Criminal Defense Attorney in Memphis, TN. I make all of that clear to my client so they can be engaged in the process to assist me in their defense.
My goal is to help defendants with excellent legal representation while keeping their finances, their dignity, and their life in order. I am licensed to practice law in Tennessee and California, and what I specialize in is understanding every aspect of the events that led up to my client being charged, counseling my client in as many aspects of the process as possible, and listening to every idea
, question, concern, and area of confusion they have relating to their interaction with the criminal justice system. I understand that to deal with the criminal justice system can be a confusing world, where lawyers, judges, and prosecutors use terms and language and rules of evidence and procedure that are bewildering to outsiders. Why is that important? Because I was not there when the events happened leading to their arrest, and because of that, my client needs to be able take as much of a role as they are able to in fighting their charge while I defend them. Additionally, I take on the responsibility of independently discovering facts, angles, and elements of the events of the alleged crime to fight the case in ways my client may never anticipate. It often happens, that in the course of my asking client's questions, I learn a fact that was not of consequence to the client, but upon learning it, I realized aspects of the case beneficial to my client that they thought were insignificant.
Operating as usual
201 POPLAR VIRUS UPDATE - no court for out of custody cases until JUNE 1 ... please feel free to contact me but no matter what previous letter or information you have received from the court clerk, there is NO COURT for out of custody cases, they will issue new court dates likely within a week —
Message to all my clients: The Shelby County, TN Criminal Court is currently closed for out of custody cases. Your court date has moved indefinitely. You do have a new court date but no one is sure if it will stay. We are in such a crazy time in history with a life and death situation that the government must be very careful not to make worse by crowding vulnerable citizens into the courthouse. Simply having a court case should not cause you or anyone else to be ill or die. Trump just announced that distancing must go on until May 1.... therefore I am questioning if court business will be up and running on May 1.... You should receive a letter from the court clerk with your new court date. If you need me to verify your court date, please feel free to text me anytime, you have my number. I look forward to seeing you!
As promised, I have finished the Tabitha Gentry documentary by the end of this week. It took probably 100 hours to do over the past two weeks. I will be promoting it and sharing it over the coming weeks.
East Memphis Mansion: The Tabitha Gentry Case
https://vimeo.com/280050967
Here is the video exploring the Tabitha Gentry Case in Memphis, Tennessee.
This video complies with the Fair Use requirements pertaining to the media that is incorporated in the images and videos. This video is for public viewing, and not…
As a preview of the film, two subjects:
1. Tabitha Gentry's case arguably encompasses several different areas of law. Those areas are criminal law, civil law, constitutional law, property law, and since she was convicted of stealing from a bank, the film explores very briefly corporate law. For those reasons, this is a very interesting case.
2. Here are some images of the editing of the documentary, that are from one part of the film. In it, you see a mug shot of a man, and another picture of a man and a woman.
The man in the mugshot is Randy Miland. He had already been convicted of two ponzi schemes, serving 5 years total in prison for those crimes, when he was sentenced to 7 years on his 3rd ponzi scheme, where he stole $500,000 from people.
The picture of the man and woman is of William Chaucer, who, in a position of community trust as an owner of several investment firms, stole 11 million dollars, taken from over 200 victims. He was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
Documentary Announcement
Thank you to everyone who has commented on the video. I have enjoyed seeing feedback even if I do not agree with it, so thank you for interacting.
To give some context - I am not a procrastinator. I was the person in college studying long before the test and had papers done days before they were due. Law school was a little different unfortunately because I had a job all three years while attending full time. I worked in college, too, but law school is something else.
Last night, while almost done, I noticed that my film editing software - imovie on mac - was running very slow. Every small change caused the spinning rainbow wheel to show up. I realized I had a ton of clips sitting in the download folder and on my desktop and thought my computer would speed up if I got rid of some space.
In order to get the files into imovie - they have to be "imported" to the program. So, since it is "imported" I concluded that they were a part of the imovie program and could be deleted.
Wrong. When I deleted the files I was using in imovie, it corrupted and ruined the project. I had saved a version on the Mac's external hard drive, "Time Machine," on June 30, but I had probably put in 20 hours of work since that time.
I was able to save the basic flow, so I don't have to start from entirely from scratch, by downloading the ruined film and saving it to an external website - so I have basic product to refer to. It lost almost all the audio and some of the video, which has to be completely re-done.
I set up mac support for imovie and they called today and they were able to actually give me a passcode and view my desktop with me to assess what happened. I was convinced my computer got infected with a virus, but I also noticed the problem happened immediately after the deletions.
The macbook technician was so nice and wonderful, so never hesitate to set up a phone call with them if you have a problem with your mac. It was so much better than having to go to the apple store, to be able to evaluate it with an expert while at home.
The film will be delayed until next week.
As her new appeals attorney, and in preparation of a short documentary that will be released on Independence Day 7/4/2018, I have published to the news media a message to them about the OUTRAGEOUS CONVICTION AND SENTENCE OF TABITHA GENTRY.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPrqfTjtRg&t=44s
Tabitha Gentry was imprisoned for 20 years for squatting for five days in a River Oaks Mansion. The punishment does NOT fit the crime!
*His* superior needs to threaten to remove him from his position if he keeps threatening victims of a natural disaster from saving their own lives and those of their dependents!
An outstanding arrest warrant shouldn't mean you have to choose between staying in the elements and dying -- or staying with family that needs you during a Hurricane.
This is outrageous--
He's garnered major blow-back on social media for the dire warning.
Wonderful. I am so glad he was paroled. This 33 year sentence was outrageous and symbolic, and represented prejudice and bias toward a defendant who was found not guilty of a set of famous murders. That type of underhanded, prejudicial sentencing has no place in the justice system. The people spoke when they found him not guilty, and it's appalling that an activist judge took punishment into her own hands. The vigorous and enthusiastic vote for his parole has done some progress toward righting that wrong.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4715036/OJ-Simpson-parole-hearing-determine-release-prison.html
Orenthal James Simpson will be released from prison this October after four members of the Nevada Parole Board voted unanimously for his release on Thursday afternoon.
This is on 20/20. 33 years for this. Ridiculous. Retribution. Hope he gets out!!!!
http://abcnews.go.com/US/oj-simpson-accomplices-reveal-2007-vegas-hotel-room/story?id=48627950&cid=clicksource_359_3_daypart_dp_hed
What ended up happening in Room 1203 would led to O.J. Simpson and his accomplices facing various charges involving robbery and kidnapping.
Great news, he was a brainwashed kid. What he did was wrong but he should have a chance at parole.
NORFOLK, Va. — A federal judge has tossed out two life sentences for D.C. sniper Lee Boyd Malvo and ordered Virginia courts to hold new sentencing hearings. In a ruling issued Friday, U.S. District…
I hope he gets out. This sentence in my opinion was a sentence that punished him for Nicole and Ron's death. He was found not guilty of that charge.
If you look at the footage and interviews, he acted in a way consistent with a man who felt robbed and ripped off. Maybe he didn't handle it well or legally. I believe the sentence was out of proportion to the crime.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/05/oj-simpson-could-be-released-on-parole-this-year.html
After almost three weeks of problems, still no central leader or spokesperson for the Shelby County Justice System has emerged to bring a voice and organization to the continuing stuggle and it's progress. Not a word, not a peep. No communication. That is amazing, when it seems that leadership is always something that is sought after so a person can make a name for themselves as a leader. It has been just a loose group of people commenting who have some connection to it. This leadership is especially important right now, because the information is so scattered. Some judges have openly stated that they do not believe the system will EVER work and that it will take weeks for that epiphany to occur! Very scary!
Also, people must shying away from a leadership role, because to take on that role opens themselves up to questions as to why they did not stop this from happening in the first place. So bring in someone from the outside! A neutral party, to keep all stakeholders updated. These are the same questions that will come up in litigation.
Can you imagine a situation where software that is used by countless people affecting constitutional rights is simply imposed from the top down? With no widely broadcast public meetings so those affected and who rely on it could have a voice? Who was managing this? Why is it a closed group, chosen with no publicly known objective criteria, that just get to be involved in this? Why treat the legal field and colleagues this way? This is outrageous!
Can you imagine the jail time a citizen would face if they hacked into the court and jail systems and caused this massive blackout of information for weeks? I can't imagine the fines, the jail time, the felonies, the public scorn that person would face. But it's okay for some reason, if it is a completely irresponsible software company, and whomever is project managing this.
There is much about this situation that defies logic. The software company is facing no public anger or disapproval by any one in public office. Why are they being pandered to publicly? Is it some fear that they will stop helping or do a good job if they are held to the fire? Let them! Get the money back! But meanwhile, it's just sarcastically stated by public officials that citizens just need to not be arrested right now. So, let me get this straight, the government is allowed to stop respecting rights required by law because of "software," while asking people to respect the law?
This software debacle is being desribed with words as though it is a natural disaster. Words like "triage" are thrown around. I was in New Orleans after Katrina, and I'm familiar with the word "triage" and when it's use is appropriate. It should not be borrowed to make it seem like this was an unavoidable cataclysm. It wasn't. This was no natural disaster. A natural disaster by definition is not caused by software programs. Software programs only exist in the absence of a natural disaster. This was not an "accident," this was essentially malpractice.
The court clerks at the Shelby County Justice system are worth their weight in gold. They knew the old system like the back of their hands. They were, and are amazing and and to see their frustration, is frankly heart-breaking.
It was especially galling ot me to see a "training session" for the journalists and the media. Would the public like to know that NO such session was set up for attorneys who have used the same system for YEARS? Journalists don't work down there, they do not take an oath to protect constitutional rights. And yet, they are treated to a dog and pony show on how to use the system. No such training session has been open to any attorneys.
If anything I have said here is wrong, then that only goes back to my original point. The leadership vaccuum is very real, and very troubling. 10 million dollars spent, and everyone affected deserved much, much better.
As a criminal defense attorney who has handled over a thousand domestic assault cases, this does not surprise me at all.
The system is rigged to make men out to be monsters. Such bias has no place in an impartial justice system. When women figure out the system is biased against men anytime a mere allegation of abuse is made, they use that power to abuse and terrorize men.
She allegedly tried to squeeze him for $50,000.
JUSTICE
Marissa Alexander, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing a single shot toward her husband, was freed as part of a plea deal.
This is another video that aptly sums up the role of a defense attorney. Clients have either one attorney, or one firm, defending them from a multi-pronged attack from the many resources of the government. Or, in civil litigation, one attorney, up against a powerful interest or powerful firm with limitless resources.
Of the many realities I am curious about, one is the "firm with dubious aims that facilitates the suppression of the less powerful." Shameful that the law firm I referenced below, in the Lou Dobbs clip, used its resources to undercut American workers. That's fascinating to me. "As attorneys, let's wake up with incredibly un-idealistic endeavors to aspire to each day." Unimaginable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZUBC1SSWN8
Female Wildebeest vigorously defends calf
When It Feels Like Betrayal
I always try to think of behavior in terms of how my client perceives it.
Sometimes, I engage in a behavior that feels like it could be perceived as betrayal.
What behavior?
When talking with the state about a case, with the client waiting to meet with me, the state prosecutor and I may talk with each other. It's not uncommon to laugh or discuss things with a prosecutor in a friendly, congenial way.
But imagine what that feels like to a defendant, who is feeling stress, anxiety, and that the entire government is against them. There they are, and they have hired a lawyer, who is being friendly and personable with a representative of this entity.
Sometimes I catch myself in this kind of scenerio and it always gives me pause. Does it look like the two of us are in some inner circle, secretly dismissive of the person at the center of the prosecution? I've wondered on many occasions. But, in other respects, clients have hired a professional, and the government's prosecutor is simply "doing their job." To be at each other's throats without moderation is counter-productive, and can limit open discussions about the case, the evidence, and the defendant's position.
I hope my clients know that this side of me, aptly represented by the clip below, is never far beneath the surface, if I feel that due process, constitutional rights, or the defendant's right to be treated fairly, and their voice heard, is being violated.
The state has the full power of the government behind them, and the defense has one obligation: to represent and defend their client and ensure they are protected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o974Zj_qVMQ
Cougar vs Grizzly Bear
Here is another "greyhound therapy" article (relating to the post I just published below) that to me, sounded like satire - but it's a real article! It sounded like satire, because if you know anything about Aspen, it has a bunch of rich people. I can almost see it like an SNL skit: the rich people in Aspen are like, "What can we do with our one homeless person?" Someone pipes up: "Bus ticket to South Dakota!" (nods of agreement all around).
http://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/homeless-aspen-man-given-bus-ticket-to-north-dakota/article_9adfdf22-2cf6-11e1-a011-0019bb2963f4.html
Jimmy Baldwin wanted work. North Dakota has jobs. The former California man who had been camping in Aspen, Colo., was willing to hitchhike to North Dakota, so a homeless shelter
Fascinating Case:
Did you know California sued Nevada over "Greyhound Therapy?"
"Greyhound Therapy" is the practice of giving free bus vouchers to homeless people.
A mental health hospital in Nevada sent some homeless patients on a Greyhound to San Francisco upon their release. The discharged patients were given "care packages" of food (and Ensure), and psychiatric medicine and sent packing.
When these homeless people disembarked, disoriented and with little resources save for some instructions on how to get to a San Francisco hospital or in some cases, instructions to "Dial 911" upon arrival, authorities in San Francisco caught wind of it, investigated, and decided to sue Nevada.
I know a little about this because I spent some time in Sacramento working with homeless, or indigent, individuals in a law internship after passing the California bar. I was made immediately aware that a common practice, if not a daily one, is to give, indiscriminately, visitors to local homeless shelters bus passes. I did not ever learn if they were to anywhere in the country, but it was clear that were to anywhere in California. The thinking goes, "this bus pass will get them to relatives or people who can help them." I.E., mobility allows access to anyplace potentially better than where they are. In researching this issue, one homeless advocate asked, "How is this helping people? You are operating on the assumption that people that know them WANT or have the resources to help them. If that were the case, wouldn't they already be with them?" Although more complicated than that, it is a fair question.
So, what about the court case? The federal lawsuit filed by San Francisco's attorney general was one I expected to be a bruising indictment. I expected something very fact specific and damning. I was disappointed. It was incredibly boilerplate and written in general terms. The lawsuit alleges constitutional issues that are so prevalent in common parlance that the lawsuit filed is not hard to read or comprehend. And that's saying something!
The one conclusion I drew, which may be naive, is that California did it as a public relations gesture to embarrass Nevada and draw attention to the practice. The reason I came up with this theory is that it is SUCH a common practice in California to do that to it's own residents! I don't want to gloss over one distinction: I witnessed available vouchers in homeless shelters, not as part of a discharge package from a hospital. But, it's not a far leap to make. It's not a far leap because there is a certain part of the homeless population, the indigent, are in and out of psychiatric institutions oftentimes.
Which brings up the next issue, relating to the lawsuit: if it is not uncommon for certain segments of the homeless population to go in and out of a hospital, psychiatric or not, who is to say that they must be kept indefinitely? If they cannot be kept indefinitely, what is wrong with providing them with a free bus pass to anywhere they want to go? (People have a constitutional right not to be confined against their will! I sat in on several such hospital administrative proceedings addressing that very question pertaining to hospitalized homeless individuals).
The final irony?
The final irony is that the people sent to San Francisco by Nevada are now in decent lodgings, with a stipend, in addition to a food stamp card. They are, in fact, doing well. So, with that said, are they sorry they ended up in San Francisco? I have to think that the patients are not.
I did a little more digging and learned that Nevada has led the charge on reducing the budgets of state mental hospitals. A side by side comparison of the California state budget for the indigent and psychiatrically committed with Nevada's is astonishing. Nevada has far fewer resources. So, it's hard to not to sympathize with the Nevada professionals who said, "We have no way to take care of these people. California does."
Over the past five years, Nevada's primary state psychiatric hospital has put hundreds of mentally ill patients on Greyhound buses and sent them to cities and towns across America.
A few posts ago, I talked about the travesty of serial killer Aileen Wuornos' sentencing and her lawyer, "Dr. Legal," who advised her to state she'd found Jesus, accepted responsibility, and wanted to plead open to the court. "Pleading open to the court," or as the video is titled, "No Contest," is pleading guilty to the judge with no plea deal agreed on between the state and the defense. The usual process is either an agreed upon plea deal with the state, who is prosecuting the defendant, or a trial. There is little value in pleading open to the court. When you plead open to the court, the judge decides the sentence, and can sentence the maximum allowable under the law for that crime. To conclude, that is why an agreed upon deal with the state is considered ideal, and if that cannot happen, a trial.
That is to explain why this was not a good strategy. Florida is a death penalty state, and she was pleading open to the court to murder.
As I described in the previous post, you can see in this clip from Nick Broomfield's documentary on Wuornos, the scene in the courtroom as Wuornos plead open to the court, and her horrified response to being sentenced to death. That is just one small example of her attorney's incompetence. It's impossible to predict what a defendant will do in court with all the preparation an attorney can provide, but her shock at being sentenced to death seems genuine and raw, which suggests her incompetent attorney did not prepare her for what was by all accounts, a foregone conclusion. She does say she is prepared to die, but the full documentary (not seen in this short clip) expounds on how she was led to believe if she took responsibility, she would get mercy. Obviously, by watching, you can see how well that advice worked out for her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_f6m41UVIE
Taken from the documentary "Aileen Wuornos: The Selling of a Serial Killer" (1992)
Vincent Bugliosi: If I hadn't been reading his book "Outrage" on a Kindle, I would have thrown it across the room.
I did not come to my appreciating of Bugliosi easily, but I came to it honestly.
When I first cracked open his book on the OJ Simpson trial, "Outrage," I found his style so off-putting, I stopped reading it for weeks. It was so aggressive, angry, critical, unrelenting, and unforgiving. WHO WANTS TO READ THAT? I put it down. I wanted more of a less antagonistic analysis of the trial. I had not anticipated that.
For some reason, I picked it back up a few weeks later and gave it another shot. And then, I found I could not put it down. What happened is, I guess I opened up to his style. I realized that he really does an absolutely stellar job with the book, once I adjusted to his style. He makes great points, he doesn't take the lazy way out.
There are no videos of Bugliosi in action, except for this "mock trial" over the assassination of JFK. Yes, this is the same man who wrote the book, was my thought upon, again, seeing his aggressive unrelenting style. He is a formidable advocate - a wonderful advocate. If I were coaching him, I would soften him up just slightly. He has to be himself, he has to be Vincent Bugliosi, but I would take some of the sharpness away and let his oratory elevate above all else. As is, it's very sharp and that's something that sticks out above all else. He begins at about the 7:30 mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYHsicxdQg
WATCH ALL 23 PARTS HERE: http://YouTube.com/playlist?list=PL0O5WNzrZqIOubam491Q_OKBOBzfH7RDi --------------------- Part 1 of 23. "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD...
Did you know that criminal defense attorneys are "law enforcement" as well?
Isn't that a somewhat surprising claim considering the way defense attorneys are viewed as trying to "get clients off" and escape justice?
But that's truly the most superficial of stances. Defense attorneys are sworn to protect the United States Constitution, and in my case, the constitution of both Tennessee and California, the states I've made an oath to uphold the law. Indeed, in the oath I took, the video of which is posted just prior to my posting this, you hear me recite those very words. When a defense attorney frees a man from death row based on a flawed trial or hidden evidence that finally makes its way to the light of day, or a defense attorney proves certain charges to be baseless or the treatment of a suspect to be unconstitutional, that attorney is certainly acting in a "law enforcement" role. A defense attorney, no less than the prosecution, is acting to protect, defend, and enforce, the laws of the PEOPLE.
Classic Vincent Bugliosi below. I don't know the man, but I respect him unfalteringly. He makes an argument for The Defense, and in so doing, supports the fair administration of justice. He even goes so far as to promote the right way to be a defense attorney by describing "what any attorney worth his salt" will do. Bugliosi doesn't want a dirty victory. He's on the side of blind justice.
"Any attorney worth his salt is going to demand a considerable time to review all the evidence so that he can put on a meaningful defense - you just can't do that by March 30."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPzZlDWZTEI
Vince Bugliosi the DA Los Angeles Courthouse hall 1970 Helter Skelter Charles Manson Family
Clarification: Two things stated below remind me something needs to be explained.
I don't write exclusively from a "criminal defense" standpoint. I have been unclear in that I will weave in, without transition, what societal norms are that don't necessarily reflect MY exact thoughts.
First instance: In discussing "And the Sea Will Tell" I asked, "Who runs when they are innocent?" I believe innocent people "act guilty" all the time! But, what does a law abiding citizen, not under stress, think? They probably think, without further evidence, that someone who is innocent does not run. Bugliosi (the lawyer referenced in the post below about the surprising victory he scored) obviously thought this woman was innocent -and he knew she ran (among other foolish behaviors) and he STILL was convinced she did not murder anyone. I only asked that rhetorically to show he had an uphill battle.
Second instance: I stated that criminal defense is important in part because the horrible representation that Aileen Wuornos received was not good because it subordinated the victims suffering to the question of attorney competence. If I were looking for representation, I would pause if my attorney seemed concerned with making the "victims" the central focus of a case, rather than myself, as the defendant. A criminal defense lawyer's only focus is on his client within the parameters of his ethical duties.
So when I spoke of Wuornos in that way, I was speaking not as a criminal defense lawyer, but for the good of all of society, from the standpoint of "The United States justice system is the worst in the world- except for all the others." There are a myriad of tangible and intangible benefits of the US Justice System. That comment was only to say - you can despise criminal defense lawyers, and think they are "scum" all you want - but take a look at what happens to the victims when bad defense lawyers represent a client - a result few victim advocates would want. That comment was more legal philosophy, unrelated to a criminal defense role.
Before I begin the process of moving, one additional post.
I attempted to impugn Bugliosi's assertion that he "only defended the innocent." While I don't agree with it, it is my understanding that he never lost a case he defended.
One intriguing victory is recounted in his book "And the Sea Will Tell."
The upshot of that victory is that he was instrumental in scoring a "not guilty" in a murder that occurred on a tropical, remote island.
His client, it is undisputed, was with her husband (who was found guilty) when a fellow island-goer was murdered. The island was uninhabited except for Bugliosi's client, her husband, and another couple. The other couple disappeared, and his client and her husband were found on the couple's luxurious boat.
Her behavior was highly suspicious. When she and her husband docked in California with the couple's boat, she was captured after running from the boat to escape the authorities. That is just ONE of her actions that was considered highly indicative of guilt. Who runs when they are innocent?
Nonetheless, at the conclusion of the trial, after piecing together slender, seemingly inconsequential pieces of fragile straw, Bugliosi had constructed a broom of innocence.
The book includes a lot of Bugliosi's thoughts. One of them that I will paraphrase is that while he was convinced his client was innocent, she barely assisted in her own defense. He compiled lists of questions for her to answer, and had to hound her to even look at them, much less answer them.
When he saved her from a life of prison, she didn't thank him. At the after-trial dinner, the only thing she had to say was a criticism of one minor comment he made during the conclusion of the trial that she did not agree with. That was her verbal commentary after the trial.
He was happy that he won her trial, but stated she was one of the oddest people that he could not figure out.
Several weeks after the trial, however, he received a thank-you note for her.
Bugliosi was a handsome man, but to see pictures of him in his later years, the stress of the job seems to have taken its toll. Its not hard to imagine why. He worked himself into the ground.
Memphis, TN
38112
| Monday | 8am - 5pm |
| Tuesday | 8am - 5pm |
| Wednesday | 8am - 5pm |
| Thursday | 8am - 5pm |
| Friday | 8am - 5pm |
Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Kathryn DeRossitt, Attorney at Law posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.
R. Price Harris, Attorney at Law
Washington AvenueLaw Office Of Kenneth W. Brashier
N B. B. King Boulevard 2nd FloorThe Claiborne Ferguson Law Firm, P.A.
Washington AvenueJack P Sherman Attorney at Law
Jefferson Avenue
Law Office of J. M. Dowdy, PLLC.
Poplar Avenue
River Law Group, PC - Memphis Criminal Defens
Poplar Avenue
Rosenblum & Reisman, Attorneys at Law
Poplar Avenue
The Claiborne Ferguson Law Firm, P.A.
Washington Avenue
The Law Office of J. Jeffrey Lee
Madison Avenue
Bailey & Bailey Law Firm: Ta**us Bailey, Atto
N Second Street
Ruchee J. Patel - Attorney 901Law
Peabody Place