S03.E06: Off Brand

[Bryce Lynch]

15 hours ago, smorbie said:

How many times have you watched?  I watched a couple and then on the third go round I realized the only people in the show I didn't hate were Holly and Hank.  I'm pretty sure I won't be revisiting it, again.

But to your point about Ted.  The only thing I can say for certainty is that he really looked much better with hair.  His head is shaped funny,

I have probably watched every BB episode at least 3 times.  Some more than that.  I watched "Crawl Space" again last night, and this time I definitely thought Ted was gunning for more cash from Skyler. :)

[qtpye]

15 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

The question of whether Stacey is conning Mike or really imagined she heard gun shots seems to be the BCS equivalent of the question of whether Ted Beneke was trying to blackmail Skyler for even more cash when he refused to pay his IRS bill with "great Aunt Birgit's" $600,000.   I go back and forth.  Sometimes I watch and and think, he isn't blackmailing her and other times I am sure he is.  

This is what I love about Giligan.  Even his tertiary characters are real and complex.  There are very few white or black hats, everyone is grey.  Is Ted an entitled dufus who has that audacity to black mail Skylar for money after she bailed him out?  We really do not know.  Does Stacy have an honest affection for Mike or does she just appreciate the large sums of cash that make her life as a single mother a little easier?  Could it be both?

 

12 hours ago, scenario said:

New spinoff, the Holly Chronicles.

In ten years-The Chronicles of Holly Heisenberg:  It's like Breaking Bad for tweens! 

[PeterPirate]

19 minutes ago, qtpye said:

In ten years-The Chronicles of Holly Heisenberg:  It's like Breaking Bad for tweens! 

"I did it for you, mommy!"

[wendyg]

15 hours ago, Bannon said:

Whatever your views of the matter, any city of size in the United States has laws which require that structures for human habitation have functioning electricity.

Do we know that chuck's house has *no* electricity? I thought he had it but it wasn't turned on. Can anyone point to the law for Albuquerque? I certainly knew someone who lived for five years in a house in Portland OR with no electricity, due to non-payment.

[Eulipian 5k]

14 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

I really liked Marie at the end. After Hank was shot she really stepped up. She's the one BB character that I don't want to see in BCS because it would be the original, selfish version. 

Are you a habitual believer in the Five Finger Discount? Got the Kleptomania in your crania? Better Call Saul!

[PeterPirate]

16 minutes ago, Eulipian 5k said:

Are you a habitual believer in the Five Finger Discount? Got the Kleptomania in your crania? Better Call Saul!

See, that was a Machiavellian ploy on Marie's part to establish contact with the APD and plant the idea that Hank needed something to do, while letting Tim think it was all his idea.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.  

[Bannon]

1 hour ago, wendyg said:

Do we know that chuck's house has *no* electricity? I thought he had it but it wasn't turned on. Can anyone point to the law for Albuquerque? I certainly knew someone who lived for five years in a house in Portland OR with no electricity, due to non-payment.

We have seen the wiring removed in season 1. The police, peering thorugh the windows, thought copper thieves were the cause. I can't speak for Portland specifically, but in Albuquerque, the following....

"115.7 Revocation. The Building Official may in writing, suspend or revoke a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, Certificate of Occupancy, or Shell Certificate of Completion at anytime if the certificate was issued in error, issued on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or where it is determined that the building or structure or portion thereof is in violation of any ordinance, regulation or provision of this code. If the certificate is suspended, all violations must be corrected before it may be reinstated. If the certificate is revoked, a permanent Certificate of Occupancy will be required before the building or structure or portion thereof may be re-occupied."

....in conjunction with.....

"Building service equipment regulated by such codes, which constitute a fire, electrical, health hazard, unsanitary condition, or is otherwise dangerous to human life, is for the purpose of this section, unsafe. Any use of buildings, structures or building service equipment constituting a hazard to safety, health or public welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, fire hazard, disaster, damage or abandonment is, for the purpose of this section, an unsafe use."

 

....results in the Building Offcial red tagging residences (ordered to be vacated) which have their electrical service disconnected for extended periods of time, because it is deemed that providing all illumination by candles, gas-burning lamps, etc., is a fire hazard. Frankly, using the gas burning lamp indoors is a carbon monoxide hazard as well, and would be deemed dangerous to human life. I'd be shocked if Portland doesnt have a similar provision in it's building code, even if it is unevenly enforced.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Bannon

[Bryce Lynch]

3 hours ago, Bannon said:

Jimmy ended up in a successful law firm which was inept in using Jimmy's talents, and managing Jimmy's faults. Again, we don't know how things turn out if Chuck had been honest with Jimmy. When lying to people limits their universe of possibilities, then those people have been harmed. You don't get to lie to people, leading people to take paths they would not have chosen, and then rationalize the lie by saying, "Well, desptie my lie, the person I lied to still had a good opportunity, and didn't take advantage of it".  This is self seving nonsense in defense of unacceptable behavior.

Don't confuse me with others who make a case for Jimmy being a wonderful person. He's not, and will eventually harm innocents in ways that Chuck has never approached. That has nothing to do with Chuck's unaccptable behavior being, well, unacceptable.   

a) D&M was not inept.  They built a very successful firm before they ever heard of Jimmy McGill and will continue to be successful.  They have their style, culture and way of doing business and Jimmy was a horrible fit, as he would be any pretty much any firm, with the possible exception of "I Can't Believe It's a Law Firm".   Solo practice was the way for Jimmy to go, if he insisted on being a lawyer and denying his true calling as a tv commercial producer and director. 

As for Chuck lying to him, boo hoo, his brother lied to him.  It did not ruin his life or career and he had an amazing opportunity that the ADA would "kill his mother for".  

[Bryce Lynch]

3 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

"I did it for you, mommy!"

In all seriousness, it would be interesting to see how Holly, Walt Jr., Skyler and Marie are doing.  What did Junior do with the $10,000,000 from G&E, (besides the obvious things like buy several muscle cars and hire a personal, breakfast chef.)   Did Marie get remarried...to an astronaut, perhaps?  

[Bannon]

7 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

a) D&M was not inept.  They built a very successful firm before they ever heard of Jimmy McGill and will continue to be successful.  They have their style, culture and way of doing business and Jimmy was a horrible fit, as he would be any pretty much any firm, with the possible exception of "I Can't Believe It's a Law Firm".   Solo practice was the way for Jimmy to go, if he insisted on being a lawyer and denying his true calling as a tv commercial producer and director. 

As for Chuck lying to him, boo hoo, his brother lied to him.  It did not ruin his life or career and he had an amazing opportunity that the ADA would "kill his mother for".  

This phrase...

"D&M was inept"

....is not remotely synonymous. with....

"D&M was inept in using Jimmy's talents, and managing Jimmy's faults."

Any number of otherwise successful  businesses have been inept at managing a particular employee. Jimmy McGill has the ability to generate profits in the operation of a law firm, in excess of the typical lawyer. The purpose of D&M is to generate profits. There were ways to seperate Jimmy's negative qualities from D&M, while retaining the desirible  qualities. D&M was inept in exploiting these possibilities.

Your last sentence once again implies I wrote something that I did not write. In no place did I employ the term "ruin". Look, if you think it is acceptable behavior to lie to someone about whether you support their career ambitions, just say so. To me, it is, without qualification, 100% unacceptable behavior. It's ok for us to disagree.  

[axlmadonna]

13 hours ago, Bannon said:

The most important is that Jimmy doesn't go to Chuck with the Sandpiper class action, if he knows for a fact that Chuck is dead set on sabotaging his legal career. Jimmy seeks help elsewhere, and who knows what comes from that? 

Also... wasn't the main reason that he went to Chuck with the Sandpiper case that he was trying to help Chuck come out of his shell a little more by giving him an interesting case to work on? That was the impression I got when he asked to store the files at Chuck's house.

 

4 hours ago, Ottis said:

So is BCS near the end of its run? because we seem to be lining up pretty closely with where we meet Walter White and all the rest of the shared characters.

God, I hope not! This show is one of the best on TV, and I look forward to it every year. I hope it's on for at least ten more seaons!

Aren't we around 2003/2004 now? When did the events of BB begin, wasn't it around 2007? And with only ten episodes per season, it seems to me that quite a bit more could happen between now and BB.

 

37 minutes ago, Bannon said:

We have seen the wiring removed in season 1. The police, peering thorugh the windows, thought copper thieves were the cause. I can't speak for Portland specifically, but in Albuquerque, the following....

"115.7 Revocation. The Building Official may in writing, suspend or revoke a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, Certificate of Occupancy, or Shell Certificate of Completion at anytime if the certificate was issued in error, issued on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or where it is determined that the building or structure or portion thereof is in violation of any ordinance, regulation or provision of this code. If the certificate is suspended, all violations must be corrected before it may be reinstated. If the certificate is revoked, a permanent Certificate of Occupancy will be required before the building or structure or portion thereof may be re-occupied."

....in conjunction with.....

"Building service equipment regulated by such codes, which constitute a fire, electrical, health hazard, unsanitary condition, or is otherwise dangerous to human life, is for the purpose of this section, unsafe. Any use of buildings, structures or building service equipment constituting a hazard to safety, health or public welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, fire hazard, disaster, damage or abandonment is, for the purpose of this section, an unsafe use."

 

....results in the Building Offcial red tagging residences (ordered to be vacated) which have their electrical service disconnected for extended periods of time, because it is deemed that providing all illumination by candles, gas-burning lamps, etc., is a fire hazard. Frankly, using the gas burning lamp indoors is a carbon monoxide hazard as well, and would be deemed dangerous to human life. I'd be shocked if Portland doesnt have a similar provision in it's building code, even if it is unevenly enforced.

Are you inferring that choosing candles and lamps over centralized electricity is deemed a fire hazard, or is that explicitly stated somewhere? Humankind lived perfectly well for millenia with only natural forms of light and cooking, so I don't see why there should be hysteria about it now. Chuck takes care of his home, he simply chooses not to indulge in the use of electricity. As I noted previously, his methods of lighting and cooking are no more dangerous (and probably less so) than things that millions of people do in their electricity-enabled homes every day.

I once saw my friend take a Pyrex casserole dish out of the oven and place it on top of the electric stove, having forgotten that she hadn't turned the stove off. The casserole dish exploded. How is Chuck's house any more dangerous than that? He's never had anything like that happen, as far as we know. I realize that we now live in a world where governments bureaucrats, in this case local, consider themselves better arbiters of how a person should live in their own home than the people themselves, and therefore create all of these unnecessary (and often pointless, since it doesn't stop some people from doing dangerous things in their homes anyway) rules and regulations. But I don't have to like it or agree with it.

[Bryce Lynch]

2 minutes ago, Bannon said:

This phrase...

"D&M was inept"

....is not remotely synonymous. with....

"D&M was inept in using Jimmy's talents, and managing Jimmy's faults."

Any number of otherwise successful  businesses have been inept at managing a particular employee. Jimmy McGill has the ability to generate profits in the operation of a law firm, in excess of the typical lawyer. The purpose of D&M is to generate profits. There were ways to seperate Jimmy's negative qualities from D&M, while retaining the desirible  qualities. D&M was inept in exploiting these possibilities.

Your last sentence once again implies I wrote something that I did not write. In no place did I employ the term "ruin". Look, if you think it is acceptable behavior to lie to someone about whether you support their career ambitions, just say so. To me, it is, without qualification, 100% unacceptable behavior. It's ok for us to disagree.  

Sure, nobody knows how to handle "precious Jimmy" :) properly.  The whole world is at fault for not bending over backwards to accommodate his lack of self control and concern for being a team player or following rules.  Actually, D&M did bend over backwards and Jimmy chose to screw them anyway.  That's fine, as I said, it was a horrible fit for both parties.  But to blame D&M for Jimmy not fitting in is ridiculous.   Even Kim (aka Giselle St. Clair) refused to go into a partnership with Jimmy due to his ethical and self control issues.   She was unfortunately foolish enough to share an office with him, however, and that will probably be her ruin.  

4 minutes ago, axlmadonna said:

Also... wasn't the main reason that he went to Chuck with the Sandpiper case that he was trying to help Chuck come out of his shell a little more by giving him an interesting case to work on? That was the impression I got when he asked to store the files at Chuck's house.

 

God, I hope not! This show is one of the best on TV, and I look forward to it every year. I hope it's on for at least ten more seaons!

Aren't we around 2003/2004 now? When did the events of BB begin, wasn't it around 2007? And with only ten episodes per season, it seems to me that quite a bit more could happen between now and BB.

 

Are you inferring that choosing candles and lamps over centralized electricity is deemed a fire hazard, or is that explicitly stated somewhere? Humankind lived perfectly well for millenia with only natural forms of light and cooking, so I don't see why there should be hysteria about it now. Chuck takes care of his home, he simply chooses not to indulge in the use of electricity. As I noted previously, his methods of lighting and cooking are no more dangerous (and probably less so) than things that millions of people do in their electricity-enabled homes every day.

I once saw my friend take a Pyrex casserole dish out of the oven and place it on top of the electric stove, having forgotten that she hadn't turned the stove off. The casserole dish exploded. How is Chuck's house any more dangerous than that? He's never had anything like that happen, as far as we know. I realize that we now live in a world where governments bureaucrats, in this case local, consider themselves better arbiters of how a person should live in their own home than the people themselves, and therefore create all of these unnecessary (and often pointless, since it doesn't stop some people from doing dangerous things in their homes anyway) rules and regulations. But I don't have to like it or agree with it.

We are in early 2003 in the current BCS story line.  I sort of expect a big time jump soon (I can't see them spending a lot of episodes on Jimmy's suspension period), but there is still plenty of timeline room for several seasons of BCS, especially given how slowly they move the plot and how they can swing between past, present and future.  

[Bannon]

4 minutes ago, axlmadonna said:

Also... wasn't the main reason that he went to Chuck with the Sandpiper case that he was trying to help Chuck come out of his shell a little more by giving him an interesting case to work on? That was the impression I got when he asked to store the files at Chuck's house.

 

God, I hope not! This show is one of the best on TV, and I look forward to it every year. I hope it's on for at least ten more seaons!

Aren't we around 2003/2004 now? When did the events of BB begin, wasn't it around 2007? And with only ten episodes per season, it seems to me that quite a bit more could happen between now and BB.

 

Are you inferring that choosing candles and lamps over centralized electricity is deemed a fire hazard, or is that explicitly stated somewhere? Humankind lived perfectly well for millenia with only natural forms of light and cooking, so I don't see why there should be hysteria about it now. Chuck takes care of his home, he simply chooses not to indulge in the use of electricity. As I noted previously, his methods of lighting and cooking are no more dangerous (and probably less so) than things that millions of people do in their electricity-enabled homes every day.

I once saw my friend take a Pyrex casserole dish out of the oven and place it on top of the electric stove, having forgotten that she hadn't turned the stove off. The casserole dish exploded. How is Chuck's house any more dangerous than that? He's never had anything like that happen, as far as we know. I realize that we now live in a world where governments bureaucrats, in this case local, consider themselves better arbiters of how a person should live in their own home than the people themselves, and therefore create all of these unnecessary (and often pointless, since it doesn't stop some people from doing dangerous things in their homes anyway) rules and regulations. But I don't have to like it or agree with it.

I'm note inferring anything. I'm stating that it is a fact in Albuqueruque that a home without electrical service for an extended period of time is very frequently red-tagged, and has it's occupancy permit revoked. I'll avoid a debate about how illumination via modern electrical service statistically compares to providing illumination by flame, in terms of fire danger.

[benteen]

4 hours ago, qtpye said:

This is what I love about Giligan.  Even his tertiary characters are real and complex.  There are very few white or black hats, everyone is grey.  Is Ted an entitled dufus who has that audacity to black mail Skylar for money after she bailed him out?  We really do not know.  Does Stacy have an honest affection for Mike or does she just appreciate the large sums of cash that make her life as a single mother a little easier?  Could it be both?

Yes!  I love this too.  Everything is gray and they give very few easy answers.  Chuck is ultimately right about what Jimmy could become but did Chuck create a self-fulfilling prophecy by actively trying to sabotage Jimmy's career and not support him?

[Bryce Lynch]

8 minutes ago, Bannon said:

I'm note inferring anything. I'm stating that it is a fact in Albuqueruque that a home without electrical service for an extended period of time is very frequently red-tagged, and has it's occupancy permit revoked. I'll avoid a debate about how illumination via modern electrical service statistically compares to providing illumination by flame, in terms of fire danger.

I have to think, that Chuck's house must be at least barely in compliance with the letter of the law (if not in real life in the fictional BCS universe).  I can't see him violating the letter of the law...the spirit perhaps, but not the letter. :)

[axlmadonna]

10 minutes ago, Bannon said:

I'm not inferring anything. I'm stating that it is a fact in Albuqueruque that a home without electrical service for an extended period of time is very frequently red-tagged, and has it's occupancy permit revoked. I'll avoid a debate about how illumination via modern electrical service statistically compares to providing illumination by flame, in terms of fire danger.

I'm no lawyer, so I'm certainly not trying to get into a debate about the law. I read the statutes that were provided in the original post, and none of them explicitly state that a home without electric service is a fire hazard. You say that this is something that is "frequently" red-tagged... by what standard is that judged? If it is against code to not have electric service, then why isn't it *always* red-tagged? Is it completely subjective, at the whim of the inspector? Are there other statutes that spell out that this situation is a fire hazard or more dangerous than any number of things people do in their homes? From what we've seen, Chuck takes perfectly good care of his house, and (other than, arguably, the lantern on the newspapers) does not engage in any kind of dangerous or risky behavior. Why would his not having electricity be such a "danger" that he should be forced out of his home? 

[Bannon]

7 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Sure, nobody knows how to handle "precious Jimmy" :) properly.  The whole world is at fault for not bending over backwards to accommodate his lack of self control and concern for being a team player or following rules.  Actually, D&M did bend over backwards and Jimmy chose to screw them anyway.  That's fine, as I said, it was a horrible fit for both parties.  But to blame D&M for Jimmy not fitting in is ridiculous.   Even Kim (aka Giselle St. Clair) refused to go into a partnership with Jimmy due to his ethical and self control issues.   She was unfortunately foolish enough to share an office with him, however, and that will probably be her ruin.  

I wish you would avoid implying that I wrote things I did not write. I actually think Jimmy is manageable, if skill is employed, and have said so. Thus, I have stated precisely the opposite of "nobody knows how to handle Jimmy". Plenty of people businesses know how to manage employees who are every bit as lacking in self control, and have the same disregard for rules, as Jimmy. I've seen it done. This isn't a matter of blame. It is a matter of empirically observable fact. The likes of Jimmy are manageable, if skill is employed. HHM and D&M are not "the whole world". Hell, Jimmy was eminently manageable in a mail room for years, when the right incentive structure was in place. 

None of this, of course, has anything to do with whether Chuck's dishonesty is any more acceptable than Jimmy's. It isn't any more acceptable, even is it is not subject to sanction by the law.

[axlmadonna]

3 minutes ago, Bannon said:

I actually think Jimmy is manageable, if skill is employed, and have said so. Thus, I have stated precisely the opposite of "nobody knows how to handle Jimmy". Plenty of businesses know how to manage employees who are every bit as lacking in self control, and have the same disregard for rules, as Jimmy. I've seen it done. This isn't a matter of blame. It is a matter of empirically observable fact. The likes of Jimmy are manageable, if skill is employed. HHM and D&M are not "the whole world". Hell, Jimmy was eminently manageable in a mail room for years, when the right incentive structure was in place. 

It's not that a company CAN'T "manage" employees who lack self-control (and, in Jimmy's case, actively work to sabotage their employment), but why should any business have to do so? It is not incumbent upon an employer to coddle and appease badly behaved employees. When you are hired to do a job, you have an obligation to dress, speak, and behave appropriately for the job you are doing and the company for which you work. If you don't, that's on you and you don't deserve to work there. There are plenty of other people, who are just as qualified as Jimmy (if not more so), who would love to have been given the opportunity that D&M gave him, and would appreciate and respect their place of employment. Frankly, I'm not sure why Jimmy should be allowed to keep the sign-on bonus or the desk... why should he be rewarded for being fired?

[Bryce Lynch]

7 minutes ago, Bannon said:

I wish you would avoid implying that I wrote things I did not write. I actually think Jimmy is manageable, if skill is employed, and have said so. Thus, I have stated precisely the opposite of "nobody knows how to handle Jimmy". Plenty of people businesses know how to manage employees who are every bit as lacking in self control, and have the same disregard for rules, as Jimmy. I've seen it done. This isn't a matter of blame. It is a matter of empirically observable fact. The likes of Jimmy are manageable, if skill is employed. HHM and D&M are not "the whole world". Hell, Jimmy was eminently manageable in a mail room for years, when the right incentive structure was in place. 

None of this, of course, has anything to do with whether Chuck's dishonesty is any more acceptable than Jimmy's. It isn't any more acceptable, even is it is not subject to sanction by the law.

My point is that I believe Jimmy is totally unmanageable as a lawyer.  If he is manageable by some firm out there, I would still not accuse D&M of being "inept in using Jimmy's talents, and managing Jimmy's faults."  He was a terrible fit, and they were more than patient with him.  Most firms would have fired him on the spot for running the ad, but they went above in beyond in trying to "manage his faults" by giving him a second chance, but he rewarded them by behaving so obnoxiously that they were forced to fire him and let him keep his bonus.  

Jimmy was "inept" in his efforts to fit in with the the employer that gave his an extremely lucrative deal.  

[Bannon]

11 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I have to think, that Chuck's house must be at least barely in compliance with the letter of the law (if not in real life in the fictional BCS universe).  I can't see him violating the letter of the law...the spirit perhaps, but not the letter. :)

Chuck's a towering hypocrite (it's his most annoying quality). Even in the fictional BCS universe, the dcotor who treated him at the hospital in season 1 stated that his living conditions were in violation of the law, and one of the reasons she recommended commitment. Howard made a point of telling Jimmy and Kim that he made a call to someone in Albuquerque's city government, so as to avoid the city pursuing that violation, which is an admirably accurate representation by the writers as to Albuquerque's political culture.

It was clearly an ethical violation for Chuck to win back Mesa Verde by touting his superior expertise in regulatory compliance, while not telling Mesa Verde that he would be working on Mesa Verde business, and attempting to secure Mesa Verde's vital documents, in a structure which was illegal for human occupancy, and that the violation was not being pursued by the city only due to HHM exerting corrupt influence on the City of Albuquerque's code enforcement.

Chuck's great concern for the nearly sacred, inviolable nature of the law is situational. Like I said, he's a towering hypocrite.

[PeterPirate]

I don't think Jimmy is manageable.  How do you manage a lawyer who hires to skateboarders to stage an accident, or pays a van driver to stage a breakdown? How is any firm supposed to even know that such things have taken place?  

[Bannon]

Just now, Bryce Lynch said:

My point is that I believe Jimmy is totally unmanageable as a lawyer.  If he is manageable by some firm out there, I would still not accuse D&M of being "inept in using Jimmy's talents, and managing Jimmy's faults."  He was a terrible fit, and they were more than patient with him.  Most firms would have fired him on the spot for running the ad, but they went above in beyond in trying to "manage his faults" by giving him a second chance, but he rewarded them by behaving so obnoxiously that they were forced to fire him and let him keep his bonus.  

Jimmy was "inept" in his efforts to fit in with the the employer that gave his an extremely lucrative deal.  

Sure, I would not deny Jimmy was inept at fitting in. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[qtpye]

3 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Plenty of people businesses know how to manage employees who are every bit as lacking in self control, and have the same disregard for rules, as Jimmy. I've seen it done. This isn't a matter of blame. It is a matter of empirically observable fact. The likes of Jimmy are manageable, if skill is employed. HHM and D&M are not "the whole world". Hell, Jimmy was eminently manageable in a mail room for years, when the right incentive structure was in place. 

What was more perturbing to me then D&M's handling of Jimmy was Howard's handling of Kim.  Kim made a mistake and she was punished with horrible doc review work.  However, she brings in a giant client and Howard sends her back to doc review Hell?  Also, Howard seems to grudgingly like and respect Jimmy, but gives no quarter to Kim for her mistake?  

He was almost begging her to go to anther firm and take her giant client with her.  If she had taken the lateral move job offer with the other firm, instead of being a solo practitioner, I think Chuck could not have finagled Mesa Verde back so easily.

[Bannon]

6 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

I don't think Jimmy is manageable.  How do you manage a lawyer who hires to skateboarders to stage an accident, or pays a van driver to stage a breakdown? How is any firm supposed to even know that such things have taken place?  

You manage him the same way any number of habitual rule breakers who deliver large revenues are managed.  You set up a structure which limits the business' exposure, watch the person as closely as possible, and set up incentives which will help keep the person on the right side of things. In the case of Davis & Main, the solution was pretty straightforward. D & M, once it became obvious that Jimmy had the skill to run t.v.ads which really reeled in the clients for the Sandpiper lawsuit, should have set Jimmy up as a one person law practice, with one client, D &M, with one purpose, obtaining Sandpiper residents, via t.v ads, as clients for D&M. Backload most of his compenasation, contingent on no ethical compaints, and require that all the ads be viewed and approved by D&M prior to running. See what happens. Remember, D&M had no principled objection to televsion advertising, they were just too inept to run effective television advertising.

[scenario]

Just now, axlmadonna said:

It's not that a company CAN'T "manage" employees who lack self-control (and, in Jimmy's case, actively work to sabotage their employment), but why should any business have to do so? It is not incumbent upon an employer to coddle and appease badly behaved employees. When you are hired to do a job, you have an obligation to dress, speak, and behave appropriately for the job you are doing and the company for which you work. If you don't, that's on you and you don't deserve to work there. There are plenty of other people, who are just as qualified as Jimmy (if not more so), who would love to have been given the opportunity that D&M gave him, and would appreciate and respect their place of employment. Frankly, I'm not sure why Jimmy should be allowed to keep the sign-on bonus or the desk... why should he be rewarded for being fired?

Have you ever watched sports? In every major sport that I know of, people who have a lot of talent get away with a lot. In American Football, a player was just drafted who broke a woman's jaw because he was annoyed with her and got away with it. If they believed that Jimmy could be a rainmaker and if Jimmy wanted it, they could have done it. The problem is that Jimmy only really took the job to try to impress Chuck and realized that it was a big mistake pretty quickly. If Chuck had been honest with him right off the bat and guided him towards a private practice, the whole situation would have been avoided. 

Set Jimmy up in a private practice and then send him a client every once in awhile. I'm sure that they have corporate clients who ask for a referral for lawyer services that HHM doesn't do. If he's in elder care, an established corporate client of HHM might have a rich elderly relative who needs legal help. Jimmy makes money and HHM could supply him a legal assistant to help Jimmy out and keep an eye on him.

Jimmy's relationship with his elderly clients may turn up a potential corporate client for HHM every once in awhile. I.e. HHM sends him a relative of one of their clients. That customer connects him with a friend who is retired and on the board of a different large corporation with no ties to HHM. She complains about the companies outside lawyers to Jimmy. Jimmy sets up a meeting with the board and HHM gets the client. If Jimmy can find one big client for HHM every 10 years, he's more than paid HHM back. 

Why would HHM bother? A new multimillion dollar client every 10 years or so is worth a little aggravation. It's not that we love Jimmy, its that everyone can see Jimmy's talent and it's being wasted. 

[Bannon]

5 minutes ago, qtpye said:

What was more perturbing to me then D&M's handling of Jimmy was Howard's handling of Kim.  Kim made a mistake and she was punished with horrible doc review work.  However, she brings in a giant client and Howard sends her back to doc review Hell?  Also, Howard seems to grudgingly like and respect Jimmy, but gives no quarter to Kim for her mistake?  

He was almost begging her to go to anther firm and take her giant client with her.  If she had taken the lateral move job offer with the other firm, instead of being a solo practitioner, I think Chuck could not have finagled Mesa Verde back so easily.

Oh, if Kim had gone with Schweiker, HHM never would have won Mesa Verde back. Schweiker would have had no scruples in making sure Mesa Verde became aware of Chuck's mental illness.

Howard is, in good measure, an entitled son who inherited a very successful business. His ego-driven punishment of Kim, continuing even after Kim dropped a pile of cash on his desk, was too stupid for words.

[axlmadonna]

3 minutes ago, scenario said:

Have you ever watched sports? In every major sport that I know of, people who have a lot of talent get away with a lot. In American Football, a player was just drafted who broke a woman's jaw because he was annoyed with her and got away with it. If they believed that Jimmy could be a rainmaker and if Jimmy wanted it, they could have done it. The problem is that Jimmy only really took the job to try to impress Chuck and realized that it was a big mistake pretty quickly. If Chuck had been honest with him right off the bat and guided him towards a private practice, the whole situation would have been avoided. 

Set Jimmy up in a private practice and then send him a client every once in awhile. I'm sure that they have corporate clients who ask for a referral for lawyer services that HHM doesn't do. If he's in elder care, an established corporate client of HHM might have a rich elderly relative who needs legal help. Jimmy makes money and HHM could supply him a legal assistant to help Jimmy out and keep an eye on him.

Jimmy's relationship with his elderly clients may turn up a potential corporate client for HHM every once in awhile. I.e. HHM sends him a relative of one of their clients. That customer connects him with a friend who is retired and on the board of a different large corporation with no ties to HHM. She complains about the companies outside lawyers to Jimmy. Jimmy sets up a meeting with the board and HHM gets the client. If Jimmy can find one big client for HHM every 10 years, he's more than paid HHM back. 

Why would HHM bother? A new multimillion dollar client every 10 years or so is worth a little aggravation. It's not that we love Jimmy, its that everyone can see Jimmy's talent and it's being wasted. 

I'm not saying that a company can't choose to "manage" a difficult employee... and you provided a perfect example of a situation in which a business or industry would do exactly that. Moral judgments about that which the NFL turns a blind eye aside, they have legitimate business reasons to keep a highly talented player in the game. While there are plenty of people who would like to play football at the professional level, there are few who have the skills and talent to actually do so. Personally, I would put what's right (in my opinon) over what's best for the industry's bottom line, but that's not the point here. Law firms, like most businesses, have a huge pool of talent from which to choose. They don't need the hassle of someone like Jimmy.

Having said that, Bannon's idea for setting Jimmy up as a one-client firm of his own is a great one. That would have been beneficial to both parties. But D&M certainly had no obligation to do so, and I still maintain that it's Jimmy's responsibility to behave appropriately at his workplace, or to resign like a mature adult and give up the bonus that he never earned and didn't deserve. It's not like Jimmy even considered or tried to explore any options with D&M, he just nuked the whole thing and spat in the faces of people who had taken a chance on him and given him the royal treatment.

[PeterPirate]

15 minutes ago, Bannon said:

You manage him the same way any number of habitual rule breakers who deliver large revenues are managed.  You set up a structure which limits the business' exposure, watch the person as closely as possible, and set up incentives which will help keep the person on the right side of things. In the case of Davis & Main, the solution was pretty straightforward. D & M, once it became obvious that Jimmy had the skill to run t.v.ads which really reeled in the clients for the Sandpiper lawsuit, should have set Jimmy up as a one person law practice, with one client, D &M, with one purpose, obtaining Sandpiper residents, via t.v ads, as clients for D&M. Backload most of his compenasation, contingent on no ethical compaints, and require that all the ads be viewed and approved by D&M prior to running. See what happens. Remember, D&M had no principled objection to televsion advertising, they were just too inept to run effective television advertising.

Is it possible for a company to shield itself from outright criminal behavior?  I don't think of Jimmy McGill as a habitual rule breaker, I think of him as a criminal.  

Edited May 18, 2017 by PeterPirate

[Bannon]

5 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Is it possible for a company to shield itself from outright criminal behavior?  I don't think of Jimmy McGill as a habitual law breaker, I think of him as a criminal.  

As far as we know, he was not a criminal in the years he was working in the mail room. D&M is unaware of his criminal past. If Jimmy is operting an independent law firm, and D&M takes reasonable measures to ensure that Jimmy's firm's ads stay within ethical boundaries, D&M is pretty well shielded. 

Edited May 18, 2017 by Bannon

[Bannon]

11 minutes ago, axlmadonna said:

I'm not saying that a company can't choose to "manage" a difficult employee... and you provided a perfect example of a situation in which a business or industry would do exactly that. Moral judgments about that which the NFL turns a blind eye aside, they have legitimate business reasons to keep a highly talented player in the game. While there are plenty of people who would like to play football at the professional level, there are few who have the skills and talent to actually do so. Personally, I would put what's right (in my opinon) over what's best for the industry's bottom line, but that's not the point here. Law firms, like most businesses, have a huge pool of talent from which to choose. They don't need the hassle of someone like Jimmy.

Having said that, Bannon's idea for setting Jimmy up as a one-client firm of his own is a great one. That would have been beneficial to both parties. But D&M certainly had no obligation to do so, and I still maintain that it's Jimmy's responsibility to behave appropriately at his workplace, or to resign like a mature adult and give up the bonus that he never earned and didn't deserve. It's not like Jimmy even considered or tried to explore any options with D&M, he just nuked the whole thing and spat in the faces of people who had taken a chance on him and given him the royal treatment.

Oh, sure, Jimmy was a jackass in that situation. So what? He reels in the fish. Set up a structure so you continue to get the fish, while any potential stink from the fishing stays well out to sea. The purpose of D&M is to make as much money as possible, without taking on excessive risk. Act accordingly. 

Edited May 18, 2017 by Bannon

[PeterPirate]

17 hours ago, Bannon said:

As far as we know, he was not a criminal in the years he was working in the mail room. D&M is unaware of his criminal past. If Jimmy is operting an independent law firm, and D&M takes reasonable measures that Jimmy's firm's ads stay within ethical boundaries, D&M is pretty well shielded. 

If a firm like D&M is unaware of Jimmy's criminal past, it has no basis on which to treat him differently than D&M did, and it would have no reason to think that needs to take steps to shield itself from liability. 

And the question, for me at any rate, is whether I believe that Jimmy is manageable. I do not. If a firm like D&M knows about the Chicago Sunroof incident and his track record for getting people to pay for his ice slips--in other words, if they know everything Chuck knows--I don't believe it would be in their long-term interest to work with Jimmy even as an independent operator. That goes double for a firm that knows everything we viewers know. 

Edited to change "basis" to "no basis". My bad.

Edited May 19, 2017 by PeterPirate

[Eulipian 5k]

2 minutes ago, Bannon said:

So what? He reels in the fish. Set up a structure so you continue to get the fish, while any potential stink from the fishing stays well out to sea. The purpose of D&M is to make as much money as possible, without taking on excessive risk. Act accordingly. 

Seems like you've described Saul Goodman's firm. But not HHM or D & M. Neither Chuck nor Howard or the partners at D & M would have created/worked at the firm you described. We don't yet know which firm outlasted which or was more successful than which, but I'd think reputation is a big thing to certain types of lawyers.

[Bannon]

8 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

If a firm like D&M is unaware of Jimmy's criminal past, it has basis on which to treat him differently than D&M did, and it would have no reason to think that needs to take steps to shield itself from liability. 

And the question, for me at any rate, is whether I believe that Jimmy is manageable. I do not. If a firm like D&M knows about the Chicago Sunroof incident and his track record for getting people to pay for his ice slips--in other words, if they know everything Chuck knows--I don't believe it would be in their long-term interest to work with Jimmy even as an independent operator. That goes double for a firm that knows everything we viewers know. 

D&M is concerned with their image being associated with excessively aggressive t.v. ads. The solution is to have another firm run the ads, take the calls, and then immediately funnel the business to D&M. It's commonly done.

6 minutes ago, Eulipian 5k said:

Seems like you've described Saul Goodman's firm. But not HHM or D & M. Neither Chuck nor Howard or the partners at D & M would have created/worked at the firm you described. We don't yet know which firm outlasted which or was more successful than which, but I'd think reputation is a big thing to certain types of lawyers.

Sure, which is why, in t.v ads attempting to obtain class action litigants, the firm you see on the screen is very often merely a conduit for funneling the business to the actual litigating firm. 

Edited May 18, 2017 by Bannon

[PeterPirate]

15 minutes ago, Bannon said:

D&M is concerned with their image being associated with excessively aggressive t.v. ads. The solution is to have another firm run the ads, take the calls, and then immediately funnel the business to D&M. It's commonly done.

Well, we do seem to be talking about different things here. 

Edited May 18, 2017 by PeterPirate

[scenario]

35 minutes ago, axlmadonna said:

I'm not saying that a company can't choose to "manage" a difficult employee... and you provided a perfect example of a situation in which a business or industry would do exactly that. Moral judgments about that which the NFL turns a blind eye aside, they have legitimate business reasons to keep a highly talented player in the game. While there are plenty of people who would like to play football at the professional level, there are few who have the skills and talent to actually do so. Personally, I would put what's right (in my opinon) over what's best for the industry's bottom line, but that's not the point here. Law firms, like most businesses, have a huge pool of talent from which to choose. They don't need the hassle of someone like Jimmy.

Having said that, Bannon's idea for setting Jimmy up as a one-client firm of his own is a great one. That would have been beneficial to both parties. But D&M certainly had no obligation to do so, and I still maintain that it's Jimmy's responsibility to behave appropriately at his workplace, or to resign like a mature adult and give up the bonus that he never earned and didn't deserve. It's not like Jimmy even considered or tried to explore any options with D&M, he just nuked the whole thing and spat in the faces of people who had taken a chance on him and given him the royal treatment.

I agree completely about D&M. His behavior was awful. He should have resigned and returned the bonus but knowing Jimmy he spent a bunch of it. 

My point is that if Chuck had handled it right and with a little finesse, Jimmy would never have joined D&M in the first place. The whole D&M thing was a disaster. If Chuck was so worried about Jimmy he should have done more to warn D&M about him. 

[Bannon]

6 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Well, we do seem to be talking about different things here. 

I thought we were talking about whether it was possible for D&M to use Jimmy's ability, to bring in Sandpiper litigants, to D&M's benefit, while limiting D&M's exposure to the negative stuff that Jimmy brings with him. I think it was. 

[scenario]

26 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

If a firm like D&M is unaware of Jimmy's criminal past, it has basis on which to treat him differently than D&M did, and it would have no reason to think that needs to take steps to shield itself from liability. 

And the question, for me at any rate, is whether I believe that Jimmy is manageable. I do not. If a firm like D&M knows about the Chicago Sunroof incident and his track record for getting people to pay for his ice slips--in other words, if they know everything Chuck knows--I don't believe it would be in their long-term interest to work with Jimmy even as an independent operator. That goes double for a firm that knows everything we viewers know. 

One of Jimmy's traits is that he's lazy, when he's not working like crazy. If you set him up in a situation where he's making enough money to be comfortable, that he enjoys  and is free enough to act like himself, he can stand living with some restriction. Get him in a single lawyer firm, doing the legal, dirty work for HHM, (running adds and such) he'd be reasonably happy, especially with Kim at his side. Jimmy can control himself. He did it for years when working in the mail room. You've just got to give him the right incentives.

Saul on the other hand is a lost cause. Once Jimmy turns into Saul, its too late. 

[Bannon]

Just now, scenario said:

One of Jimmy's traits is that he's lazy, when he's not working like crazy. If you set him up in a situation where he's making enough money to be comfortable, that he enjoys  and is free enough to act like himself, he can stand living with some restriction. Get him in a single lawyer firm, doing the legal, dirty work for HHM, (running adds and such) he'd be reasonably happy, especially with Kim at his side. Jimmy can control himself. He did it for years when working in the mail room. You've just got to give him the right incentives.

Saul on the other hand is a lost cause. Once Jimmy turns into Saul, its too late. 

Oh,yes, the Jimmy who was a lawyer with ability and energy, but with manageable bad traits, is now gone. The death of his relationship with his brother also killed that Jimmy. Jimmy is now Saul, who will countenance great, violent, evil, visited on total innocents, in pursuit of money. Jimmy the conman, without a law degree, was a much better person than Saul, because Jimmy the common conman pretty much restricted visiting his misdeeds on the dishonest. That didn't make Jimmy's actions excusable, but if you gotta choose between a conman who rips off the greedy a-holes he meets in bars, or a lawyer who aids and abets the likes of Walter White, the conman is the better person.

The best person was that guy who existed for a very, very, short time, after giving up criminal defense, by  providing decent elder law services from the back of a nail salon.  

[scenario]

19 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Oh,yes, the Jimmy who was a lawyer with ability and energy, but with manageable bad traits, is now gone. The death of his relationship with his brother also killed that Jimmy. Jimmy is now Saul, who will countenance great, violent, evil, visited on total innocents, in pursuit of money. Jimmy the conman, without a law degree, was a much better person than Saul, because Jimmy the common conman pretty much restricted visiting his misdeeds on the dishonest. That didn't make Jimmy's actions excusable, but if you gotta choose between a conman who rips off the greedy a-holes he meets in bars, or a lawyer who aids and abets the likes of Walter White, the conman is the better person.

The best person was that guy who existed for a very, very, short time, after giving up criminal defense, by  providing decent elder law services from the back of a nail salon.  

Watching this show is like watching a train wreck about to happen. In season one and two. you know that if someone pulls the right switch it could all be avoided. But the switch isn't easy to get to and no one there can see the wreck coming. We've just reached the point where its too late to pull the switch. The wreck is going to happen and a lot of innocent people are going to get hurt. Not because of malice or intent to hurt but because of pettiness and shortsightedness. 

Edited May 18, 2017 by scenario
spelling

[Bannon]

1 minute ago, scenario said:

Watching this show is like watching a train wreck about to happen. In season one and two. you know that if someone pulls the right switch it could all be avoided. But the switch isn't easy to get to and no one there can see the wreck coming. We've just reached the point where its too late to pull the switch. The wreck is going to happen and a lot of innocent people are going to get hurt. Not because of malice or intent to hurt but because of pettieness and shortsightedness. 

I've often marveled that a show that makes me laugh all the time is telling such a hugely, fundamentally, sad, sad, story.    

[Bannon]

4 hours ago, axlmadonna said:

I'm no lawyer, so I'm certainly not trying to get into a debate about the law. I read the statutes that were provided in the original post, and none of them explicitly state that a home without electric service is a fire hazard. You say that this is something that is "frequently" red-tagged... by what standard is that judged? If it is against code to not have electric service, then why isn't it *always* red-tagged? Is it completely subjective, at the whim of the inspector? Are there other statutes that spell out that this situation is a fire hazard or more dangerous than any number of things people do in their homes? From what we've seen, Chuck takes perfectly good care of his house, and (other than, arguably, the lantern on the newspapers) does not engage in any kind of dangerous or risky behavior. Why would his not having electricity be such a "danger" that he should be forced out of his home? 

If the Building Inspector deems it a fire hazard or health hazard (and really, given those lanterns explicitly state that they are not to be used indoors, this is inarguable), then the property is red tagged, and people can't enter..  Yes, the occupants or owner can sue the city to have that decision overtuned, but do you think Howard wants it publicly known that his partner is suing to be allowed to conduct legal work in a home without electricity or telephone? It isn't always red tagged because the city isn't always aware of it, and city governments are frequently corrupt in their consistent enforcement of the law.

If you want to see some statistics on how residential fire rates underwent a steep decline when people moved from candles and lanterns, and started using light bulbs, I'm sure the data is out there somewhere. Certainly no insurer will knowingly issue a policy on a home in that condition. 

[ShadowFacts]

3 hours ago, Bannon said:

Oh, sure, Jimmy was a jackass in that situation. So what? He reels in the fish. Set up a structure so you continue to get the fish, while any potential stink from the fishing stays well out to sea. The purpose of D&M is to make as much money as possible, without taking on excessive risk. Act accordingly. 

Jimmy was being purposely dick-ish and doing gross things to get himself out with his bonus, which was bad in itself, but he didn't do that initially.  He immediately started chafing at the constrictions, the boring details of how things were done, with having an annoying babysitter, but if he had been given a little latitude and had at least one of the partners who understood him and how to handle him, it could have worked, maybe.  The trouble was that he didn't follow his initial instinct which was to not take the job, and D&M didn't know what they were getting.

[Bannon]

2 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

Jimmy was being purposely dick-ish and doing gross things to get himself out with his bonus, which was bad in itself, but he didn't do that initially.  He immediately started chafing at the constrictions, the boring details of how things were done, with having an annoying babysitter, but if he had been given a little latitude and had at least one of the partners who understood him and how to handle him, it could have worked, maybe.  The trouble was that he didn't follow his initial instinct which was to not take the job, and D&M didn't know what they were getting.

When the phones lit up when Jimmy ran the ad, the partners should have verbally kicked his butt, then waited about 24 hours, and came back to him with the idea that he run his own practice, with D&M as the only client, for the purpose of tv solicitation of Sandpiper clients only. Backload a big chunk of his compensation contingent on no ethical complaints, and it probably works great, and simplifies D&M's work on the Sandpiper class action.

[Hanahope]

I was surprised Jimmy got such a long suspension.  Most ethical violations I've seen get 3-6 months.  I suppose part of the punishment was for Jimmys violation of their rules, even if such was necessary to prove Chucks animosity, and maybe they were unsure if the taped confession was true or not.  12 months really hurts a law practice, particularly a solo.  How will jimmy make money to cover his expenses without doing something illegal and/or risk his ppd?

[MonicaM]

Neither Chuck nor Jimmy are admirable characters.  Although I hate Chuck and like Jimmy, I stopped trying to figure out if one or the other deserved the treatment they received.  They are interesting characters to watch, and that's good enough for me.  

[TVFan17]

12 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

In all seriousness, it would be interesting to see how Holly, Walt Jr., Skyler and Marie are doing.  What did Junior do with the $10,000,000 from G&E, (besides the obvious things like buy several muscle cars and hire a personal, breakfast chef.)   Did Marie get remarried...to an astronaut, perhaps?  

I would definitely like some sort of update on Holly, Walt Jr./Flynn, Skyler, Marie, Gretchen. Elliot, Skinny Pete, Badger and, of course, above all, Jesse.  I don't think it will be possible to get updates on each one of them via cameo appearance (because I don't know how likely it would be for Saul/Gene to be interacting with Marie in his Cinnabon life, for example - we'd probably be more likely to see the Marie of earlier years), but I suspect that we might get a few updates in different ways.  I keep expecting that we will see Saul/Gene watching a TV news segment in which Jesse is mentioned, or Skyler is mentioned.  Or he might be reading a newspaper and catch sight of an article about one of them. 

I think that Jesse is way too important of a character in the whole BB world (and had too much interaction with Saul) for us not to hear something about him or see him in BCS before BCS ends its run.     I don't know that we would see a Jesse cameo in a flashback -- because, as many people have said, he would have been a young teenager in the BCS years and that might be a tad hard for Aaron Paul to pull off now -- but I think somehow, some way, we will see or hear something about Jesse's fate, even if it is just explained and wrapped up in 2 or 3 sentences spoken by Saul/Gene to Chuck or Kim.   

 

On ‎5‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 5:24 PM, shapeshifter said:

@TVFan17, we may be the only ones who liked Walter White, so, now I'm wondering, did you sympathize with Nacho at the end of this episode? I did. But I also see him as the kind of person who blames others for his own bad choices. Walter did that too, and it did infuriate me when he blamed Gretchen and What's His Name.

 

It now occurs to me that the lamp on the papers seems a bridge too far for Chuck. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Jimmy had staged it. Regardless, could it be Chekhov's lamp?

 

@smorbie, if we can ever find our way to the Small Talk thread, we could compare effects.

I thought that Walter seemed like a decent, good man who loved his family -- he seemed like a loving father and husband until everything started careening downhill and he got in too deep with the drug world.  He started out by doing a bad thing for the right reasons.  Then he just did it because he liked it and was good at it, as he told Skyler in the series finale.   Of course he was not likeable and charming as the series rolled on -- that goes without saying.  He became a villain, but I don't think he started out that way.  Even in his last moments with Jesse, though, he showed that he had some sort of heart left.  He didn't have to save Jesse -- he could have let him die like he originally wanted to do.  But he saw what horrible shape Jesse was in, and what he had done to Jesse by sending him off with Todd, Jack, etc., and the part of Walt that used to care about Jesse came to his senses, and he knew he had to get him out of there.

As for Nacho in this past week's BCS episode.... I started out by hating him at the very beginning of the episode.  The scene with Nacho and Krazy 8 was unsettling, especially after Krazy 8 had just been trying to make friendly small talk with Nacho at the table.   I knew why Nacho was doing what he was doing, but hearing Krazy 8's cries and screams was chilling. 

It also made me think back to Krazy 8 in Breaking Bad.  Even though he was going to try to stab Walt in the basement, I always saw Krazy 8 as a kid who was probably not a bad guy at first, but who just got too far into the life he was leading and couldn't get out.  I saw him as someone who, much like Nacho, loved his father and respected him.  He seemed like he was trying to get to know Walt -- again, making small talk.   I found Krazy 8 to be a bit sad and sympathetic, in a strange way.  Even though he was going to kill Walt, I felt bad for him when Walt got the upper hand. 

So, fast forward to this past BCS episode, when Nacho was kicking and pummeling Krazy 8.... I remembered Krazy 8 as that same rather soft spoken kid in the basement, talking to Walt and eating his sandwich.  I felt bad for Krazy 8 that he was being attacked by Nacho, so therefore I disliked Nacho.

But by the end of the BCS episode I felt sympathy for Nacho, and wanted him to take his father and run for the hills while he could still get out alive.  I could see how much he wanted to keep his father out of that life.  He was trying to do right by Hector in every other way, but when Hector decided to involve Nacho's father, that was crossing a line.  Nacho looked both fearful for his dad as well as angry.

My guess is that, somewhere between now and the start of the BB timeline, Nacho is either going to be killed or he will get some help to "disappear" and go off to his own Cinnabon-esque life somewhere in the world.

[Christina]

I was going to post this yesterday but determined the comments had become circular and it wouldn't add anything. However, since it is still being discussed, it won't derail anything, either.

Starting with the statement that I understood the issue to be that he removed the wiring, not that he was reading by kerosene lamp, and that is what caused Hamlin to state that his house was a violation of the housing codes, but I haven't rewatched to confirm that fact.

Okay, here is a complete aside about the Amish and electricity:

I live in rural southeastern Ohio with a large Amish population. My nearest neighbor for over a decade was an Amish family, and my immediate and and extended family have often hired the Amish to do manual labor. It is true that they don't live with electricity and because the Amish in this area are Olde Order, they also don't use power tools. There are different Orders of Amish and they vary on that type of thing, with some who take jobs in factories and construction companies that require the use of electricity, and that is an allowed exception in some Orders, but not the Olde Order. Many years ago I had to move into the village (300 people isn't considered a city or town) because I couldn't get more than dial up and needed a stronger internet signal for some of my medical equipment. I also don't lose water when the electricity goes out because the pump can't work. Hooray! The tradeoff, however, is that I now have neighbors, and one had their house catch fire when their meth lab exploded (not kidding). oooo, I unintentionally brought it around to the show!

Anyhoo, the Order helps purchase land and houses since most individuals can't do it on their own with no income. They often live with several generations in the same home or at least on the same plot of land, and would remove the wiring if they purchased a home that was from outside of the Order. But two things happened and they no longer do so. After some in-fighting, quite a few branched off and converted to Mennonites. At that point, they had to sell their lands and homes because of the interest the Order had on the property, and the liens resulted in the Order being able to force former members to sell the land to pay them back. The Mennonites learned that the removal of the electric wiring greatly reduced the value of the homes for purpose of resale, and the only people who wanted the homes were other Amish. They were unable to sell the homes without having them rewired, based on State building codes. 

The second change had to do with the State laws that made removing the wiring of a home causing the home to become uninhabitable. The Amish fought this on religious grounds, but lost. They are allowed to not connect to the power lines, and I think were allowed to remove the fuse boxes thereby curing the objections to electricity being allowed to flow, which they believed existed even if they were not connected to the power lines. I imagine that this was Chuck's reason for removing it from his home. It is my understanding that the local Amish will still remove the wires, but leave the plug covers so if they are checked, it looks to the naked eye that the wiring is still there. For the most part, no one bothers to Code check the homes unless there is some issue.

How it is a fire hazard for the lines to be removed, I don't know, but it is considered that a home isn't habitable without electricity or plumbing, and the Amish get a variance on religious grounds. If someone's electricity is off for non-payment, I'd imagine that it is treated differently than someone who has faulty wiring or no wiring at all. 

I also know someone who lives solely by wood burning heat, but was required to install a heater that runs off of electricity or gas for the home to be lived in. He doesn't have to use the gas furnace, but the home was not habitable without one. 

[smorbie]

22 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

 

On 5/18/2017 at 0:02 AM, Bannon said:

The most important is that Jimmy doesn't go to Chuck with the Sandpiper class action, if he knows for a fact that Chuck is dead set on sabotaging his legal career. Jimmy seeks help elsewhere, and who knows what comes from that? 

Maybe Jimmy tries to handle Sandpiper on his own and blows the case.

At any rate, he landed in a very, sweet situation.  He was eventually going to get 20% of Sandpiper, just for walking to the mailbox to get his check and he had a partner track position, at a great firm, with the world's greatest assistant, a free apartment, a German luxury sedan and a cocobolo desk.  

But, he chose to throw that all away and embarrassed Howard and hurt Kim, who had both put their reputations on the line for him, in the process.

But, I am sure that was Chuck's fault, too.

 

No, that was all Jimmy.

20 hours ago, qtpye said:

This is what I love about Giligan.  Even his tertiary characters are real and complex.  There are very few white or black hats, everyone is grey.  Is Ted an entitled dufus who has that audacity to black mail Skylar for money after she bailed him out?  We really do not know.  Does Stacy have an honest affection for Mike or does she just appreciate the large sums of cash that make her life as a single mother a little easier?  Could it be both?

 

In ten years-The Chronicles of Holly Heisenberg:  It's like Breaking Bad for tweens! 

SHHHHH!  There are enough tween shows out there.

[ShadowFacts]

3 hours ago, Christina said:

Starting with the statement that I understood the issue to be that he removed the wiring, not that he was reading by kerosene lamp, and that is what caused Hamlin to state that his house was a violation of the housing codes, but I haven't rewatched to confirm that fact.

I'm not sure about that, but I don't think HHM wants it known that their work is being done in these circumstances.  If my lawyer doesn't want to use the internet or a phone in his home, I don't care.  But if he is a virtual recluse and doesn't go in to the office to use modern methods of communication there, then I'm not so keen on him getting work done in an efficient and timely manner.  Aside from the fire hazard, he not only had Jimmy mess with files, he recently let a stranger (Mike) in and then went upstairs, leaving whatever work he had laying around unsecured.  Mike went right in and got info out of his address book.  He's being all around careless and Howard acknowledged that. 

[Hanahope]

I know lawyers who all the time bring home documents and work on them at home.  I don't think Chuck having the documents at home is a problem.  His main issue is that his "condition" could prevent him from being a good advocate for the client in business settings, when he can't control the electricity, etc.  But Chuck did fine at that hearing until the change in address messed him up.  So technically, Chuck seems to be doing fine as a lawyer for his clients.

Yeah, what Jimmy did technically was illegal and wrong, even if for the right reasons.  HHM didn't "need" Mesa Verde, but I've yet to see a lawfirm willingly give up a client just because a now former employee "needs" it more.  Everyone is free to compete for the client.  Who knows, MV may have decided to go back to Kim anyway, after seeing Chuck in action and see his attitude towards Paige.   Kim, I'm sure, could have gotten another job with another firm, if she needed income, or do like Jimmy and get individual clients and work her way into a business practice.

But yes, Chuck's desire to "punish" Jimmy came from a personal animosity, not from any real 'respect for the law', so he did the 'right thing for the wrong reasons.'  Plus, Chuck did have a hand in Jimmy reverting back to "slippin" because he was never frank with Jimmy in the first place.

I did like the scene with Gus and Lydia.  I wonder, though, did the laundry already come with that undergound space?  Otherwise, how did they dig it out/build it with the heavy laundry building/machinery on top?  I have to wonder, how Gus and Lydia met?  We know from BB that LPH was a subsidiary of the German company Lydia worked for, and that a VP was also in on the drug mfg.  So wast LPH bought out/sold to the German company?  Or did Gus meet Lydia and start LPH already originally with the German company?  How did the conversation between Gus and Lydia disclose that one was interested in selling/making drugs and the other would be willing to help facilitate that?  Did the Mexican cartel ever know the involvement of the German company?  I'd love to know this back story more in depth.