I’m Blogging Again,… And Politics!

It’s been 630ish days since I last took time to post to my blog.  Since that time, a lot of things have happened.  My oldest child,Cora started pre-k; my second child, Clara was born; my partner and I officially started Cripps & Cox Attorneys, PLLC; my wife now helps part-time at the office; we had a car run through the office; I’ve represented clients in nearly every aspect of the law; I’ve made some clients very happy; I’ve gotten under the skin of a few adversaries; I’ve met wonderful people in many parts of our great State; I finally rode in an airplane; and, most recently, I got an iPhone!  

During that time, time has become scarce.  Family, business, and other responsibilities leave little room for leisurely writing.  But I do enjoy writing.  I enjoy expressing my opinions and views with others and engaging in positive discourse.  Thus, I endeavor to elucidate my thoughts and expressions as often as they may escape… at a convenient enough time to capture said thoughts and expressions by keyboard or what have you. 

For my resurrecting blog, I’ll bore thee with a thought on meaningful debate and disagreement.  I’m simultaneously watching/ listening to a televised town hall of the democratic candidates for president.  Its interesting to see the differences between the candidates and especially the parties. However, the rigid distinctions drawn between the two major political parties appear to me to be propaganda,… fuel for the proverbial fire that is the base of each party.  After all, this is America and aren’t we all Americans.  I say this to make a point about political discourse.  

No matter the issue raised, if we first box the analysis and discussion into two distinct spheres, we limit the input.  And, if the second action taken is to ridicule or otherwise question the motives of those with opposing views, then we get what we deserve… NOTHING!  No new ideas.  No creative process. No challenge.  Without a challenge to the way we think and believe, our ideas, much like the minds from which they originate may become stale. 

I can think of only a few good things that come from staleness.  For instance, I might get a search warrant suppressed because the facts supporting it are stale.  That’s good for me and my client.  But, in general, to be stale is to be unwanted.  Yet, it seems par for the political course to stifle ideas and chisel the collective into an elite few.  This is not America.  

Whether you are a Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative or something altogether unique, you are a critical part of our society.  It may stand that any one of us could be greater than a collective of two.  Some people are very special and have great skills.  But it cannot be argued that one is greater than all of us.  For, collectively we can amass all skills and talents; all backgrounds and demographics; every niche and specialty known to mankind.  No one person, or small group can legitimately make that claim. 

So, condescendingly, I ask:  why is it that political discourse is fashioned to alienate and isolate?  To the keen observer, I think the answer is clear.  The goal in politics as we now see it is to get elected and then re-elected.  There exists no altruist in either political party.  We no longer have civil servants, laboring for the greater good.  What we have is a system built to reinforce itself from within and to castigate those outside so much so that they don’t want to participate anymore.  A man can only take so much rejection and reprimand before he changes his  behavior, i.e., stays away.  And if he stays away, those in power stay in power.  Rinse and repeat. 

Thus, when the vicious cycle of partisan politics runs its course a time or two, we are left only with those persons who chose (or were chosen) to partake in this insolent institution.  One might question the motives of persons that would be willing to partake in such a system.  That is, if one had not already changed the channel and disconnected.  It’s best summarized by the following quote attributed to Plato: 

One of the penalties of refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.

We’ve all heard some rediculous story from Washington and thought, “what the heck are they thinking?”  Truth be told, we are at a stage where we are being governed by our inferiors.  Not because those elected are unskilled or stupid, but because they possess inferior motives, i.e., getting elected.  And sometimes, as I’m sure is a great shock to us all, the motive of getting elected conflicts with the greater good.  

Too many people pass on politics.  Not because they hate this country or hate to work at it.  They are disenfranchised by the rhetoric.  It’s depressing to think of the trouble our country is in, and that trouble is sold to us daily by way of breaking news and social media.  At the same time, it’s damn near disabling to consider the fact that there is little that we can do to fix it.  So, a great number of us retreat, and the collective gets widows down. 

So, I’ll digress back to my original point.  We should encourage debate and discussion, invite new ideas and thoughts, and foster the collective goodness of our people, all of our people.  We should encourage participation from everyone, especially those that disagree with us.  We will sharpen our minds, refresh our thoughts and reenergize our politics if we become more inclusive.  

So the next time someone disagrees with you, challenge yourself and confront the idea with the open mindedness it deserves.  Maybe you are right, and that sentiment is bolstered by this experiment.  But, every once in a wild blue moon, you may be surprised to find that your experience is not the only experience.  And, maybe just maybe you were wrong! The world is full of people and people are different.  Embrace that and accept the challenges that come with it.  

Brandon J. Cox, Esq.

The views expressed herein are my own and I’m sure my law partner has differing views.  I’ll try my best to get her to write a piece or two. 

The Two-Faced Lawyer

“He is no lawyer who cannot take two sides” — Charles Lamb

As the days pass, I find that I have less and less time to fill this blog with anything meaningful. That’s a good thing. And in all hustle and bustle, I have found a new paradox in the prodigious field of ‘lawyerin.’  What I have learned is summed up best by the following idiom: 

“Talking out of both sides of your mouth.” 

I stand in court on one day and argue for a point, only to show up the next day to argue against that point. It happens often. As an advocate for my client, I must argue for their interests. I have more than one client, and their interests are often not aligned. Thus, it is necessary to be consistently inconsistent in my legal arguments. I’ll give a basic example to illustrate.

When I am representing a mother in a child custody case, I may argue that a young child’s best interest is served by spending the majority of time with that mother. It’s the “tender years” argument. It works, although, it has its flaws. But if I were representing the father in that same case, I would argue the counter to that point. For instance, that the “tender years doctrine” is no longer viable in Tennessee. In addition, I would argue that the age of the child is but one factor. It obviously gets deeper than this in actual litigation but I think that makes the point clear. 

I have wrapped my head around this and I am pretty comfortable about the two-faced nature of this business. There are unintended consequences, though. The one that I have noticed most is my incessant desire to argue. Now, my wife would say that this it not new. However, I have in the past been much more selective about my desire to quibble. But, more recently, I feel a yearning to bicker, quarrel, feud, hash, re-hash, and simply cross swords. 

This may be a good thing in my chosen profession. What I have to continue to strive for is what I like to call “civil disobedience.” Civil disobedience is that ability to fuss and fight in the heat of battle but then remain civil outside the courtroom. I think that’s key for remaining sane in the practice of law. And at the end of the day, sanity is all we can really ask for out of this crazy world. 

The Lie Shall Surely Incarcerate Ye

“If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything.” — Mark Twain.

That quote is simple, yet profound. And it has implications in the legal world. I think I’ve known that for some time, but I came face to face with it earlier this week while representing a client charged with making a false report to the police. (Surprisingly, that is a class D felony in the great State of Tennessee, 2-12 years. Perjury is only a class A misdemeanor… Figure that one out if you can!)

My client was charged because she allegedly gave less than honest information to the police regarding an investigation. I will spare the details as they matter little to the point of this post. But needless to say, the State had a good case.

As part of my investigation in this case, I interviewed my client. This is standard. But what I quickly came to realize was that she was forgetting to remember what she needed to remember. The longer I talked, the fuzzier the story became. It made for an interesting conversation. Almost like asking my two-year old daughter about her dreams. It starts with princesses and toys but quickly gets to unicorns and magic. My client’s story morphed into an asymmetrical fairy tale.

Yet, somewhere in the mess, she made a good point. The “false statement” was not really false. It just wasn’t completely true. How is that you ask?! Well it all depends upon the question asked. For instance, if you are asked, “Where did you get this item?” and you state “From my house.” That may very well be true, except that prior to the item being at your home it was stolen. So you didn’t lie, you just omitted portions of the truth. If that feels a little sticky, you are in good company. Parsing words to interfere with a police investigation may result in criminal charges. And for my client, it did.

But the problem with parsing words or flat out making false statements, is that you have to keep up with the fiction. And as was evident by my client’s recollection, that’s hard to do.

See, when we actually experience things we can recall them. (some people are better at this than others) However, if we are making up a story, it is hard to recall when asked to re-recite it. The reason is that you didn’t have the real world experience to go along with the story.

I’d venture to say everyone has experienced the nostalgia that comes when a familiar aroma breaches your senses. Like the smell of grilled hot dogs tossing your mind to the warm summer nights at the ball park. It is the senses, other than sight, that ease in the recollection of memories. You don’t have that with lies.

And so, there was my client, facing 2+ years incarceration, for parsing words (allegedly) in an attempt to cover up a misdemeanor theft. And the more she talked the more tangled the web become. Luckily, I was able to negotiate a plea deal, resulting in hefty fines but no incarceration.

The moral is two-fold. First, it doesn’t pay to lie or parse words with the police. You’d be better served to just shut up. And finally, if your going to lie, do so one stand under oath before a judge… Its only a misdemeanor. (That is obviously a joke, please do not commit perjury… And if the lie is about something material in the case, its a felony too.)

Below is my attempt to modernize Mr. Twain’s quote:
“In order to not have to remember what you can’t afford to forget, tell the truth.”

For a good resource on how to not lie but never tell the truth, visit Washington D.C. or any State Capital.

Brandon J. Cox, esq.
201 West Main Street
Smithville, TN 37166
(615) 597-5297