Michael James Kennedy

I recall David very well. Between email communications to him and about his case, I stopped counting at 80; there are many more. It is a grotesque waste of scarce time for me to have to respond to repeated and anxious “what’s going on” types of queries with “nothing new” constantly. Indeed, there was more communication between him and me than between any other 20 of my clients and me in the aggregate. I know people are anxious about what’s going on in the odious arena of drunk driving, which is a political crime investigated and prosecuted remorselessly, but people need to stand back and let things happen. And most of the people to come to me for help do so. I am now more careful than ever about whom I’ll represent, and because of the quality of my work, I always have more who want my services than I will agree to help. Attorneys who are criticized by clients may answer those criticisms, so long as unnecessary confidences are not revealed, and all that I will say here is in the public domain. On the public facts of his case, I did not cram 2½ times the legal limit of alcohol down David’s gullet, nor did I cause his car to careen recklessly down the road and through construction caution barriers, nor did I cause him to say much, much more to the cops than is necessary [and which is highly incriminating], nor did I force him to try to perform balancing tests that no one can perform on their best day and with perfect sobriety. But it was my task to try to make it look as though none of that happened. I was to create an impression of alternative facts. Because his BAC was so high, the prosecutor wanted David to spend a considerable time in jail. Did I tell him it was a winnable case? Indeed, I did. If we could revisit the days of the Founding Fathers, when the purpose and function of juries was to have a body of citizens stand resolutely against government and on the side of the accused, and who are to look skeptically at whatever government introduces to strip people of their liberties, which includes looking skeptically at what judges do and say and think and wish to have happen, virtually all cases would be winnable. And we sometimes get those sorts of juries, although more often we do not; too often we get juries who think the judge and prosecutor and cops are their best friends who would never lie, cheat, steal liberty, and who wear white hats. Wrong! But if we had properly functioning juries, virtually all cases are winnable, and David’s would have been won. There were forensic anomalies and discrepancies in the evidence the government introduced here, and had certain meritorious objections been sustained and certain meritorious motions been granted, the outcome here would have been vastly different. And it should have been. So certain was I that things would be different had the law been properly applied to only properly found facts that I offered to do the appeal for David free of charge, if he would merely pay for the transcript. That is, I would donate $10,000 of my efforts if he would pay the $2,500 for the transcript. But he declined, preferring to sulk and then attack me here. Yep, there were many postponements: part of my expertise includes knowing which judges are neutral and intelligent enough to let hear my cases, and which ones are simply the best friends the cops and prosecutor ever had, with nary a clue of how to find the courtroom. Both sorts sit in the Riverside County courts at varying times. And I will continue cases until I get the tribunal that I think is best suited for my task. Because of the quality of my work in this case, the appreciative judge gave David no time in jail, despite the government’s insistence that he go to jail along the lines of their initial prayer because of the enormously high BAC and the man-endangering driving pattern. Had I not postponed to a suitable tribunal, David would have done 6 months in jail.

The attorney-client relationship requires confidentiality, which I will protect at all costs, more so than many attorneys who will tell the court certain things to make themselves look good to the oppressors. But the one area which allows breaching that inviolable relationship of silence is when the client attacks the attorney in public, utters a libel against the attorney and the practice of law, as occurred here. Then the attorney can divulge the context to defend himself. At least this attack, unlike the others on this page, is from a true client [although he had not yet hired me, but this is not from an envious competitor, unlike the others]. Of course, it is foolish to attack me, when I can protect myself, because judges and DAs who respect me [and most grudgingly do because of the quality of my work and my grit] read my postings, and pages about me, like this one. Judgmental? Yep. This Kevin Steele was sent to me by one of the preeminent DUI specialists because he knew that I was one of the few who could back the court and DA down in Victorville on drunk driving matters, where I have had many noted successes, felony and misdemeanor. I started looking into the matter before being retained so I would know the lay of the land and could decide if I wanted to take the case and what was involved. It turns out that Kevin has two drunk driving cases, 4 years old, one committed while Steele was pending appearance on the other, and both now have literally years of failures to appear. I asked Kevin what on earth was going on with two drunk driving cases and persistent non-appearances, and his answer was that he refused to go to court because he could not afford an attorney and he didn't trust the public defender! Yep, I was judgmental - to essentially thumb your nose at the judge [which is how a failure to appear is viewed by most judges] because you do not trust the attorney that the judge will appoint to assist you is idiotic, counter-productive, irresponsible, and it is setting up an uphill battle that can be won, but which is more problematic and involved than should be the case. These are two separate and distinct DUIs with different facts and different issues, even though they are now set on the same date for a new arraignment, and I charge and receive $7,500 for a DUI locally [Indio], and much more at a distance, because of the quality of my work, the excessive time and effort I put into the matters, and the often astounding results I can pull off, so that would theoretically cost Kevin $15,000 if in Indio, and potentially much more at that distance, but I offered him a fee of $10,000 for both, chopping off $5,000. He went nuts and only then started criticizing my tone. [Many of the top-rung DUI specialists charge more than that through trial for one DUI case, let alone two!] I am sure Kevin has found low-ballers who charge much less. There is a group of attorneys statewide who will charge $2,500, or less, and will make a couple of appearances, and then will, with earnestness leaking from all their pores, tell you that you have to plead guilty, but they will have gotten you a "good deal" of on;y 10 days in jail for a first time DUI. [The statutory minimum is zero days, and everyone appearing on their own can get the 10 day "deal"!] Unlike me, they don;t do extensive motions, back-room fights, trials, etc., to maximize their clients' position. I told Kevin that before he hired one of those bottom-feeders, he would be better off with the public defender, who does fight for their clients, and generally effectively so. I wished him best of luck and I thought that was the end of Kevin Steele and me. Not everyone can afford me; but few transfer that into an attack on me! But Kevin decided to deflect his own self-loathing by attacking me instead of following that sage advice. That is always a big mistake, for courts, prosecutors, whomever.

I think I know exactly who the cretin is who is posting this, and he is a competitor, and one thing that makes it all clear - I have not had any appellate clients who have paid me $20,000. The biggest disservice this AVVO system makes to the public is that they allow anonymous attacks, and they allow libelous attacks that without federal internet protection., would be very profitable for the person who is wrongfully attacked. That is a thing the Congress is going to have to review, because one's reputation is a property interest, and to allow, by law, it to be trashed is constitutionally despicable. However, one can read the comments of those who know me best [here and on LinkedIn], those who see me in court and who are taught by me at seminars, and he or she can draw their own conclusions about my scholarship, effectiveness, and qualities as an attorney. I don't recall a real client who has complained to me about anything I did or didn't do, and if they had real complaints [and if they were really clients and not competitors], they would complaint to the State Bar. The problem for them with that is that they would have to reveal their identities! And then the fraud would be exposed. No one works harder, nor more competently, than I in the service of those victimized by overreaching government - and some of my competitors know that and want to bring me down to their level. People attacked Galileo too.

This is an utter falsehood, doubtlessly penned by competitors, possibly by the same one who penned the other false nasty-ism. People can see from the other comments about me that whoever is publishing this bilge has some agenda other than expressing the truth. One thing that makes it clear that this is false is that I never brag about appeals outcomes, because I know our appeals courts are quixotic and unreliable and I never predict what the outcome will be, nor can any attorney. It is interesting and telling that those who anonymously try to bring me down on this site have never complained to the State Bar about my performance, because unlike this "service," which will publish anything, the Bar requires proof and identity of those complaining. AVVO really needs to rethink its policy of permitting libelous utterances on these pages, hiding, as it does, behind the protection unwisely afforded by federal law for internet defamation. I have many, many happy clients, past and present, and I don't know of one who would not come back to me if they ran into trouble again [and there are many who have come back to me], because the results of my efforts on the behalf of those accused of crimes is unsurpassed. Naturally, if appeals or trial outcomes do not favor a criminal defendant, many times they start looking for someone to blame, since looking in the mirror frequently produces an unwelcome image, but if this comment really has been written by someone who is unhappy about the outcome of something I did, he or she needs to be reminded that I am not the one who committed any crime; I am the one who tried to put the horses back in the barn after they were loosed by this individual's activity. Perhaps falsely attacking me makes them happy or gives them a measure of peace that was disrupted by their own conduct, but if so, that is perverse. But I think I know who is doing this, and it is not an unhappy client, and there will be a deserved reckoning. As an aside, because I don't think it applies to this false attack, people should understand that appeals are a risky business, because about 98% of trial outcomes are affirmed on appeal: appeals in this state are not a remedy often obtained.

I trust everyone reading this false and defamatory screed against realize that it has no connection to reality, and it remains clear to me that it was penned by a envious competitor and not by any former client. It is regrettable that AVVO allows such baseless, and potentially harmful, attacks on their pages, and I am working with Congress to eliminate the immunity that internet broadcasters enjoy to utter libels against people which if uttered in other setting would invite hefty civil penalties. If they allow their pages to be used for patent falsehoods, then one cannot rely on anything AVVO has published about anything [except my "superb" rating - they are accurate about that!]. The quality and aggressiveness and scholarly precision of my service to those accused of crimes is second to none, and real clients who have actually retained me stand firmly in my corner on that.