S02.E06: Bali Ha'i

[Bannon]

Gray Matter would give him a job for the year or so he expected to live and great medical coverage, but there was no indication they would provide for Skyler, Walt Jr. and Holly beyond that. I do agree that pride was the main reason he turned the job down, though.

Can Mike not start a legitimate PI business or become a bounty hunter or use his skills in some other legal way?

Both characters had choices and chose to go outside the law and continued to get pulled deeper and deeper into crime.

They are not identical characters but they are parallel ones who head down a similar path.

I have no problem with people hating Walt. I just find it inconsistent to hate Walt and admire Mike. They both became drug dealers and murderers.

Being paid for a year by people worth hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, could easily provide the the 3/4 of a million dollars that Walt originally went into the meth trade for, and well could provide a lot more than that (I believe his former partners explicitly promised him that his family would be taken care of). It certainly is a better choice for your family than entering into the meth trade, but it wasn't a good choice for whatever crappy ideas about honor or pride that Walt created between his ears, so Walt decided to screw his family, while lying to everyone, including himself, about why he was cooking meth.

 

I neither hate or admire Walt or Mike. I think they are both extremely interesting characters. They both engage in heinous behavior. Mike is a lot more honest about himself than Walt ever was, but that doesn't make either one more interesting than the other.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Bannon

[Eyes High]

This show is more and more the "Better call Mike" than Saul... I guess Mike's stories are way more interesting than Jimmy problems with sleep (and a cupholder)

 

The writers seem to recognize that a realistic depiction of the world of big firm corporate civil litigation does not exactly make for thrilling television.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Eyes High

[ShadowFacts]

 

So, I've been thinking through the fraud thing to.  I believe fraud is a specific intent crime, which means you have to prove the intent to defraud the victim.  I don't know if you can prove intent merely through accepting the check, or if you would need to do something more to show the specific intent to defraud (like actually cashing the check)

 

I certainly don't know the legal particulars and doubt most viewers do, but, to tie this in with how ring-kiss-y and image conscious the law firms are, neither HHM nor Schweikert would be interested in employing someone who is doing these scams that Kim is doing with Jimmy, right?  I mean, if Howard finds out, Kim is not just going to the corn field, she is outa there.  Doing fun deceptive quasi-legal or outright illegal things is for criminals or adolescents, not members of the bar.  She knows that.  And she's got to know she can be caught at this, because these guys are not skid row types, they're businessmen in nicer bars who may run in to her again somewhere else.  She's letting her id take over and her super-ego might not kick back in soon enough to keep her out of the disaster zone Jimmy is also dancing around.

[Sentient Meat]

I agree that Walt was a selfish prick for roughly the last half of the show up until the moment where he essentially gave back all his money (80 million) in a desperate attempt to try to save Hank.  However, it was and it wasn't as simple as being too prideful to take charity from Elliot and Gretchen... it was about taking money from a smug asshole who he perceived to have stolen possibly the love of his life and half of his company.  Should he have just put his ego aside and taken the money instead of becoming a crime lord who endangered his family as well as the people who used his product?   Of course... but don't act like it was as easy as picking up a check at the lottery office for him.

 

But yeah... so far Mike and Saul are way better than Walt and Jesse on the morality/ethics scale.

 

Everyone loves Jesse but they forget he got Jane to fall off the wagon... tried to drum up meth sales at a recovery meeting including seducing Brock's mom with drugs.

[RCharter]

I certainly don't know the legal particulars and doubt most viewers do, but, to tie this in with how ring-kiss-y and image conscious the law firms are, neither HHM nor Schweikert would be interested in employing someone who is doing these scams that Kim is doing with Jimmy, right?  I mean, if Howard finds out, Kim is not just going to the corn field, she is outa there.  Doing fun deceptive quasi-legal or outright illegal things is for criminals or adolescents, not members of the bar.  She knows that.  And she's got to know she can be caught at this, because these guys are not skid row types, they're businessmen in nicer bars who may run in to her again somewhere else.  She's letting her id take over and her super-ego might not kick back in soon enough to keep her out of the disaster zone Jimmy is also dancing around.

Oh yes, you are absolutely right.  

 

I had only been thinking through the fraud thing, because I think its an interesting question.  But you're right (I can't remember enough from psych 101 about the id and the super ego, but it sounds like you're right about that too).  I think that it would definitely be a super huge ethical violation that HHM would want absolutely no part of.  The beauty of the ethical rules (at least the ABA ones) is that they are written so broadly that it can cover just about anything.  I think one of the rules is something like "you can't do anything that makes the profession look bad" or something along those lines that is so very nebulous and subjective.

 

I don't know if Kim has fully thought things through, and I'm not sure what that dudes story was or if she vetted him.  He might be an out of town engineer in town for a while that is just meeting a ton of women (I'm not sure if his check had a NM address).  I'm not sure if she figured that out before she called Jimmy.  Perhaps this is just a hotel (he was kissing a woman, so I'm thinking she was at a hotel bar) that he meets his ladies at and he has a wife so he isn't going to say anything.  However, for someone as careful as Kim is, it certainly is out of character for her so maybe she is just on the road to trying to sabotage her career the same way Jimmy is.

[Eyes High]

I certainly don't know the legal particulars and doubt most viewers do, but, to tie this in with how ring-kiss-y and image conscious the law firms are, neither HHM nor Schweikert would be interested in employing someone who is doing these scams that Kim is doing with Jimmy, right?  I mean, if Howard finds out, Kim is not just going to the corn field, she is outa there.  Doing fun deceptive quasi-legal or outright illegal things is for criminals or adolescents, not members of the bar.  She knows that.  And she's got to know she can be caught at this, because these guys are not skid row types, they're businessmen in nicer bars who may run in to her again somewhere else.  She's letting her id take over and her super-ego might not kick back in soon enough to keep her out of the disaster zone Jimmy is also dancing around.

 

The other problem is that you can do things which are not illegal but which easily get you disbarred. Although it seems that lawyers most often get pinched for things which are simultaneously illegal and unethical (stealing money from clients' trust accounts to fund their cocaine addiction, mortgage fraud, etc.), there are many things which are not illegal but which would violate the ethics codes governing lawyers' conduct (failing to disclose a conflict of interest, e.g.). Even if a particular act is not illegal, it can still get you into deep trouble with the bar. Being overly focused on whether or not what Kim did was strictly speaking illegal is missing the point, in my opinion. For all the jokes about how evil and immoral lawyers are, character does matter and lawyers are held to a higher standard by their regulatory bodies. 

Edited March 23, 2016 by Eyes High

[peeayebee]

I noticed that when Mike put the towel around Kaylee as she got out of the pool, he hugged her and shielded her with his body.  I think that tells us very vividly who he's living for.

True, but I couldn't stop thinking that with the towel wrapped around her face, Kaylee couldn't breath.

 

Re the Ice Station Zebra Associations fake company -- There's no way right now to know if Kim came up with it or Jimmy. I would think Jimmy did as their little inside joke. 

[Bannon]

I agree that Walt was a selfish prick for roughly the last half of the show up until the moment where he essentially gave back all his money (80 million) in a desperate attempt to try to save Hank.  However, it was and it wasn't as simple as being too prideful to take charity from Elliot and Gretchen... it was about taking money from a smug asshole who he perceived to have stolen possibly the love of his life and half of his company.  Should he have just put his ego aside and taken the money instead of becoming a crime lord who endangered his family as well as the people who used his product?   Of course... but don't act like it was as easy as picking up a check at the lottery office for him.

 

But yeah... so far Mike and Saul are way better than Walt and Jesse on the morality/ethics scale.

 

Everyone loves Jesse but they forget he got Jane to fall off the wagon... tried to drum up meth sales at a recovery meeting including seducing Brock's mom with drugs.

I never understood how anybody thought Jesse or Walt were admirable people in any way, as opposed to fascinating criminals, who inflicted huge amounts of harm on wholly innocent people. I don't think Mike is admirable, either, but I suppose he has more positive qualities than either Jesse and Walt. 

[Bannon]

I agree that Walt was a selfish prick for roughly the last half of the show up until the moment where he essentially gave back all his money (80 million) in a desperate attempt to try to save Hank.  However, it was and it wasn't as simple as being too prideful to take charity from Elliot and Gretchen... it was about taking money from a smug asshole who he perceived to have stolen possibly the love of his life and half of his company.  Should he have just put his ego aside and taken the money instead of becoming a crime lord who endangered his family as well as the people who used his product?   Of course... but don't act like it was as easy as picking up a check at the lottery office for him.

 

But yeah... so far Mike and Saul are way better than Walt and Jesse on the morality/ethics scale.

 

Everyone loves Jesse but they forget he got Jane to fall off the wagon... tried to drum up meth sales at a recovery meeting including seducing Brock's mom with drugs.

When the bar is set at the level of as easy as picking up a lottery check, then the bar is on the ground. If your family is what you care about, then the smugness of the  A-hole signing the check really doesn't enter into the equation, as you are contemplating your imminent death via cancer.

[Lurky McLurkerson]

I agree that Walt was a selfish prick for roughly the last half of the show up until the moment where he essentially gave back all his money (80 million) in a desperate attempt to try to save Hank.  However, it was and it wasn't as simple as being too prideful to take charity from Elliot and Gretchen... it was about taking money from a smug asshole who he perceived to have stolen possibly the love of his life and half of his company.  Should he have just put his ego aside and taken the money instead of becoming a crime lord who endangered his family as well as the people who used his product?   Of course... but don't act like it was as easy as picking up a check at the lottery office for him.

The problem with this is that we're back to Walt's insecurity and ego as to why he has that that perception Elliot and Gretchen/Gray Matter.  Gretchen expresses confusion in S2 as to why Walt left her family's home when she took him home for a holiday weekend.  Her perception is that he walked out on her/them/the company.  I think Walt is an unreliable narrator on the Gray Matter front, and all it showed me was that his pride, ego, and insecurity hobbled him pretty much his whole adult life.  (I actually remember feeling bad for disliking Walt so much the first time I watched S2's "Gray Matter" because, at that time, I felt like I was supposed to pity for this poor, fish-out-of-water middle class person at the fancy party recently off a lung cancer diagnosis.  Instead, I found myself really disliking him and finding him to be a pompous buffoon and then feeling like I wasn't getting the show.)  I don't think Walt went from Mr. Chips to Scarface.  I don't think he was ever Mr. Chips, and Scarface was right there just without the power to act until Walt found meth.

 

At the risk of sounding desensitized to the horrible things that they do, I start from the base level with nearly all these characters -- Chuck was a bit of a surprise to me -- that they are flawed and imperfect, usually to a pretty monstrous degree.  Gilligan doesn't do Mary Janes and saviors.  I can like Mike the character without thinking that his criminal endeavors are okay.  I can feel horrible for Jesse Pinkman that he was so lost that a partnership with Walter White seemed like a good business opportunity while still condemning him for murder and freakin' soliciting drug customers at an NA meeting.  Hell, I can find Walt to be deplorable but still admire his amazing scientific knowledge and skills.  That's why I like Gilligan & Co. - the complexity of the story.  It has pretty much ruined me for a lot of other TV.

[Bannon]

Well, sure, you and I know that because we're watching Better Call Saul and got to see the Kim-hustling-for-business montage.  How does Schweikart know that? She was pretty careful to pretend she was taking lunch to not be seen doing her cold-calls at HH&M.

 

Many law firms are also very conservative in hiring.  It's not about potential, it's about what you've got in hand right now.  Lawyers are expensive and need to be able to provide "food" not only for themselves but also the overhead staff resources that they consume.  I can see slowly courting a Kim based on potential, but she needs to be bringing the big-money client (or a handful of small/medium clients) with her when she moves.  Is the bank client coming with her or was the head of the bank more taken with Howard's walk down memory lane about the image on his passbook as a kid and let's-deal-on-the-golf-course show?

 

 

 

 

I think Albuquerque is a small enough town that news of a major client like that switching law firms, and the role Kim had in it, would have spread pretty quickly among the other major firms. Yes, the outsider to the firm might not know that it wasn't just dumb luck, but as a matter of logic, it is quite unlikely to be merely dumb luck, as opposed to the result of incredibly hard work and skill. 

 

You are correct, of course, that law firms are by nature quite conservative, and more interested in what the prospective new hire can bring with her, as opposed to what she might go out and get after she arrives. Good managers, however, are always, always, always, scouting hard for exceptional talent, and that client coming on board to HHM is a strong indicator of Kim having exceptional talent.     

[LoneHaranguer]

 

So, I've been thinking through the fraud thing to.  I believe fraud is a specific intent crime, which means you have to prove the intent to defraud the victim.  I don't know if you can prove intent merely through accepting the check, or if you would need to do something more to show the specific intent to defraud (like actually cashing the check)

Inaction can be as important as action, and one thing Kim did not do is void the check (even better would be destroying it, but she claimed to want a souvenir).

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

 

Given that she'd been a stickler about actual illegal acts (manufacturing evidence) it seemed strange to me that she'd cross the line with this con.

IMHO it's the thrill, the addictive nature of the con. She's bogged down by work, she's getting older (have you noticed how unforgiving the make-up artists are making her look? I noticed her lips looked all crinkly and she looked tired and old on this episode). So why not go slide back for a little thrill ride?  

[Bannon]

The problem with this is that we're back to Walt's insecurity and ego as to why he has that that perception Elliot and Gretchen/Gray Matter.  Gretchen expresses confusion in S2 as to why Walt left her family's home when she took him home for a holiday weekend.  Her perception is that he walked out on her/them/the company.  I think Walt is an unreliable narrator on the Gray Matter front, and all it showed me was that his pride, ego, and insecurity hobbled him pretty much his whole adult life.  (I actually remember feeling bad for disliking Walt so much the first time I watched S2's "Gray Matter" because, at that time, I felt like I was supposed to pity for this poor, fish-out-of-water middle class person at the fancy party recently off a lung cancer diagnosis.  Instead, I found myself really disliking him and finding him to be a pompous buffoon and then feeling like I wasn't getting the show.)  I don't think Walt went from Mr. Chips to Scarface.  I don't think he was ever Mr. Chips, and Scarface was right there just without the power to act until Walt found meth.

 

At the risk of sounding desensitized to the horrible things that they do, I start from the base level with nearly all these characters -- Chuck was a bit of a surprise to me -- that they are flawed and imperfect, usually to a pretty monstrous degree.  Gilligan doesn't do Mary Janes and saviors.  I can like Mike the character without thinking that his criminal endeavors are okay.  I can feel horrible for Jesse Pinkman that he was so lost that a partnership with Walter White seemed like a good business opportunity while still condemning him for murder and freakin' soliciting drug customers at an NA meeting.  Hell, I can find Walt to be deplorable but still admire his amazing scientific knowledge and skills.  That's why I like Gilligan & Co. - the complexity of the story.  It has pretty much ruined me for a lot of other TV.

Agree wholeheartedly with regard to the wonderful complexity of Gilligan fiction. I really love how he never lets off his characters easily, with regard to the cost of their flaws. Jimmy's love of the con and unwillingness to respect any authority or rules causes real harm, eventually very deadly harm, even as I am hugely entertained by this element of his character. Mike's great flaw, it seems to me, has some simiarities to one of Jesse's flaws (and Jesse is, no doubt, much, much, much more flawed than Mike), in that they both allow their need to be the protector/provider/avenger of women and children, Jesse's pride-driven, and Mike's guilt-driven, to ironically put those women and children in great danger.

 

Jesse has a literal barrel of cash next to him, waiting for a van to pick him up an disappear, when he figures out that Walt was behind the non-fatal poisoning of his girlfriend's child. He has a choice. He can disappear, later to figure out how to funnel some cash back to the girlfriend, while still ending her relationship to Walt's meth trade. Or he can act on his wounded pride and anger, that Walt got over on him, and everyone else, once again. Thus Jesse doesn't disappear, but instead embarks on a task to obtain vengeance on Walt. This directly leads to Jesse's girlfriend being murdered by the Aryans.

 

Mike, driven by grief and guilt over his son's fate, and his role in it, seeks a way to provide for his granddaughter. By doing so he has informed extremely dangerous people of the existence of this little girl, and how this little girl's health and well being provides a point of leverage over Mike. Mike's guilt is now compounded.

 

GilliganWorld is not a place where benefits are obtained without costs, sometimes terrible costs, being incurred. 

[ShadowFacts]

IMHO it's the thrill, the addictive nature of the con. She's bogged down by work, she's getting older (have you noticed how unforgiving the make-up artists are making her look? I noticed her lips looked all crinkly and she looked tired and old on this episode). So why not go slide back for a little thrill ride?  

 

I don't think she looked much different in this episode. She is basically an age peer of Jimmy, or a little younger, and neither of them looks dewy, but I'd probably have crinkly lips and look tired, too if I had to burn the candle at both ends for a passive-aggressive piece of work like Howard.  I think she's going out of her lane because she's increasingly disillusioned and powerless and boxed in.

[benteen]

Tio told Mike that the original deal was void.

 

Tio laughed at Mike when he asked for the 50k. but, Tio admired Mike's huevos for asking.

 

Tio COULD have countered with a lower number, but Mike put a price on his cooperation - He made 25 thousand and refunded the 25k because the 'problem' was coming back? He stuck with the 'you paid me to do a job' mantra.

 

When you make 'deals' with people like that? Your word is your bond - no fucking contract negotiations here - Now? He has Tio's, Tuco's and Nacho's 'admiration' because he was able to work out a deal that made everyone happy. Mike has shown he is a straight shooter and just can be dealt with without any fear of him being a screwball?

 

I mentioned this earlier but what Mike did is what Princess Leia did in Return of the Jedi when she was undercover as a bounty hunter.

[Sentient Meat]

When the bar is set at the level of as easy as picking up a lottery check, then the bar is on the ground. If your family is what you care about, then the smugness of the  A-hole signing the check really doesn't enter into the equation, as you are contemplating your imminent death via cancer

 

 

The problem with this is that we're back to Walt's insecurity and ego as to why he has that that perception Elliot and Gretchen/Gray Matter.  Gretchen expresses confusion in S2 as to why Walt left her family's home when she took him home for a holiday weekend.  Her perception is that he walked out on her/them/the company.  I think Walt is an unreliable narrator on the Gray Matter front, and all it showed me was that his pride, ego, and insecurity hobbled him pretty much his whole adult life.  (I actually remember feeling bad for disliking Walt so much the first time I watched S2's "Gray Matter" because, at that time, I felt like I was supposed to pity for this poor, fish-out-of-water middle class person at the fancy party recently off a lung cancer diagnosis.  Instead, I found myself really disliking him and finding him to be a pompous buffoon and then feeling like I wasn't getting the show.)  I don't think Walt went from Mr. Chips to Scarface.  I don't think he was ever Mr. Chips, and Scarface was right there just without the power to act until Walt found meth.

 

At the risk of sounding desensitized to the horrible things that they do, I start from the base level with nearly all these characters -- Chuck was a bit of a surprise to me -- that they are flawed and imperfect, usually to a pretty monstrous degree.  Gilligan doesn't do Mary Janes and saviors.  I can like Mike the character without thinking that his criminal endeavors are okay.  I can feel horrible for Jesse Pinkman that he was so lost that a partnership with Walter White seemed like a good business opportunity while still condemning him for murder and freakin' soliciting drug customers at an NA meeting.  Hell, I can find Walt to be deplorable but still admire his amazing scientific knowledge and skills.  That's why I like Gilligan & Co. - the complexity of the story.  It has pretty much ruined me for a lot of other TV.

It's curious that they never explain what actually happened between those three.  In fact it might be unfair to label Elliot as smug seeing that it never was established concretely that ever did anything at all other than be wildly successful with the company that he co-founded with Walt and which Walt seemed to have left voluntarily.  But if you read the story like an anti-novel, rebuilding the narrative within the negative space it's clear that at least Gretchen felt some responsibility towards Walt's situation which she shouldn't have felt were Walt simply irrationally jealous.  Also, although not true of the innocents... the guilty in Breaking Bad all seemed to meet an end proportional to their crimes.  By this measure... a few years of terror until Junior comes of age might not seem too unreasonable a penalty for let's say an affair that indirectly cost him billions.  Walt doesn't need to choose them to deliver the money, but he feels as though it's poetic justice for what they did to him... a Dantesque solution that has them still looking like the upstanding citizens playing the grand community benefactors, yet at least paying a little bit for their sins.

 

[RCharter]

Inaction can be as important as action, and one thing Kim did not do is void the check (even better would be destroying it, but she claimed to want a souvenir).

I think its arguable either way.  I don't think fraud is a slam dunk case because you do have the higher bar of proving specific intent, and therefore the additional defense of unreasonable mistake of fact.  I think the intent would be hard to prove, because after holding onto that check for so long, does she really have any intent to cash it?  Can anyone prove that she had the intent to cash the check and complete the fraud?  I think there is an argument for either side.

[Captanne]

http://www.newmexicolegalgroup.com/criminal-defense/new-mexico-fraud-charges/ Looks like he would try for third degree felony charges if he could find a prosecutor to bring suit.

 

As a defense attorney, I would consider arguing that there was no injury to the plaintiff since the cheque was (presumably) never cashed.  Therefore, the fifth prong of the requirements in the state of New Mexico is not met and the case fails.  Even if Lex (or whatever his name was) could say he made decisions based on a reliance of not having that money (assuming it would be cashed) and thus suffered tangible injury, the cause/effect is too remote.

 

Bottom line, without cashing that cheque, the plaintiff remains uninjured in any real sense. (Or, possibly only for the cost of the drinks which would barely qualify for misdemeanor.) 

Edited March 23, 2016 by Captanne

[Bannon]

http://www.newmexicolegalgroup.com/criminal-defense/new-mexico-fraud-charges/ Looks like he would try for third degree felony charges if he could find a prosecutor to bring suit.

 

As a defense attorney, I would consider arguing that there was no injury to the plaintiff since the cheque was (presumably) never cashed.  Therefore, the fifth prong of the requirements in the state of New Mexico is not met and the case fails.  Even if Lex (or whatever his name was) could say he made decisions based on a reliance of not having that money (assuming it would be cashed) and thus suffered tangible injury, the cause/effect is too remote.

 

Bottom line, without cashing that cheque, the plaintiff remains uninjured in any real sense. (Or, possibly only for the cost of the drinks which would barely qualify for misdemeanor.) 

If they start charging misdemeanors every time a lie is told to get somebody to buy booze in a bar, every citizen in the country is going to have to become an employee of the criminal justice system, and we are all going to have indict each other.

[Bryce Lynch]

I agree that Walt was a selfish prick for roughly the last half of the show up until the moment where he essentially gave back all his money (80 million) in a desperate attempt to try to save Hank. However, it was and it wasn't as simple as being too prideful to take charity from Elliot and Gretchen... it was about taking money from a smug asshole who he perceived to have stolen possibly the love of his life and half of his company. Should he have just put his ego aside and taken the money instead of becoming a crime lord who endangered his family as well as the people who used his product? Of course... but don't act like it was as easy as picking up a check at the lottery office for him.

But yeah... so far Mike and Saul are way better than Walt and Jesse on the morality/ethics scale.

Everyone loves Jesse but they forget he got Jane to fall off the wagon... tried to drum up meth sales at a recovery meeting including seducing Brock's mom with drugs.

Totally agree on Jesse. He also griped about making "only" $500K a month to basically operate a forklift and help Walt clean the equipment and put his life and Walt's in grave danger by stealing from Fring.

I also agree with your assessment of Walt.

I do think that in BB Mike is almost as morally bad as Walt. He has his a bit more of a code in that he won't kill his own guys, but he coldly kills Fring's rivals.

[RCharter]

http://www.newmexicolegalgroup.com/criminal-defense/new-mexico-fraud-charges/ Looks like he would try for third degree felony charges if he could find a prosecutor to bring suit.

 

As a defense attorney, I would consider arguing that there was no injury to the plaintiff since the cheque was (presumably) never cashed.  Therefore, the fifth prong of the requirements in the state of New Mexico is not met and the case fails.  Even if Lex (or whatever his name was) could say he made decisions based on a reliance of not having that money (assuming it would be cashed) and thus suffered tangible injury, the cause/effect is too remote.

 

Bottom line, without cashing that cheque, the plaintiff remains uninjured in any real sense. (Or, possibly only for the cost of the drinks which would barely qualify for misdemeanor.) 

I think the reliance they are talking about is the reliance of the victim on the specific misstatements of fact made by the defendant in handing over their money.  So basically, that Kim specifically misrepresented the facts about the business deal, and he relied on those misstatements in handing her his money.  Which, I think can be proven.  But there has to be a specific intent to defraud, and without cashing that check, was there any intent to defraud him out of something valuable?  The check is really only valuable if it is cashed, if there is no intent to cash it, or to take the money, its just a little slip of paper worth maybe 10 cents.

 

So, as you pointed out there is no real damage, so....

[Captanne]

There's no tangible or real injury.  No case.  (At least in my experience which, in criminal fraud law, is very limited and never in New Mexico.)

[SoothingDave]

The mister and I paused the show and had a long discussion about Kim. Given that she'd been a stickler about actual illegal acts (manufacturing evidence) it seemed strange to me that she'd cross the line with this con. I contended it was illegal whether or not she cashed the check. So basically, we had the same discussion that's going on here.

  

Thank you! Now to say I told you so to the hubs. LOL.

 

 

 

 

"Honey! Someone on the internet says you're wrong!" LOL

[ShadowFacts]

The check from the guy might be a worthless check for all we know.  What I'm thinking more about is whether Kim masquerading as someone else and in one instance signing an investment contract under a false identity and in another, inducing someone to make an investment in a non-existent entity is unethical and a reason for HHM to terminate her lickety split, if uncovered.  My guess is yes to both.

 

I don't think it has been mentioned yet -- what is up with the scene where Mike is cleaning the bloody gun in the sink, and his bloody hand, and his right hand is shaking and he has to stop it with his left hand? 

[Lurky McLurkerson]

 

 

It's curious that they never explain what actually happened between those three.  In fact it might be unfair to label Elliot as smug seeing that it never was established concretely that ever did anything at all other than be wildly successful with the company that he co-founded with Walt and which Walt seemed to have left voluntarily.  But if you read the story like an anti-novel, rebuilding the narrative within the negative space it's clear that at least Gretchen felt some responsibility towards Walt's situation which she shouldn't have felt were Walt simply irrationally jealous.  Also, although not true of the innocents... the guilty in Breaking Bad all seemed to meet an end proportional to their crimes.  By this measure... a few years of terror until Junior comes of age might not seem too unreasonable a penalty for let's say an affair that indirectly cost him billions.  Walt doesn't need to choose them to deliver the money, but he feels as though it's poetic justice for what they did to him... a Dantesque solution that has them still looking like the upstanding citizens playing the grand community benefactors, yet at least paying a little bit for their sins.

 

 

I could have sworn that I read some comments from Vince Gilligan discussing the backstory/scene motivation that he provided to Jessica Hecht and Bryan Cranston for Gretchen and Walter's relationship, and, when I went looking for that, I found this fairly recent article where he discusses it in detail (under the heading "Here's Why Walter White Left Gray Matter".  Basically, his ego and pride costs him a fortune.

[AuntiePam]

I don't think it has been mentioned yet -- what is up with the scene where Mike is cleaning the bloody gun in the sink, and his bloody hand, and his right hand is shaking and he has to stop it with his left hand? 

 

I wondered about that too.  All I can think of is that he has a medical issue, but I don't recall any shaking/palsy in BB. 

[Bryce Lynch]

I wondered about that too. All I can think of is that he has a medical issue, but I don't recall any shaking/palsy in BB.

I think he was shaken up by the ordeal. We think of Mike as fearless, but he is early in his criminal career. Also, "fearless" people generally feel fear, they just ignore it and do what they need to do.

They has a poll on Story Sync with the choices being Mike is:

A) Scared

B) Angry

I believe scared won by a small margin

[Bryce Lynch]

There's no tangible or real injury. No case. (At least in my experience which, in criminal fraud law, is very limited and never in New Mexico.)

So if I steal your credit card but don't get around to using it before I get arrested I have committed no crime?

[Umbelina]

Interesting that much of this thread is now talking about Breaking Bad characters that have not been seen at all on this show.  I wonder why?  It's couldn't be because they were far more interesting than the law "drama" that surrounds Saul could it?  Yeah.  Mike and the crooks are keeping this show going right now, because they are from Breaking Bad.

IMHO it's the thrill, the addictive nature of the con. She's bogged down by work, she's getting older (have you noticed how unforgiving the make-up artists are making her look? I noticed her lips looked all crinkly and she looked tired and old on this episode). So why not go slide back for a little thrill ride?  

Because she's middle aged, and not exactly in a position to fuck around jeopardizing her deeply in debt career?  Aren't thinks bad enough for her now?  Go skydiving if you want a thrill, but don't mess around with something that could end your career and leave you competing for a job selling sweaters in Macy's, or serving hamburgers.  It's stupid.  Or rather, it makes her seem beyond stupid.

 

 It's curious that they never explain what actually happened between those three.  In fact it might be unfair to label Elliot as smug seeing that it never was established concretely that ever did anything at all other than be wildly successful with the company that he co-founded with Walt and which Walt seemed to have left voluntarily.  But if you read the story like an anti-novel, rebuilding the narrative within the negative space it's clear that at least Gretchen felt some responsibility towards Walt's situation which she shouldn't have felt were Walt simply irrationally jealous.  Also, although not true of the innocents... the guilty in Breaking Bad all seemed to meet an end proportional to their crimes.  By this measure... a few years of terror until Junior comes of age might not seem too unreasonable a penalty for let's say an affair that indirectly cost him billions.  Walt doesn't need to choose them to deliver the money, but he feels as though it's poetic justice for what they did to him... a Dantesque solution that has them still looking like the upstanding citizens playing the grand community benefactors, yet at least paying a little bit for their sins.
 

 

He did.  Recently, I posted the link in the media thread here.  More below.

The check from the guy might be a worthless check for all we know.  What I'm thinking more about is whether Kim masquerading as someone else and in one instance signing an investment contract under a false identity and in another, inducing someone to make an investment in a non-existent entity is unethical and a reason for HHM to terminate her lickety split, if uncovered.  My guess is yes to both.

 

I don't think it has been mentioned yet -- what is up with the scene where Mike is cleaning the bloody gun in the sink, and his bloody hand, and his right hand is shaking and he has to stop it with his left hand? 

Damages like emotional distress though?  That's why I asked, just how vulnerable could this make Kim?

 

I could have sworn that I read some comments from Vince Gilligan discussing the backstory/scene motivation that he provided to Jessica Hecht and Bryan Cranston for Gretchen and Walter's relationship, and, when I went looking for that, I found this fairly recent article where he discusses it in detail (under the heading "Here's Why Walter White Left Gray Matter".  Basically, his ego and pride costs him a fortune.

Since we are spending so much time talking about Breaking Bad in this thread, I'm going to join in.  I think it was brilliant, you never knew what would happen,and every single character was interesting and whole. 

 

His "ego" didn't cause him to leave Grey Matter, his insecurity did.  He had almost no ego, and even less self esteem.  He was easily intimidated and never felt good enough, until of course, he was told he was dying, and decided to do something to leave his family not massive medical debts, but enough to live on.

 

I disagree a bit about what's been said of Walt though.  He was more complex than simply reducing him to an egotistical asshole.  MUCH more, and that's the reason I watched, still watch, and will always love this show.  He was dying.  Yes, it really did all start out with the desire to provide for his family HIMSELF.  It quickly morphed into very much more than that though.  This overlooked milquetoast pocket protector high school teacher, who people like Hank openly mocked finally, probably because he was facing death, and insurmountable debts to be left to his family, found his inner strength.  His ability to be a "man" at least, as far as this guy who probably had sand kicked all over him on the beach probably saw it.

 

So, at first, it was his brain outsmarting others, then it pretty quickly also got physical.  No one is going to mock him again, let alone kick sand on him.  The biggest gift Vince Gilligan gave us was that last scene with Skylar, when Walt finally dropped the "I did it for the FAMILY" bullshit, and admitted he did it because he LIKED it, because he was GOOD at it. 

 

Of course, the other gift, to me at least, was letting Jesse escape!  Yeah BITCH!

[Bannon]

So if I steal your credit card but don't get around to using it before I get arrested I have committed no crime?

Theft is not the same crime as fraud.

[Clanstarling]

"Honey! Someone on the internet says you're wrong!" LOL

Hey! It's a LAWYER on the internet! <grin> Edited March 23, 2016 by clanstarling

[Sentient Meat]

I could have sworn that I read some comments from Vince Gilligan discussing the backstory/scene motivation that he provided to Jessica Hecht and Bryan Cranston for Gretchen and Walter's relationship, and, when I went looking for that, I found this fairly recent article where he discusses it in detail (under the heading "Here's Why Walter White Left Gray Matter".  Basically, his ego and pride costs him a fortune.

Thanks for that article... however, it's telling that they admit most viewers would have a pro Walt bias because uhh... maybe they wrote it that way?

 

They say it can be gleaned yet they don't point to any specific evidence in the actual "text" itself.  This is similar to the very well crafted "Usual Suspects" where no first time viewer could possibly solve the Keyser Soze mystery from the information provided.  If the creators deem that to be true then you can't really argue with it but it shouldn't take off camera interviews to explain a plot point.  Walt seemed very sure of himself in the flashback scene with Gretchen and we also know that he had the confidence to pursue Skyler at the restaurant.  Sure maybe you can argue that he was slumming it with a younger less educated woman, but later he tried to hit on his attractive principal too.  One could maybe surmise that  Walt is insecure because his job hangs like a UNDERACHIEVER sign around his neck... but not based on his interactions with women or men.  Also remember that he would have been competing with a not yet rich awkward looking Elliot back then not even Ted Beneke.  Nah, I don't buy it... I think they enjoyed keeping the Gretchen/Elliot backstory vague in the same way Christopher Nolan left us hanging with the spinning top in Inception.

[RCharter]

So if I steal your credit card but don't get around to using it before I get arrested I have committed no crime?

I think it would hinge on the intent.  If you told me a story to get my credit card because you simply love shiny plastic cards, there is no real intent to defraud me of something valuable.  The longer you keep the card without ever having used any information attached to it, I imagine the harder it gets to prove that you took my card so you could take my money.  Of course, if you just straight up stole my credit card it would just be larceny (the taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive), but I think you're talking about a situation congruent to Kim's (where there is an active scam) right?

Hey! It's a LAWYER on the internet! <grin>

I also have my internet medical degree :)

[RCharter]

Damages like emotional distress though?  That's why I asked, just how vulnerable could this make Kim?

I believe emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct that shocks the conscience for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  A crime like a scam or a fraud is pretty bad, but I don't think it really falls under an emotional distress claim.  And I believe for negligent infliction of emotional distress you have to show some physical symptom of the distress (I think).

 

But I do think, as another poster pointed out that its not so much the legality or illegality that would be Kim's downfall if her behavior were discovered.  At the very, very least its a big ethical violation that could get her disbarred.  I just find the discussion of the potential fraud case interesting -- I could actually see it being part of an exam question hypo.

[Umbelina]

Yeah, I am unconcerned whether or not it would stand up in a court of law as a crime.  I'm only wondering if it could tank her career, which she still hasn't paid for.

 

What if another lawyer she knew happened by that table, for example?

Or the guy gets worried about that uncashed check or does some research about Ice Station Zebra?

 

Anyway, it's really beyond stupid to me.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Umbelina

[Bannon]

Yeah, I am unconcerned whether or not it would stand up in a court of law as a crime.  I'm only wondering if it could tank her career, which she still hasn't paid for.

 

What if another lawyer she knew happened by that table, for example?

Or the guy gets worried about that uncashed check or does some research about Ice Station Zebra?

 

Anyway, it's really beyond stupid to me.

Of course it is beyond stupid. Like exposing your family to the dangers associated with you entering the meth trade, when you have terminal cancer, and you have no economic need to be in the meth trade.

 

The beyond stupid stuff, done by otherwise very intelligent people, is a frequent element of classic dramatic structure. Hell, the first time I ever saw a performance of "Hamlet", I wanted to yell, "Yo, meathead! Make up yer' effin' mind!".

[Umbelina]

No, I really, strongly disagree that "for a kick" is as much motivation for a character as "I AM DYING!" or "I am being drowned by medical debts!" something many people face. 

 

Walt transformed into what he became because he started with very good reasons, even though he was doing very bad things, and then, found out he LIKED it, and for the first time in his life, he felt good about the guy he was, powerful, strong, smart, and most of all in charge, and not at the mercy or mockery of others.

 

Kim's motivation?  insert disgusted exhale that vaguely resembles a hquaaaeeecchhh

 

The only thing Kim and Walt share is that another character introduced the possibility.  Hank showed Walt the stacks of cash inferior meth makers made, and right then, all Walt saw was cash.  Jimmy showed Kim how to pull off a con, for fun.

 

ETA

Also, in Walt's mind, when he got started he had nothing to lose, he'd be dead within several months anyway.  Kim has everything to lose.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Umbelina

[Bannon]

Again, as early as the 5th episode of season 1, there was no need, economically speaking, for Walt to be cooking meth. It was a lie that Walt produced, to rationalize the fact that he was risking his family being  murdered or imprisoned. Unless a person is truly an unmitigated monster, a possibility which you appear to reject as well, a person risking his family being murdered or imprisoned (how does that even deserve mention with the risk of a single person losing a career?), so the person can get some thrills and service his pride, in the last months of life, means the person is behaving beyond stupidly. There isn't a middle ground. The person who exposes those he professes to love, to nearly incalculable danger, merely to allow himself to feel powerful, in his last months of life, either has to be behaving extremely stupidly, or with extreme monstrousness.

 

People toss away careers they have long labored to be in, and borrowed money to be in, with some frequency. If the person has firmly decided that they hate the job, and they don't have a family to support, it isn't even a bad decision. Kim's only mistake here may be that she hasn't firmly made the decision yet, prior to acting out. To draw a parallel, however, people end their marriages (which can be every bit as economically damaging as throwing away a borrowed-for legal career), via adultery, all the time, prior to making a conscious decision that they don't want to be in the marriage any longer.  Yes, it is stupid, but like I said, smart people do really stupid stuff all the time.

[BCSFanGraz]

Everything is legal, until you get caught.

 

Sometimes it's fun, sometimes it's out of fear, survival or just plain malice? It's kinda like Mike's ideas on "being a criminal" - You have to think about what kind of 'fun' you are thinking about?

 

I am a weed smoker of 22 years in June, but, I've only been legal the past year (health reasons.. I'm damn near in a wheel chair

I agree, Mike is not immune to fear, and it would actually be a pretty bad trait in a cop to think there was never anything to be afraid of, or that acting on anger is very wise.  The angry ones end up in the headlines.  He's pretty level-headed, he watches others get messed up with testosterone poisoning, but doesn't go there himself because he's past having to prove himself to anybody. 

 

Acting on anger isn't necessarily ignorant.  It's all about what you do and how you go about it and the bottom line is, Mike is the best at what he does, so, I don't see him making too many mistakes.  He's already told Nacho pretty much that Tuco is coming back and he's going to be a problem.  I bet Gus shows up in season 3.

[ShadowFacts]

That Bali Hai song got stuck in my head and I got to thinking, Jimmy singing "come to me, come to me" -- is Kim going to Jimmy?  I know they kind of reversed roles a bit near the end and he was giving her the pep talk about having all she wanted, but, she's about to have to face the music.  She ditched work at about 1:00 after being told Howard needed something reviewed by 2:30 and it looks like she never went back.  Something's about to hit the fan.  She had just gotten back into her own office from the cornfield, and Howard still gave her the silent treatment all the way down the halls to the meeting.  Is she going to be fired in the next episode? 

 

I think she must have been observant enough over her years at HHM to know the way things operated, and thought she could handle it, and could for quite a while.  But now she sees how it really is, and that it probably would be no different at a new firm.  It happens.  I find her way of dealing with it irresponsible, and I would actually not want someone who creates false identities for herself to scam idiots in bars handling even my most routine legal matter.  But I can see where she thought she knew what she wanted in a career, and found it didn't really suit her.  If this all plays in to Jimmy moving on sooner than later, I'm hoping to see it in the last few episodes of the season.  Likewise with Mike getting out of the gun jam, let's see him collaborate with Jimmy to move things along.  The law firm dynamics are a little stultifying already. 

 

 

[shapeshifter]

From the Rebecca thread:

...That's why even though [Howard] still sent Kim back to the doc review dungeon basement, he can't keep her there long.  She'll leave and take her new client with her.

Maybe Jimmy managed to get the S&C guy to give Kim the offer to join the firm and then leak to Howard that she was about to leave and take the new client$$ with her--Jimmy knowing that would get her out of the dungeon? Is that even possible? I mean, what if she accepted the offer? Could she/would she take the new client with her? Maybe that was how Jimmy got him to offer her the position and benefits? And/or maybe she saw Jimmy's fingerprints all over the offer and that's why she didn't take it, and that's why she invited him out for his favorite activity of "whale" hunting?

[AuntiePam]

From the Rebecca thread:

Maybe Jimmy managed to get the S&C guy to give Kim the offer to join the firm and then leak to Howard that she was about to leave and take the new client$$ with her--Jimmy knowing that would get her out of the dungeon? Is that even possible? I mean, what if she accepted the offer? Could she/would she take the new client with her? Maybe that was how Jimmy got him to offer her the position and benefits? And/or maybe she saw Jimmy's fingerprints all over the offer and that's why she didn't take it, and that's why she invited him out for his favorite activity of "whale" hunting?

 

Jimmy doesn't have the clout to influence the S&C guy, or anyone.  He's a nobody, in the legal community. 

 

I think she could legally take the new client with her but they didn't come to HHM because Kim was there -- they came because HHM can do something for them. 

[PrincessSteel]

I have thought for some time, like since their first scene together in S1, that there is something between Howard and Kim that we don't know about. Due to ample plot developments I wrote off the tension between them to Kim's friendship with Jimmy, and Howard's discomfort at having Chuck's hand up his ass. However, after the last two episodes I'm back to thinking that they have back story elements completely divorced from the McGill boyos.

[Eyes High]

I have thought for some time, like since their first scene together in S1, that there is something between Howard and Kim that we don't know about. Due to ample plot developments I wrote off the tension between them to Kim's friendship with Jimmy, and Howard's discomfort at having Chuck's hand up his ass. However, after the last two episodes I'm back to thinking that they have back story elements completely divorced from the McGill boyos.

 

Kim always seemed too sensible to me to get involved with her boss romantically, but maybe Howard has a thing for Kim he's never acted on and that's why he's taking all of this so personally?

 

Bosses can take things their proteges do extremely personally without there being some sort of sexual or romantic underlying reason, of course. It's just a thought.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Eyes High

[DrSparkles]

The check from the guy might be a worthless check for all we know.  What I'm thinking more about is whether Kim masquerading as someone else and in one instance signing an investment contract under a false identity and in another, inducing someone to make an investment in a non-existent entity is unethical and a reason for HHM to terminate her lickety split, if uncovered.  My guess is yes to both.

I wonder if THAT guy might be running a con on them. How, I don't know.

I'm not sure if anyone has said this in so many words (re: Kim), but for most of us, making a big career change in our mid-40s is a pretty big deal (vs 20s or 30s).

TY to all who explained the doormat; as with so much in teeveeland, it went so far over my punkin head.

[smartymarty]

So, I've been thinking through the fraud thing to. I believe fraud is a specific intent crime, which means you have to prove the intent to defraud the victim. I don't know if you can prove intent merely through accepting the check, or if you would need to do something more to show the specific intent to defraud (like actually cashing the check)>

Fraud requires a misrepresentation, knowing it's a misrepresentation, intended to mislead, does mislead, and causes injury. The con has all of those except injury -- not cashing the check. (And BTW, they'd need to set up a Zebra Station company to cash the check, as it's made out to it, not to Kim or Jimmy.)

Also, yes, the client can go with Kim to a new firm, just as it just left one firm for HHM. They hired HHM; they can fire HHM.

[ShadowFacts]

Kim always seemed too sensible to me to get involved with her boss romantically, but maybe Howard has a thing for Kim he's never acted on and that's why he's taking all of this so personally?

 

Bosses can take things their proteges do extremely personally without there being some sort of sexual or romantic underlying reason, of course. It's just a thought.

 

I think something is afoot with Howard, why bother with the long painful walk down the hallways if not.  Him being this punitive to Kim does not square with what Chuck recently said about Howard jumping through hoops to keep associates happy.  At all. 

[Eyes High]

I think something is afoot with Howard, why bother with the long painful walk down the hallways if not.  Him being this punitive to Kim does not square with what Chuck recently said about Howard jumping through hoops to keep associates happy.  At all. 

In Season 1, when Howard was seemingly being an asshole to Jimmy, it turned out that there was more to it (that "more" being Chuck). There might be something going on now, as well.

 

Howard is a really interesting character to me, since he's not just a one-note asswipe, and he's had hidden motivations for his villainous actions before. What is his deal?

[heisenberg]

In Season 1, when Howard was seemingly being an asshole to Jimmy, it turned out that there was more to it (that "more" being Chuck). There might be something going on now, as well.

 

Howard is a really interesting character to me, since he's not just a one-note asswipe, and he's had hidden motivations for his villainous actions before. What is his deal?

 

To get rid of Chuck?  At the beginning of the season he told Chuck to be more involved. I guess he is waiting for Chuck to make a mistake and than keep all the cake for himself...  Kim could be a problem in his plan for doing it so he tries to send her away...