’s email and modified wire transfer instructions for a real estate closing, diverting client funds (about $150,000) resulting in a malpractice claim filed which was resolved with cyber insurance payout.
Example 3: In 2020, Goldman, Campbell, Brain and Spine fell victim to a ransomware attack when employees fell victim to a phishing email, allowing ransomware to encrypt the medical law firm’s systems. The type of information stolen included names, Social Security numbers, medical codes, postal addresses,
telephone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth, and gender.
Example 4: In late 2024, Cloud security firm Wiz faced a deepfake attack. Criminals used AI technology to clone CEO Assaf Rappaport's voice and then sent voicemails to dozens of employees asking them for their credentials.
Example 5:Lee Enterprises (February 2025): Attackers using Qilin ransomware targeted the media company, disrupting production and claiming they stole 350 GB of data. The company was warned of imminent leaks if the ransom payment wasn’t made.
Example 6: Medusa Ransomware on Critical Infrastructure (March 2025): Over 300 organizations across sectors (healthcare, education, manufacturing, government) were attacked by Medusa, using spear phishing and unpatched software vulnerabilities to steal and encrypt data, then threaten leaks (double extortion).
Example 7: Ingram Micro (July 2025): Ransomware detected on internal systems of the global IT supplier Ingram Micro, causing multi-day outages that disrupted customer orders and operations. Investigations and law enforcement notification are underway.
Knowing that there are hackers and thieves out in cyberland, what can you/we do to protect yourself?
Whether you are a CEO, law firm, or regular, everyday person, you can protect yourself using simple, time tested methods such as:
Do not (as in never) click unfamiliar or suspicious links or attachments. If you do not recognize the sender of the email, don't click on any attachments. In fact, send straight to spam.
Always verify wire instructions via phone using known numbers.
Use strong, unique passwords for each system. A strong password is one that is designed to be hard for a person or program to guess. It's long and uses a mix of uppercase and lowercase letters, numbers, and symbols, and avoids common words or personal information.A strong password should also be unique to each account.
A good rule of thumb is to create strong passwords that are longer than 12 characters (some corporate passwords are 50+ characters that are changed every 3 months). The problem is, how can you remember a unique 12+ character password with upper/lower case letters, numbers, etc?
Actually, there are a few techniques you can use to help remember a long password.
You could use a passphrase. Maybe a sentence of words like what you can remember. Maybe something like:
My dog Spot loves to chase squirrels, especially in the park!123@
ThisIsMyP@$$word!
You could also try using a mnemonic devise like an acronym. If you have trouble coming up with something, you can try using Chatgpt. Suggested examples might include:
SysAdm!n2025_Pro (This example combines a common
abbreviation for "System Administrator" with a special character, a
year, and an abbreviation for "Project,")
Cyb3r$ec.Net-Guard (a play on Cybersecurity)
Innov8@ion.Hub+XYZ (This blends "Innovation" with a number, a special character, and a generic identifier
Glob@l.Biz_SoluTns (This example blends "Global Business Solutions")
You could use a password manager to store all your user names/passwords like what most browsers offer. The problem with that is that if your system is ever hacked, the hacker now has access to all your passwords.
Finally, and I can't count the number of CISO's who'll flip out on this, but you can just write your passwords down on paper. Just be sure to put the list somewhere not publicly accessible (i.e. not just sitting out for everyone to see).
One Caveat: NEVER use "password" or "12345678" (or any related derivatives) as your password as they are the most used passwords and are the first thing cyber criminals try when trying to break into a network.
Yep, there are a whole lot of sneaky buggers out in cyberland. Best to keep a weathered eye out for bad actors so that you don't become an easy mark and lose all your data.
So, I'm watching the news the other day and there's a protest going on with people holding signs saying things like "You're Special" and "Your Voice Matters."
Of course, the protest all fell apart when it came upon a group holding signs saying "Let's Make America Great Again" and the hateful rhetoric started flowing, people screaming, swearing, throwing tomatoes and rocks and police got called and it all broke down into utter mayhem.
Eh, the point to all this is how many people say they are
tolerant of differing points of view but aren't. I mean, yeah, they want to sound inclusive and helpful but are "they" really all that inclusive?
Can you imagine Rush Limbaugh going on The View. Dang but talk about an intolerant back and forth. Better yet, let's pick someone they really hate like Mr. 47 himself - Donald J. Trump. Could you image the intolerant hash fight between DJT and the broads on The View!?
THAT would be a pay-per-view episode I'd pay to watch!
Anyway, not clear on how to spot intolerance? After some
research on the subject, I've discovered a few tell-tale signs someone
is being intolerant (even though they scream they are tolerance).
1. People who say "I'm just saying." What we're looking at is a comment meant as a soft jab. Like, "I'm just saying socks with sandals are a bold fashion statement..." which IS a bold statement but, well, maybe s/he needs to consult their mother before going out wearing white socks and black sandals. I'm just saying...
2. People who say "No offense, but..." Yeah, you hear this and the next thing out of their mouths is going to offend you - unless it's a joke, in which case it's probably satire. I'm just saying...
3. People who say "I'm not racist, but..." Turns out, I'm not racist - I hate everyone ... which is something I say a lot but does race always translate to intolerance? Maybe it did 30 years ago (so, anything up through the 1990s) but the only time I see race being an issue is when someone spouts it out when they're losing an argument. I'm just saying...
4. People who say "I don't see color..." Thing is, everyone sees color (unless you're actually color blind) and those that use this are the biggest offenders. I remember one interview I had with the Library of Congress. There where three people interviewing me over the phone (two guys and a lady). The thing with phone interviews is that you can't see anyone so you can't really know who's who or what's what.
Anyway, at one point, the lady says: "I identify as an angry black woman!" which I suspect she meant it as a joke but it didn't come off as such as the two other guys were clearly uncomfortable with the remark. Note: I didn't say that - she did - which, looking back is funny as the term "angry black woman" is rather derogatory and mean and if she's going to go around and saying that about herself, I'd think that's a pretty self-depricating thing to say about yourself. I'm just saying...
5. People who say"I'm just playing devil's advocate" This is actually a fun one and helps with most any situation where a put down is actually helpful, like:
I'm just playing devil's advocate, but do you think maybe they didn’t invite you because you’re always late?
I'm just playing devil's advocate here but are we sure this plan isn’t going to backfire?
I'm just playing devil's advocate, but what if she wasn’t actually trying to be rude?
I'm just playing devil's advocate here but isn’t it possible he got the promotion because he worked harder?
I'm just playing devil's advocate, but maybe the issue isn’t with them - maybe it’s how we're handling it.
I'm just playing devil's advocate but could it be that you're overthinking this?
I'm just playing devil's advocate here but what if you're the one who misunderstood what was said?
I'm just playing devil's advocate but what if calories only count if someone sees you eat?
I'm just playing devil's advocate but sure, let's take life advice from someone who identifies as a traffic cone (or peaked in high school).
I'm just playing devil's advocate but nothing says 'I care' like a passive-aggressive text two weeks later.
I'm just playing devil's advocatebut if the devil really needed an advocate, shouldn't he get better counsel?
6. People who say"I have a [minority] friend..." You know, I have actually heard this one on more than one occasion. Mostly by white folks who want to say something off but don't want to sound like they came up with it first. It's like if they can make it sound like a black, Mexican, Polish person said it first (or agreed with them), that anything they repeat or say is (or should be) acceptable. Yeah, maybe that's where the Karen thing came from. I'm just saying...
7. People who say "It's just a joke...." When
someone says "it's just a joke" after making a remark, they are usually
indicating that their statement was not meant to be taken seriously and
was intended to be humorous. They might be trying to:
Lighten the mood or defuse a tense situation, or
Avoid responsibility for potentially offensive remarks, or
Establish or reinforce social bonds, or
Express something indirectly
Problem is that some people don't understand why everyone else is laughing or just want to take offense because that's their thing. Fine, fine, if that's their thing, then probably best not read some of my other blog posts.
Best I can suggest is to keep opinions close to your vest - unless you have blog that laughs at most everyone. In which case, it's open season and best of luck being the last person standing.
