I Suggest a New Law

This is an unusual suggestion. Typically, I would recommend against having too many laws. However, in this case, I believe this could be a beneficial law that is worth considering.

To ensure the law remains effective, it is important to limit the involvement of lawyers. The length should be kept to no more than four paragraphs, as any longer would likely make the text overly complex. If lawyers are allowed to contribute, the law could become excessively lengthy and difficult to understand, even for legal professionals.

It would say something like this:

All authorities issuing death certificates shall send a copy to the Social Security Administration on paper.

To prevent the inadvertent issuance of false documents, the Social Security Administration should send a registered letter to the individual reported as deceased, requesting verification of their status. If the person is alive but unable to respond directly, an appropriate representative should be able to do so on their behalf.

Intentionally creating false or misleading documents is considered fraudulent and may result in legal consequences.

If the recipient does not respond to the letter within ninety days, they will be presumed deceased and removed from the active register. No further payments will be made to that individual, except for any applicable survivor benefits.

An appropriate consequence should be included. The advantage of the law is that it would prevent sending payments to deceased individuals, and it would be easily understood by all.

The process of distributing payments to individuals located outside the United States may require a more nuanced approach. It would be prudent to consult legal experts who can navigate the complexities of international law and ensure compliance with relevant regulations.

The advantages of this approach are straightforward:

1) It encourages ethical behavior and accountability.

2) It helps preserve the Social Security system for future generations.

3) It protects the system from those who would seek to exploit it for personal gain, ensuring its sustainability for younger individuals.

If You Ever Need a Lawyer

Fortunately, I have never needed a lawyer for anything other than simple run-of-the-mill things. However, I have seen them in action. I have been on juries and I have seen good lawyers and I have seen bad lawyers.

I neither can claim to be an expert on law nor on selecting lawyers. However, I do believe there are some things that are common sense. Right at the top, “how convincing is the man or woman?” One man stands up, speaks with authority and is easily heard from one end of the courtroom to the other while not shouting. Then another lawyer speaks timidly and so softly you have to be within three feet to hear him. Which lawyer will most likely be most convincing.

Lawyers go through a lot of schooling to become lawyers. The spend a lot of money and they put a lot of effort to complete the studies. Every man or woman that completes the studies and passes the bar has invested hours of study. Once he officially becomes a lawyer, he is allowed to argue cases before courts on behalf of their client. It is a trust that is given to a select few. While paralegals can prepare legal documents, the documents do not become legal until the lawyer presents them to the court as their work.

Yet, it would appear that all these colleges and schools seem to ignore one important one thing, how to talk to a jury. Basic acting. How to speak as if you know what you’re talking about. Most of all, speaking with enough volume that everyone in the courtroom can hear him.

I know. You think all this is moot, if I might borrow the legal term, with microphones and loudspeakers. This is not true. It is something of a strange thing, but it seems the electronics have even given the actors a false sense. Frequently, I have to turn my volume up on my TV because some actor thinks he is more convincing when he whispers. To be sure, in the days before microphones, the actors didn’t whisper and they were more convincing than many of the current actors.

My point is this. If you ever have to ask your lawyer to speak up so you can hear him, it is time to start looking for another lawyer. If he doesn’t speak as if he knows what he is talking about, even if he doesn’t, it’s time to find another lawyer. If a person on the jury ever starts leaning forward and cocking his ear to hear your lawyer, it’s time to find another lawyer. Finally, if you have a difficult time understanding your lawyer, it is time to find another lawyer. After all, your lawyer is, so to speak, your “mouth piece.”

As an aside, don’t you think it’s time for all law schools to require a few hours of public speaking? Apparently, right now, it isn’t even a suggestion.