About Samore Law: Summary

You deserve one-on-one service. We have almost 30 year history of professional treatment of every client and every opponent, and capable courtroom conduct. You will work with an attorney in his prime time with knowledge only experience can bring, respect of his colleagues, and an eagerness to apply those qualities to represent you and your family. You will always be given an honest estimate of likely costs to handle your case, not a low-ball, unrealistic appraisal, designed simply to get you through the door, sign you to a contract, and then leave to be dissatisfied. We caution you to use your good common sense in assessing any attorney’s website or advertising (television or print), and consider all the factors you know are important in retaining an attorney to help you when your future is at risk. Our strength is recommendations from other attorneys and former clients who are familiar with your work. For a full biography and questions about our practice, please look below. We practice in Albuquerque and across the state of New Mexico including all counties: Bernalillo, Catron, Chaves, Cibola, Colfax, Curry, De Baca, Dona Ana, Eddy, Grant, Guadalupe, Harding, Hidalgo, Lea, Lincoln, Los Alamos, Luna, McKinley, Mora, Otero, Quay, Rio Arriba, Roosevelt, San Juan, San Miguel, Sandoval, Santa Fe, Sierra, Socorro, Taos, Torrance, Union, and Valencia.

Common Questions About Samore

Law

Can I get a free consultation?

You'll see many lawyers offering a free consultation. What does that mean and why? It really depends on what you mean by "consultation." Like most lawyers, we will talk and meet with you for free about basic questions and to help you understand if you would like to retain our services. Attorneys are supposed to follow a Code of Ethics (we certainly do!) which requires us to not give advice about things about which we know nothing. If you just call one of us on the phone or by email, we really know nothing about your case, certainly not enough to advise you of what actions you should take. Many of us will give a little very basic information over the phone or by email, such as how much time you have to respond to a petition, whether your spouse can prevent you from getting a divorce, of whether the other parent of your child can keep you from seeing the child. We really have no idea whatsoever "what a divorce costs" (as many callers wonder) because we know nothing about the details of your situation. If you want more specific information than that (and it makes good sense that you do), you need to find an attorney who will at least give you an hour of his or her time. You are going to have to pay a fair rate for this hour, because the attorney should listen to what you have to say, take a close look at your situation, maybe even review papers that have been filed. At our office, we know that a lot of folks may not have five thousand dollars or more to retain a good lawyer, but we also do not want them to go into a difficult situation without knowing their rights and how they apply to their situation. At the same time, it would be an insult to our many clients who pay us a full fee, to give this information out for free. So we welcome those of you who would like to meet with us an hour to discuss your case, get an idea how we think we could help you, and then, you can make a decision. But you will pay our office for an hour of our time. That is fair to us, and it is fair to you. If you decide that you want to hire our office to work hard on your case, that one hour's fee goes to the overall fee; you do not have to pay it twice. We leave the decision to you. No pressure.

Where do you practice most?

We take cases all over the state of New Mexico with many of the cases in the Albuquerque area. Included in this area are three judicial districts; the First, Second, and Thirteenth. All three are located within an hour of our Albuquerque office. The First Judicial District is the Santa Fe area, The Third includes Sandoval, Valencia, and Cibola Counties. Our clients have learned of our office through other attorneys or satisfied clients from across our state, and we always have a couple cases going in these other districts. We've found that new clients may want to go outside their home area to find an attorney, usually because they are not confident any attorney, local to their home, is able to represent them in some sensitive matter.

Have you won any big cases?

Any good lawyer should be able to reel off a long list of successful results. Any good and honest lawyer will also admit every case does not turn out as well as the big victories. Any respectful lawyer is exceedingly cautious about naming clients because of respect for former those clients. Our office has had quite a number of wonderful successes for which we are proud. As far back as 1983, the Eighth Circuit Court reversed the first conviction under the racketeering law (RICO) in that region due to Mr. Samore's Brief on Appeal, based upon improper voir dire jury selection. In 2008, Mr. Samore's diligent trial record lead to reversal of murder conviction, which preserved the violation of the right to confront opposing witnesses. In 2009, after an innocent man had been convicted and was serving a 25-year sentence for sex abuse of his daughter, our office won the first reversal in 40 years on the grounds that the trial court was "clearly erroneous" when it admitted a statement he was alleged to have made to FBI officers. If you believe you've been wrongfully convicted, you know you will get solid representation on appeal with Samore Law. Even if another attorney represented you at trial, we can do the appeal. If our trial effort does not result in acquittal, we can continue representation and present your appeal vigorously to the higher court.

What is your acquittal rate?

How often are your clients found "Not guilty"?

70% versus average of 10%

Any good attorney will be able to impress you with what lawyers call "war stories" about his or her successes. Do not be deceived; ask for specifics. The truth is that trials are over 90 percent of the people who go through criminal trials are convicted; that means less than 10 percent are found "not guilty." This high rate of conviction is one reason many folks (including attorneys) would rather take a plea offer rather than risk going to trial. At our firm in the last ten years in federal and state courts, 70 percent our clients have been found innocent or had cases dismissed. This is seven times better than the average for all defense attorneys in the state and the country. You want the specifics? See Trial Results (below) and read about the most recent trials in which this office was the last barricade between the accused citizen and prison. You want a lawyer who knows his or her way around the courtroom. When the prosecutors respect the defense attorney, their plea offers (which resolve the charges without the risk of trial) tend to be much more reasonable. If the plea proposal does not meet your expectations, you will have the confidence to know that your attorney can present the most effective case possible on your behalf.

He/She really hurt me. I want you to go for their

throat. Don't let them get anything. Can you do

that?

A lot of attorneys will cheer you on, just to hear you say such a thing. They will mislead you as to your chances to achieve a one-sided, total victory in the courtroom. The reason they do this is that they will leave that courtroom with a lot of your money. I will tell you this: not one lawyer in this city will out- litigate or outwork our office. But we will always tell you the truth. We will suggest you give your best effort to working out issues on which you agree and only go to court for the issues on which you simply cannot agree. And the final decision is always yours. Any attorney who does not give you this guarantee is not looking out for your best interests -- and the best interests of your children.

How do you get clients?

Even though you are viewing a website, well over ninety percent of our clients come from referrals by other attorneys or former clients. We recognize the importance of the Internet and the World Wide Web to provide information about our services in more depth and as a way to be more responsive to our clients.

How much will it cost to retain you?

Our office will not, as some lawyers, tell you that your attorney's fees will some unrealistically low amount just to get you through the door. We shall provide you a reasonably accurate estimate of likely attorney fees and costs but always caution each client that the actual expenses of litigation are not in the attorneys hands: it is in the hands of the parties who are facing each other. No firm commitment can be made without an in-person consultation.

I am ready to hire you, but I do not want to incur

any unnecessary costs.

How can you protect me?

We will do no more than what is necessary, but we shall do all that is necessary. You will approve every investment of our time. We have no control as to how much you or that other person want to fight. Too often, people want to fight over issues on which they should compromise. I have a reputation for being reasonable but also quite capable of going all the way when the other side does not share a healthy openness to compromise.

Why is a client’s family

background so important?

Whether the client comes to our office for help in a family crisis (such as custody or a crumbling marriage) or a criminal allegation, family history can be as important as the recent events. A divorce or criminal allegation is also a difficult thing for all the people around that person. The "why" of how this situation came to be, can be as important as the "what happened," and the "why" is often found in one's family background. As each of us grow up in different environments, a major influence on our strengths and weaknesses (we all have them) is usually found in our family. The specifics of dissolving a marriage or defending against a criminal charge is extremely important, but we have found that, to be an effective lawyer, requires more of a holistic approach. How the client will be able to handle the challenges to long-held beliefs and self-image is not something we can ignore when folks face these challenges. A legal crisis comes in many forms, and there rarely is a quick fix. The people on the other side know or will seek to learn your vulnerability and how to hurt you. We want to know how we can use your family background to be a better representative of your own interests. When we meet you the very first time, we may ask questions that are not limited to the allegations. In order to help a client understand what the particular legal experience that they are facing really is, it is necessary to learn how to reach them. We lawyers often assume too much, and many client are reluctant or think it impolite to ask questions. Please, ask questions! Make your points. If you do not like what we are telling you, let us know. We need clients to understand as much as possible, not just so we can help them, but also they can help (and not hurt) themselves. We won't mince words. You will hear the good and the bad -- and the in-between. If you what a lawyer who tells you how easy this process will be or exaggerates how we are going to beat up the other side, there are plenty of lawyers who will mislead you, just to get you to hire their office. I have been dong this too long to waste your time and mine with empty promises. We shall give you the straight scoop from the very first time we sit down together.

Testimonials

Every good attorney should acquire over the years many expressions of gratitude from satisfied clients. Among our many satisfied clients, some have chosen to share their gratitude, and we can only hope your experience will at least match theirs. This has been terrible for not just me but all my family. I can't thank you enough for all that you did... Lynne (divorce client with children) ...we never lost faith but we never expected this...thank you, thank you, thank you... Louise (mother of son, accused of murder, charges dismissed on eve of trial) You are one of God's good ones. Thank you for standing by me and with me throughout the worst three years of my life. ... I finally feel alive again... Gina (divorce client with vicious ex-husband) You are the first man in my life who ever treated me with respect... Michelle (divorce client with two children) Mr. Samore, you taught me to be patient and work to be a better person... I have grown so much... Melvin (pled guilty to reduced charge, served time, and got his life together) I thought when they said not guilty that was the best day of my life, but it was really the next day when I went home with my family... Ryan (acquitted of manslaughter) God bless you for bringing my husband back home to be with me and his grandbabies... Barbara (Husband convicted of sex crime and serving 25-year sentence, conviction reversed on appeal, husband released from federal prison, and charges dismissed) Our life is becoming normal again... this suspicion hung over us for five years, but you never gave up... Can we take you to lunch? Doris (couple falsely suspected of tax fraud) He just won't give up, but we are glad you have hung in there with us... Sandra (divorce and child custody with Ex who periodically stirs conflict)

Biography

For almost thirty years, John Samore has emphasized professional competence and personal service. After ten years in a general law, Mr. Samore focused his practice almost entirely on two challenging areas: families in crisis and defending persons accused of criminal conduct. Mr. Samore acquired his appreciation for the law from his father, Edward, who practiced 57 years. Both gentlemen graduated from the University of Iowa College of Law. Admitted to practice in New Mexico in 1989, John Samore has effectively represented almost 1000 accused of criminal conduct and handled 300 family law matters, including divorce, child custody, child support, and time-sharing. As with any of the state's best attorneys, his clients have found successful results at the trial, pre-trial, and appellate levels. He believes a case is built by personally working closely with each client. Respect for the personal struggle of the entire families is always a paramount concern. Mr. Samore has served as member or officer of many recognized professional organizations including the Medical Review Panel, New Mexico Criminal Defense Attorney Association, and the state bar. He twice served terms as Chair of the Solo and Small Firms Section of the State Bar, Professionalism Committee for nine years, and Fee Arbitration Committee for sixteen years. He has his Masters Degree in Business Labor Law and J. D. from University of Iowa in 1980 and was admitted to United States Supreme Court 1981, New Mexico Bar 1989. Mr. Samore has spoken to professional organizations on various matters including trial practice, minority representation, and defending DWI. Fresh out of law school, John twice ran in the Olympic Trials, representing the USA in seven international meets, and earning two national championships himself. He and his wife have six children and three grandchildren. Other Formal Education: • Masters Degree in Business Labor Law and J. D. from University of Iowa in 1980 • Admitted to United States Supreme Court 1981, New Mexico Bar 1989, Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals 1989, and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 1983

Trial Results

Trials are difficult, stressful, and unpredictable. From the unique challenges of picking a jury to handling rulings on what evidence will or will not be admitted, trial lawyers develop special skills and use their natural gifts in an effort to obtain the best result possible for the accused client. Here are the results of Mr. Samore's last felony jury trials with no trial excluded Many other cases were resolved without need for trial. We present these trials here so you can better understand trial situations and Mr. Samore's approach. These summaries are from the public record and do not contain any private information.

1. STATE V. JEREMIAH G

[Violent Crime - Murder] [Dismissed]

In June, 2004, a 23-year-old man was chatting on his cell phone in front of his Highland area house one early evening when someone shot him in the back and he died within minutes. The next day, Albuquerque police arrested Jeremiah, the best friend of another young man who had been in a fight with the victim a few weeks before the shooting. Both teenagers were charged with first degree murder. The key witness was a young man who said he saw the two defendants park an SUV near the victim's house, get out, and one of the two walking close to the victim and shooting him. When he make this observation, the witness was sitting with a friend in a playground over 100 yards away. Mr. Samore and counsel for Jeremiah's co- defendant worked closely together to develop a defense of mis-identification. The trial was delayed several times due to a temporary disappearance of the witness and time conflicts of the chief prosecutor. By the time it got to trial, over a year had passed since charges were filed, a technical violation of state law. Before the evidence presentation began, both defendants jointly moved to dismiss the charge with prejudice, meaning the defendants could never be prosecuted because the State had taken too long to bring the case to trial. After patiently listening to vigorous arguments from both sides, the trial judge reluctantly agreed with Mr. Samore and his co- defendant's attorney and dismissed the charges with prejudice. Jeremiah went free.

2. UNITED SATES V. MARK C. [Violent Crime -

Assault with a weapon] [Not Guilty]

In 2008, a man driving a Ford F-250 ran into the rear of a Taurus sedan in rural New Mexico. Mark got out of the car with a shotgun, walked to the rear of the car, and shot the truck's driver through the windshield into his face, neck, shoulder and right torso. Mark was charged in federal court with three counts that, if convicted, would have resulted in a prison sentence of at least 18 years. Both sides worked very hard on the case for almost three years before it came to trial in 2011. Two very respected Assistant United States Attorneys and an accomplished FBI agent represented the prosecution at trial; only Mr. Samore represented the defendant, who claimed he discharged the gun in self-defense. As the trial extended into a second week, the independent evidence of the Alleged Victim's (AV's) history of violence and lying was excluded and only a single incident of the AV's prior threats to kill Mark was admitted. The defense case appeared to be in jeopardy. The Prosecution called a respected doctor to testify to the severity of the AV's injuries and an experienced Accident Reconstructionist to support its position. Both were embarrassed by cross- examination that forced them to admit errors in their position. The AV was caught in many inconsistencies and exaggerations. Mark and three of the other four passengers in the Taurus testified as best they could recall the hectic events of an evening almost three years ago. All three attorneys gave their final summation to the jury. Deliberations began the next day, and a common adage of experienced courtwatchers is that, the sooner the jury reaches a verdict, the more likely the verdict is "guilty." After barely two hours, the jury reached its verdict: "not guilty" on all counts. Mark went home with his family.

3. UNITED STATES V. Mr. F. [Sex Offense] [Not Guilty

on Appeal]

In 2006, Mr. F a simple, native gentleman who lived in a very isolated rural area near Gallup. He had no criminal record but was accused by his teenage daughter of improper sexual contact. We strongly believed that the daughter only made the complaint because she had just been expelled from school a second time for bringing marijuana to school and knew she would be punished by her dad. The key evidence was Mr. F's alleged (unrecorded) statements to two FBI agents when Mr. F went to their office to report his daughter for not coming home for two days. These agents were conspicuously wearing their loaded sidearms and took Mr. F to a small, closed room, then wrote out a statement admitting guilt and had Mr. F sign it. Mr. F hardly understood enough English to realize what the FBI agent wrote down, was never told his Constitutional rights, and would have done anything to find out where his daughter was. The Judge at the trial, who is very respected by our office and almost all attorneys, let that statement come into evidence, and Mr. F was convicted at trial. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison. We thought the Judge had made a serious mistake in his ruling and mounted a vigorous appeal, for which you can read these "Briefs" that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver considered. After hearing Mr. Samore and another fine US Attorney argue the issues, the conviction was reversed, and Mr. F was releases from 31 months in prison. A new trial was ordered, but, before another trial could be conducted, the daughter (who had been living in Phoenix) herself contacted the prosecutor and told him that "everything Mr. Samore said was true," and that she had made up the allegations because she feared her dad would be so angry at her for getting expelled a second time. The Prosecutor, being an honorable man, dismissed the charges, and Mr. F is quietly living out his life. The smooth-talking FBI agent, who had been so convincing to the jury, was quietly transferred out of New Mexico across the country. We can only hope that he has learned his lesson and is not still doing his best to convict innocent people like Mr. F. Sometimes, although it may take longer than we would like, the system works out for the best. • I have listed a few ideas and thoughts about sex crime in my blog that you may wish to read. • You can also see the Sex Crimes / Sex offenses page.

4. UNITED STATES V. JOE B. [Violent Crime - Armed

robbery] [Convicted]

The federal charges against Joe B were armed robbery of a pizza parlor and related firearms charges. Because Mr. B had five prior violent convictions, including murder, the Prosecution knew that any conviction would result in a life sentence. The charges seemed pretty solid, since witnesses had generally described a man similar physically to the defendant, at least two witnesses had gotten a license plate that traced to Mr. B's car, and Mr. B had apparently left the monitor on his ankle bracelet for the four hours over a Sunday afternoon when the crime occurred. When he returned home, the police SWAT team was waiting. In a four-day trial in 2007, the defense rigorously cross-examined the witnesses to inconsistencies in their recollections and, with the assistance of a computer monitoring expert, undermined any certainty that the defendant was off the monitor. Unfortunately for Mr. B, his admission at the time of his arrest when he told a police sergeant where a small handgun could be found (under his bed) proved too much to overcome. After almost seven hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of guilty to all counts. He was sentenced to life in prison, and his appeal was denied.

5. STATE V. JESUS Z. [Violent Crime - Murder]

[Convicted]

The week after Mr. B's conviction, Mr. Samore had to defend a murder trial in state court. Two cars with three rival gang members in each car, were cautiously eyed one another on a warm 2006 night on Albuquerque's Westside. After the usual display of mad-dog looks and signing, the defendant shot one of the passengers in the other car. He claimed self-defense and that the first shot came from the other car. Three determined Assistant District Attorneys handled the trial and maintained no evidence could be found that the rival car even had a weapon, let alone fired first. The driver of Mr. Z's car was shot in the hand, but the ballistics tests on a cartridge found on the car's floor confirmed that he was shot from the same gun that killed the Alleged Victim. The trial judge allowed the Prosecution to put a "gang expert" on the stand to frighten the jury about the dangers of gangs, although it had no real relevance to the actual charges. The judge also let the prosecution call the driver of Mr. Z's car regarding statements he made the night of the shooting, even though he had previously told (through his own lawyer) the court he would not incriminate himself by testifying at this trial. Mr. Samore vigorously reminded the court that, to permit such evidence which the defense could not cross examine, would result in an unjust conviction and be error. The Judge rejected Mr. Samore's arguments, let the unchallengeable statements be heard, and Mr. Z was convicted. Another fine attorney was appointed to handle the appeal and skillfully presented Mr. Samore's same arguments. As it turned out, the Supreme Court agreed. In a landmark decision in this area (known as Crawford) that stands today, the Supreme Court reversed Mr. Z's conviction and sent the case back for re-trial. Another attorney was appointed for the re-trial, and Mr. Z chose to enter a guilty plea to a lesser charge.

7. UNITED STATES V. DION L. [Sexual Assault]

[Convicted]

In May of 2002, a group of teenagers drank way too much at a graduation party sponsored by one of the parents, and, in the early hours of the following morning, took advantage of one of the most intoxicated young women at another rural home. Five young men were involved in one way or another, and, because the ugly incident occurred in Indian country, a federal prosecution ensued. Three of the young men pled guilty and promised to testify against the remaining two, who claimed to have been less involved than the three who rushed to plead. Mr. Samore was appointed to defend one of these remaining young men, and Dion L rejected a negotiated plea agreement that would have resulted in a sentence of less than four years. The case came to trial in December, 2005. After a hotly-contested week-long trial, both young men were found guilty and sentenced to seven years imprisonment.

8. UNITED STATES V. DAVID S. [Violent Crime -

Murder] [Convicted]

When a 27-year-old man pointed a rifle at three teenage boys after an insignificant dispute, a fight occurred, and the older man was found in his car the next morning dead from a series of blows to the head. The three young men readily admitted their involvement, and a second degree murder prosecution proceeded through federal court. Mr. Samore's client stuck with his buddies who appeared to be more culpable, and all refused a plea proposal for less than four years imprisonment. At trial in 2002, the responsibility and roles of each youth were argued, and the jury eventually returned a verdict of guilty as to all three. David S received a sentence of less than seven years, over two years less than each of the other co-defendants.

9. STATE V. LEE P. [Sexual Assault] [Not Guilty]

An 83-year-old farmer was accused by a granddaughter of sexual abuse, and she easily convinced her therapist and the examining physician that the allegations were true. Conviction would have virtually guaranteed a prison sentence for the rest of Lee's life. Mr. Samore perceptively recognized that, if the little girl was touched, there were other culprits responsible, and he was representing a truly innocent man. Against all odds, Mr. Samore won a hung jury at the trial, and, before any re-trial could be conducted, the Prosecution correctly agreed to dismiss the charges, and Mr. P went home.

10. STATE V. CINDY H. [White Collar Crime -

Embezzlement] [Not Guilty]

A nice lady went to work part-time for a busy family business in western New Mexico. Unfortunately, after two years, the wealthy woman who owned the business with her husband, found many discrepancies in the financial records and became convinced that Cindy was embezzling a lot of money. As a result, the State investigated and filed multiple felony charges against Ms. H for embezzling over $25,000, but Cindy insisted she was innocent. She had no explanation for all the bookkeeping discrepancies, so she hired Mr Samore, who prepared for trial but also negotiated a plea agreement in case Cindy wanted to avoid going to jail. Cindy insisted on going to trial. At trial against the District Attorney and an Special Assistant Attorney General, the defense showed convincingly that the state auditors had overlooked constant daily bookkeeping errors (even when Cindy was on vacation), and the explanation was, not stealing, but simply a lack of training and proper accounting controls. No one had really taken anything. The jury returned in barely an hour of deliberation with a "not guilty" verdict to all charges.

11. STATE V. CHERI S. [White Collar Crime -

Embezzlement] [Not Guilty]

This time, it was a female insurance agent from a northern Mew Mexico city who was accused of stealing premium payments intended for her senior agent. She hired Mr. Samore to defend her and her good reputation. Again, this defendant refused to accept a plea proposal that would have guaranteed her no jail time but cost her the insurance license that was her livelihood. The trial prospects looked bleak for the defense until some gaping holes in the prosecution were exposed on the last day of a week- long trial. It took this jury less than two hours to return with a verdict that so stunned the prosecutor she fled from the courtroom even before the trial judge discharged the jurors: "not guilty" on each felony count. With that result, Cheri S. also went home and back to her life as an insurance salesperson.

12. STATE V. MARK C. [Violent Crime] [Not Guilty]

Mark C is a native person who was one of many folks hated by another man named F in the same rural community who widely feared for his violent reputation and carrying guns and knives. On March 10, 2008, F was driving his loaded truck, saw Mark and his family driving their little Taurus sedan home in an isolated area of the reservation. F pursued them down the highway, and rammed them from behind, pushing them off the road. The taurus was stuck on the soft shoulder while the big truck backed up and revved its engine. Mark grabbed a shotgun from the floor, hopped out of the car, and, as the truck started toward the car, shot twice at the truck. Injured by the spray of pellets, F drove away. He told a very different story of the incident to the police and FBI. Serious charges were brought by the United States Attorney against Mark. These motions you can read show you how lawyers work intensely prior to trial, not just at the trial. Because Mark insisted he was only defending his family, he went to trial risking up to 24 years in prison. Three very capable attorneys represented the prosecution, and our office represented Mark. Six expert witnesses testified, as well as persons involved in the incident. After an exhausting week- long trial, the jury acquitted him of all charges in only one hour of deliberation.

13. STATE V. Mr A. [Unreasonable Search] [Guilty,

Under Appeal]

Mr. A is a bright Nigerian, living in Dallas as a legal resident with his wife and children for six years. He was the passenger in a car stopped in Eastern New Mexico on April 6, 2011. The issue was whether the State Police had stopped and searched the rented car because Mr. A and his friend are black. We compiled significant documentation of the embarrassing racial bias of certain State Policemen. You can read the Motions we filed to support our arguments to exclude the evidence seized because of this bias. The US Attorney capably presented a vigorous arguments that the racial bias was not so severe as to require exclusion of evidence. The trial Judge listened patiently to two days of hearings and issued almost 300 pages in two rulings that denied the Motion. With no defenses remaining, Mr. A pled guilty and received a two-year sentence, reserving his right to appeal the Judge's rulings. We are working on that appeal right now. When a client gets convicted, good lawyers prepare what are called "Sentencing Memorandum" that inform the Judge of all the relevant good things about the client. You can read a few of those for folks who may have done something wrong but still have something good to give the world. We want the very best for each of them.