Asset Protection BLOG - Mark Nestmann

"Webmail" Gains Important New Privacy Rights

If you're like most people, you don't give a lot of thought to your stored "Webmail" messages on free email services like Yahoo!, Hotmail, or G-Mail. 

Yet, if these services are U.S.-based--and most of them are--the government can obtain a verbatim transcript of your e-mail messages from Webmail services without a warrant and without letting you know that they're reading it.  All that's necessary is a court order stipulating that there's reason to believe the e-mail may be relevant to an investigation.  Webmail service providers have rarely challenged government surveillance because they don't want to be seen as not enthusiastically supporting the War on Drugs, the War on Child Pornography, the War on Money Laundering, and most recently, the War on Terror.   

But on June 19, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that investigators in the states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee can't read Webmail messages without obtaining a search warrant based on probable cause of criminal activity.  The court held that e-mail has similar constitutional privacy protections as telephone communications. 

There are a couple caveats:

1.  The ruling applies only in the four states I mentioned. While judges in other states are free to apply the ruling to cases before them, they're not obliged to do so.  Outside those four states, it's still open season on your Webmail.

2. The ruling will almost certainly be appealed by the government.

In other words, it's a little early to break out the champagne to celebrate greater privacy rights in your "in box" or "sent" folders.

In the meantime, I highly recommend that you go to any Webmail accounts you have and delete any messages that don't demand an immediate response. Make sure to empty your trash folder, as well.  If you want to keep a permanent record, do so on your own PC, not online. 

That advice applies no matter where you live, if you're using a U.S.-based Webmail service such as Yahoo!  Since the servers are based in the United States, if police in the United States (other than in these four states) want to read your e-mail without a warrant, they can do so.  That's true even if your country's law requires a warrant to read them.

Copyright © 2007 by Mark Nestmann

What Secrets Do Your Microsoft Office Documents Reveal?

Are you inadvertently revealing confidential information when you send someone e-mail?  If you attach documents in Microsoft Word, Excel or PowerPoint there's an excellent chance you're doing exactly that.   
When you create and edit documents in these Microsoft Office programs, information about you and the edits you make is automatically created and hidden within the document file.  This information is called metadata.  Similar metadata issues affect most software programs.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair found out the hard way that Microsoft Office documents hold "hidden cargo."  Back in 2003, his office published a report on Iraq's security and intelligence organizations that was cited by former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell in his address to the United Nations the same month.  However, the Microsoft Office documents meant to bolster his case for intervention in Iraq actually contained metadata that contradicted the official British position.  Indeed, the metadata made it obvious that much of the material in the report had been plagiarized!

You would hope that Microsoft would have solved the metadata problem in the intervening four years, but unfortunately, not much has changed.  While the newest versions of Office have features that allow you to minimize the metadata in documents you create, many features that create metadata are turned on by default.

Most metadata is pretty mundane: your name and initials (or those of the person that created the file), the name of your company, etc.  But it also may contain bits and pieces of previous versions of the document, along with text you thought you deleted!

Perhaps the most important precaution to take to avoid revealing embarrassing metadata is to turn off the "Fast Saves" feature in Word, PowerPoint and Excel.  Because of the design of this feature, text that you delete from a document may remain hidden in subsequent versions, even after you save the document.  To turn off Fast Saves, click on Tools, then Options, then the Save tab, and uncheck “Allow fast saves.”

Another important precaution is to make certain that that Word's "Track Changes" feature isn't inadvertently saving previous versions of an edited document.  To make sure it's not, Click on Tools, then Track Changes, then Highlight Changes.  Go through the entire document to make sure that you've accepted or rejected all changes in it.  You can also instruct Word to accept all changes.

Click here for more information on how to remove metadata from Microsoft documents.

One way to avoid problems with metadata altogether is to convert Word documents to Adobe PDF files once you've finished editing them.  Adobe files contain their own metadata, but only basic information such as the name of the person who created the file, date of creation, and file location.

For more privacy saving tips, on or off your PC, click here.

Copyright © 2007 by Mark Nestmann

Judge Loses US$54 Million "Missing Pants" Lawsuit

Soo and Jin Chung immigrated to the United States from South Korea to pursue their version of the American dream—to open their own dry cleaning store.  They had no idea they would be rudely awakened from their dream by a frivolous lawsuit, courtesy of an administrative law judge named Roy Pearson.

In 2005, Pearson brought five suits to the Chungs' store in Washington, D.C. for alterations.  Four suits came back fine.  One came back without the pants.

Pearson says the Chungs failed to abide by a sign in their shop—now removed—that said "Satisfaction Guaranteed."  Therefore, Pearson later testified, he had no choice but to take on "the awesome responsibility" of suing the Chungs on behalf the half million people in the District of Columbia who could be at risk of being dissatisfied with the shop's service.

Naturally, in return for assuming this awesome responsibility, Judge Pearson wanted reasonable compensation—a whopping US$67 million, later reduced to "only" US$54 million.

In court proceedings earlier this month, Pearson said in his opening statement, "Never before in recorded history have a group of defendants engaged in such misleading and unfair business practices."  Pearson also produced a parade of witnesses to support his contention that the Chungs were guilty of "willful and malicious conduct."  One witness, an 89-year-old wheelchair-bound woman, compared the Chungs to Nazis. 

All this, at its root, due to a missing pair of pants.

Readers outside the United States might be shocked to hear that U.S. courts entertain lawsuits as loony as this one.  But, in a fit of sanity, the Superior Court judge in Washington, D.C. threw out Pearson's lawsuit.

Now, that doesn't mean that Pearson won't be able to appeal the judgment against him.  Indeed, under U.S. law, he has every right to do so, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court—and the Chungs will be responsible for paying their own legal costs every step of the way, should Pearson choose this route.

That's because unlike most other countries, the United States isn't a "loser pays" jurisdiction when it comes to lawsuits.  There are some very limited exceptions to this rule, and the judge in this case will consider a motion to recover the cleaners' legal fees.  Incredibly, even though Judge Pearson represented himself, he also asked to be awarded attorney's fees—at a rate of at least US$390 an hour for the 1,400 hours he has put into the case.

The Chungs have exhausted their savings and are considering moving back to Korea, where Mr. Chung once worked in a charcoal factory.  I can't say that I blame him, after what they've gone through at the hands of "Judge" Pearson.

If there's a textbook case for asset protection planning, this is it.  If you ever get someone like Judge Pearson after you, you'll wish you had a protected "nest egg" that can't be touched, even if you lose.  And there are plenty of options open to you—read more about them here. 

Copyright © 2007 by Mark Nestmann

Austria: A Culture of Privacy

As I described in yesterday's blog entry, Austria has one of the world's strongest bank secrecy laws.  Critics of bank secrecy laws claim that they help criminals shield illicit gains from detection, or tax evaders from paying what they owe. 

But, that's not the reason bank secrecy laws exist.  Apart from the natural desire to avoid needless disclosure of a person's financial affairs to potential thieves or potential litigants, bank secrecy has an important role in protecting depositors from the totalitarian tendencies of governments. 

In this regard, Austria's attitude toward secrecy is honed by bitter experience.  The lack of a law guaranteeing bank secrecy made it easy for the Nazis to learn about the financial affairs of Austrians when German armies occupied Austria in 1938.  Austrians who tried to protect their wealth from Nazi confiscation by moving it abroad after annexation risked a death sentence.  It was not until 1979 that Austria enacted its bank secrecy law, in Article 38 of the Banking Act.

Bank secrecy may never be lifted directly by a foreign investigative agency or a private individual.  But, there are important exceptions to insure that bank secrecy isn't used to protect criminals or anyone engaging in tax fraud.  It cam be waived in official criminal proceedings, insider trading investigations and "intentional fiscal violations, with the exception of fiscal petty offenses."  Another exception to bank secrecy is if a bank notifies authorities, as required under Austrian law, of its suspicions that a client is engaging in "suspicious transactions."

--------------Advertisement--------------
Introducing the foreign country...
Where Your Banker Tells Anyone Snooping into Your Account to Take a Hike!

I'll give you a hintits not Switzerland. It's not Panama. It's not even Liechtenstein.

But this countrys bankers have steadily and quietly maintained their clients' financial privacy for more than half a century!

And those in the know don't even think of this country as an offshore haven.

So it's the last place private investigators, contingency lawyers or nosy relatives will look for your wealth.

Click here to learn more about this fascinating country.
------------------------------------------

And there's more to Austria's bank secrecy law than the law itself.  Austria's culture, indeed, the actual German language, provides a level of discretion that simple doesn't exist in the United States, or in English.

At cocktail parties and other social occasions in the United States, I frequently overhear participants discussing intimate details of their financial affairs—how much money they make, lawsuits in which they're engaged in, etc.  In Austria, in contrast, such matters are rarely discussed outside one's immediate family. 

One reason for this is that Austria is a German speaking country, and the German language has a structure that itself preserves privacy.  There is a formal German, the Sie form, used in business and formal relationships.  In the Sie world, you generally address associates or superiors by their last name.  Sharing intimate financial or personal information with someone on this basis is, for German speakers, almost unthinkable (unless, of course, you're hiring that person to advise you on a personal or financial matter). 

The informal Du form is used with children, young people, and friends.  And only in the Du world are the kind of "secrets" that are protected under Austrian bank secrecy law discussed at all. 

Taken together, Austrian law and culture provide a powerful shield against the frivolous disclosure of your financial information.

The Austrian bank secrecy law is only one of dozens of "Austrian money secrets" I reveal in my new book, Austria Money Secrets.  To learn how you can obtain your own copy of this book, click here.

Copyright © 2007 by Mark Nestmann

Why Banking Fees are Higher in Austria than in the USA—and How to Reduce Them

There's no point denying it—banking fees and commissions in Austria—and many other offshore financial centers—are substantially higher than in the United States.  Fortunately, there are some ways to reduce them.

One important reason fees are higher is because Austrian lack an important source of revenue U.S. banks have—the ability to share customer information, including transaction data, with affiliates and even third parties.  Austrian bank secrecy law strictly prohibits such data exchanges. 

Intentional violations of bank secrecy may be punished by imprisonment up to one year, or a monetary fine.  Bank employees involved in the breach are subject to dismissal, and if a bank is found to systematically be violating bank secrecy, Austrian authorities may revoke its license. 

Here's a rundown of the most common fees you'll experience in an Austrian bank—and some ideas on how to reduce them.

Account package fees.  At minimum, you can expect to pay a quarterly fee (Gebühr or Entgelt) for maintaining whatever account package (Kontopaket) you choose.  These range from €1 to €15 or more per quarter, with the lowest fees reserved for accounts for students and seniors.  Private banking departments may charge an administrative fee based on assets deposited, generally around 0.25% annually.  Some banks will waive this fee if the account generates sufficient fees or commissions in securities trades or other transactions.

Statement fee. Austrian banks also charge for producing account statements, although you can eliminate this charge if the bank doesn't mail you statements.  €3-€5 per statement is typical.  In banks that provide account access over the Internet, your statement can be viewed and printed online at no charge.  If you're visiting Austria and have an account at a commercial bank there, you can also print out a bank statement at its local branches.

Foreign exchange fees. There may or may not be a commission due when exchanging U.S. dollars or another currency for foreign currencies.  However, the bank will take a cut of the buy/sell spread to generate income from the transaction.  Depending on the market, the currency, and the amount converted, this can range from 1%-3%. 

Debit card fees. If you have a debit card to draw against the account, you'll need to pay an annual fee—generally €50 or less.  Within the euro-zone, you can use your debit card from an Austrian (or other EU-based) bank to withdraw money from a euro-denominated account, without incurring withdrawal fees or foreign exchange fees.  Outside the EU, there may be a convenience charge associated with using the card.  You'll also pay foreign exchange fees and commissions for withdrawals in any currency other than euros. 

Securities commissions.  Except for the very smallest trades (where minimum fees apply), fixed fees per trade don't exist, but are rather imposed as a percentage of the transaction.  These fees range from 0.25%-1.25% of the trade.  Lower commissions apply for stocks and commissions for bonds are lowest of all.  For larger accounts and larger transactions, commissions may be negotiable.  Commissions may also be reduced for online trading.  A strategy to lower commissions on bond purchases is to hold bonds to maturity to avoid paying a commission upon sale. 

Custodial fees.  Safekeeping fees (Verwahrunggebühr) for securities or precious metals held by Austrian banks range from 0.2% of the assets held per year to 0.75% per annum, depending on the bank, the asset held and the type of custody used.  Custodial fees are calculated based on the market value of your securities (plus 20% VAT for EU-resident clients).  As with commissions, custody fees are negotiable for larger customers. You can save on these fees if you take possession of the securities yourself, if they’re available in certificate form, and keep the certificates in your safety deposit box or private vault.  This strategy is appropriate only for securities (or metals) that you anticipate holding for an extended period. 

Tips to save money operating your Austrian bank account are only a few of the "Austrian money secrets" I reveal in my new book, Austria Money Secrets.  To learn how you can obtain your own copy of this book, click here.

Copyright © 2007 by Mark Nestmann

Bush Administration Quietly Eviscerates Medical Privacy

Nearly every physician practicing in the United States has sworn to uphold the 2,000-year-old Hippocratic Oath.  Among other provisions, a physician taking the oath makes the following pledge:

"I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know."

However, in the last five years, the administration of President George W. Bush systematically undermined the privacy requirements of the Hippocratic Oath, and other legal and customary measures protecting medical privacy.

It wasn't supposed to be this way.  In 1996, Congress enacted what was purported to be an omnibus medical privacy statute, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA).

In 2001, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued preliminary regulations under HIPPA requiring patient consent for third party use of "protected health information," including its use for such common activities as treatment, billing and "other healthcare operations."

In 2002, however, HHS inexplicably substituted the words "regulatory permission" for "patient consent."  This tiny change in the wording of the regulations opened the floodgates for the disclosure of previously confidential health information without a patient's consent.   

As a result, according to the Privacy Rights Foundation, some 800,000 companies, government agencies and other organizations can tap into personal medical information almost at will.  And they're not required to tell you what they do with it.

Today, your medical information can be given to any "covered entity," including business affiliates of health care organizations such as data clearinghouses, accounting firms, law firms, credit bureaus, and banks.  What's more, a federal rule that went into effect in 2006 allows creditors to obtain or use medical information for determining credit-worthiness.  Credit-grantors aren't supposed to use medical data in determining eligibility for a loan or in setting loan terms.  However, credit-grantors who have such information can share it with their "affiliates."  This magically converts the data into credit information, not medical data.

Another result of this proliferation of medical data is an epidemic in medical identity theft.  "An insurance card is like a Visa card with a US$1 million spending limit, says Byron Hollis, national antifraud director of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.  Research conducted by the World Privacy Forum suggests that through mid-2006, between 250,000 and 500,000 Americans had already been victims of medical identity theft.  The results can also be deadly: One woman found that her blood type had been changed in the hospital record.

What can you do to take back your right to medical privacy?  The simplest suggestion is find a physician that has "opted out" of HIPPA's requirements for electronic transmission of insurance claims.

To qualify for this status, your physician must:

    *  Not transmit "protected health information" outside the physician's office.
    * Not file via electronic transmittal, or engage a billing service or clearinghouse to file claims on the physician's behalf—including private and Medicare claims.
    * Not volunteered to become a "covered entity" by contract or certification.

If your physician hasn't opted out of HIPPA—and unfortunately, the overwhelming majority haven't—there's another solution.  Ask your physician for all copies of your medical records, including the originals.  Keep these records in a safe place, and bring them with you when you have an appointment.

There's a third privacy option as well, but it's risky: to obtain medical treatment in a fake name, and pay cash only to the treating physician or hospital.  It's risky because if you need a prescription, and are asked for ID (as may be required for some medications, particularly those that are frequently abused), you might not be able to pick it up. 

Finally, you can opt for private treatment in another country.  Mexico is a popular choice for lower-cost --and private--medical services.

Ridiculous? You bet. But if you value your medical privacy, these options are the only way to keep it, thanks to the Bush administration's deliberate corruption of the HIPPA rules. 

Copyright © 2007 by Mark Nestmann

U.K.: 266 Ways the State Can Enter Your Home

If you live e in the United Kingdom, according to a recently published report from the Centre For Policy Studies, there are 266 separate laws under which government officials can demand entrance to your home or business, often without a warrant, and demand to inspect your property.

Apart from what's expected—permitting inspections for those suspected of manufacturing or producing biological weapons, for instance—there's also the unexpected.  For instance, officials can enter your home to insure your adherence to legislation as diverse as the Haiti (United Nations Sanctions) Order, the Hops Certification Regulations, and the Hypnotism Act.  (And that's just a few in the "H" category.)

Whatever happened to the common law rule that, "an Englishman's home is his castle?"  Well, that rule still applies, sort of.  Except that there are more and more exceptions.

In 1970, according to the report, there were "only" 81 ways in which officials could invade your "castle."  By 1980, that number had grown to 112; by 1990, 174; and by 2000, 241.  So far this century Parliament has granted various government authorities 25 more ways to enter your home, for a grand total of 266.

Thinking of resisting entry?  Don't do it…you might be fined up to £5,000 and in some cases your resistance may be met with deadly force. 

As shocking as these facts are, what's worse is the casual way in which many of these powers are administered.  In many cases, there's no recordkeeping, at least not to the public, of how and under what circumstances these powers are used.  And when records are available, it's generally for relatively innocuous powers of entry. 

For instance, under the Bees Act 1980, bee inspectors have the power to inspect bee colonies, with or without permission of the owner.  And, while meticulous records are maintained of how this power has been used, that's not the case, for instance, with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC), which has no comprehensive record of its use of the most intrusive powers, the use of "Writs of Assistance."  (The Writ of Assistance allows Customs officials to bypass the requirement of obtaining a warrant before forcibly entering your home or business to seize any goods believed to be forfeitable to HMRC.)

Perhaps the most eye-opening section of this report is entitled "A Day in the Life of a British Subject," which describes the various ways officials have legal authority to exercise their entry powers onto and into private property. 

Here are just a few examples of real entry powers that could be exercised against a hypothetical British couple living on a farm with their three children.  They employ two part-time staff to help run the operation.  John looks after the running of the farm, while Patricia practices as an accountant from her home office in the farmhouse, acting for a few local clients and keeping the books for the farm.

·    National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949
·    Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
·    Geological Survey Act 1845
·    Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967
·    Official Secrets Act 1911
·    Milk (Cessation of Production) Act 1985
·    National Minimum Wage Act 1998
·    Customs and Excise Management Act 1979
·    Childcare Act 2006
·    Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976
·    Child Support Act 1991
·    Forestry Act 1967
·    Riding Establishments Act 1964
·    Agriculture Act 1970
·    Pests Act 1954
·    Rights of Way Act 1990
·    Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
·    Merchant Shipping Act 1995
·    Communications Act 2003

That's just the beginning—there are many more.  And more are proposed: legislation now in Parliament would greatly expand the power of private bailiffs to forcibly enter your home and seize your property. 

What's the solution?  I don't have one, except to say that no government authority should have the power to enter your property without your permission, unless there is probable cause of a crime.  A free people should demand no less.

Copyright © 2007 by Mark Nestmann

The Dildo Police Come to Alabama

In an effort to preserve and promote public morality, in 1998, Alabama banned the sale of sex toys. 

It was no surprise when the owner of a chain of adult stores in Alabama challenged the law as an affront to the U.S. Constitution.  But after a nine-year court battle, it came as somewhat of a shock when on May 14, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the statute. 

Alabama has held off enforcing the law until all appeals are exhausted.  So, assuming the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't overturn the law, in the not-too-distant future, Alabama law enforcement authorities may be acting as the dildo police.

The sex toy ban doesn't apply to possession, but only to in-state sales.  So, when the law becomes effective, Alabama residents who want a dildo, vibrator or other sex toy will have to purchase it out-of-state.  Local companies in Alabama that sell sex toys will either need to find another line of business or shut down. 

Now, Alabama is a solidly conservative state.  Its citizens have consistently elected congressional representatives who vowed to “get the government off the backs of the people,” as Ronald Reagan often said.  Off, that is, until they want to buy a sex toy from a local merchant.

Alabama also bills itself as a business-friendly state.  Indeed, according to the state's official Web site at http://alabama.gov,  "Alabama is a state that appreciates the contribution of business and industry.  We value the companies that are located here and both public and private sectors are committed to helping them achieve success." That is, I suppose, unless you’re in the sex toy business.

The issue, of course, isn't sex, and it certainly isn’t morality.  If there is any government interest whatsoever in public morality, it is in public; e.g., in laws banning indecent exposure, sex in public places, etc.  Other than that, we have certain natural rights, among them the right to do whatever we want to our bodies in the privacy of our own homes.  If freedom means anything, doesn't it mean we get to determine for ourselves what is and what isn't moral?

Copyright © 2007 by Mark Nestmann

Your Tax Dollars at Work: U.S. Funds Expand Wiretaps Around the World

Ask the proverbial “man in the street” how the billions of dollars in foreign aid spent by US taxpayers is spent, and the typical response would probably be that the bulk of it is spent on humanitarian relief.  For instance, the government makes certain that US aid in natural disasters such as the 2004 earthquake and tsunami in southeast Asia is well publicized.   

Less well known, however, is the massive role the US government has in contributing to the growth of what I call the “global surveillance infrastructure.”  Case in point: a US$3 million conversations and tap into e-mail, but the new $3 million “Communications Intercept System” being installed by Mexico's Federal Investigative Agency. 

When complete, the system will permit cell-phone users to be monitored as they travel and also allow authorities to identify callers by voice. And, while Mexico’s contract to install the wiretapping system is with Verint Systems, Inc. of New York, the purchase was bought and paid for by the U.S. State Department.

But what good is a brand new wiretapping system if you can’t use it without obtaining approval from a judge?  Apparently, not much good at all, which perhaps is the reason that at the same time, Mexican President Felipe Calderon is pushing to amend the Mexican Constitution to allow officials to tap phones without a judge's approval.

This is hardly the first time something like this has happened.  Indeed, for nearly 15 years, the FBI and other US agencies have secretly provided funding for a consortium of national law enforcement and intelligence agencies called the International Law Enforcement Telecommunications Seminar (ILETS). Since 1993, ILETS seminars have brought together police from 20 countries to formulate a legal agenda for global surveillance.

The ILETS requirements for the national surveillance wiretapping systems stipulate that law enforcement agencies have access not only to the content of telephone communications, but also conference calling or call transfer data, all numbers called, all calls received, plus the capability to locate cell phone subscribers in real time.  Additionally, neither the interception target nor any other unauthorized person must be aware of the surveillance.

It would appear that the Mexican wiretapping system is designed to fulfill the ILETs requirements.  The result is that country-by-country, the United States is secretly funding initiatives designed to eliminate communications privacy and undermine the rule of law.

Given this degree of coordinated surveillance, thoughtfully funded with US taxpayer dollars, how can you protect telephone privacy?  The single best suggestion is to purchase pre-paid cellular phone service. The per-minute cost is significantly higher than if you have a service contract, but you can obtain your cell phone and purchase pre-paid calling cards for it without a credit check and without showing proof of identify. You can buy prepaid cell phones almost anywhere in the United States through services such Virgin. 

You can learn more about protecting about phone privacy here.

Copyright © 2007 by Mark Nestmann

What NOT to Say to a Judge

If you ever find yourself addressing a judge, you’re trying to influence that person. Perhaps influenced by “Judge Judy” and other media depictions of “tough judges,” real judges don’t want to hear your jokes and especially don’t want to hear your putdowns.

In that regard, when lawyer William P. Smith told a bankruptcy judge in Florida that the judge was "a few french fries short of a Happy Meal," he might have anticipated a less-than-enthusiastic response. And he got it.

After insulting bankruptcy judge Laurel Myerson Isicoff, Smith may lose the ability to practice in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. He’s already lost his client—Miami Beach's Mount Sinai Medical Center & Miami Heart Institute.

By all accounts, Smith is a respected bankruptcy lawyer. But a single off-the-cuff remark before the judge seems certain to play havoc with his career. 

Don’t make the same mistake. If you ever find yourself in the unfortunate position of addressing a judge in his or her official capacity, there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it. It’s “your honor, this” or “your honor that.” No lawyer jokes, sexual innuendos or comments about the judge’s anatomy—whether justified or not!