Posted by
NOTLEGALROADKILLYET on Monday, October 16, 2006 11:33:29 PM
I missed BA's comment on Friday to my
So Much to Do, So Little Time post. I always prefer critical comments to positive comments because they give me a chance to sharpen my argument, and make points more clear than they might otherwise be. I intend to be respectful of the comments, and hope I meet that objective.
Before we begin with BA's comments, I would like him and everyone who has not done so to read my two featured posts. BA is not the first person to come into my world, my blog, and not realize what I intend to be about. Blogs are dangerous because a new reader can, in effect, walk into a fully developed conversation, hear a comment, and not have any idea of its context.
Here goes: BA's comments are in italics.
Would seem you do quite a bit of "wondering" here, especially since you have none of the facts of the case save what has been printed in the local press. That is not much to go on. I am amazed at how much I have to go on. Even so, it almost doesn't matter what the facts are, or if the reporters got them right. I am treating this as an editorial project, commenting only on the information presented, and I have tried to make that very clear. It isn't my job to verify the "facts."
In this case, the issue at hand is not the actions of Mr. Steiner at all. I disagree. I may be doing this backwards, but I believe that if Steiner hadn't been using the tactics he was using, Barrantine wouldn't have complained to Chambers. I fully agree that the facts as presented by the News and the Post indicate that Steiner did nothing unlawful or unethical. It is my strong opinion that that is more because the legal profession protects questionable attorney practices than whether his actions were right or wrong. I have acted as my own attorney in at least a half dozen small claims cases (plaintiff) and won every one. I know exactly how cheap and easy that system is to use. When I made my $1500 estimate, I assumed Steiner was using Small Claims. Small Claims Courts do not have juries, and the reported argument over jury instructions indicates to me that Steiner was filing his case in District Court where he could collect substantial attorneys fees. Is that unethical? No. Should it be? Yes.
Since exactly none of the facts regarding his specific actions with regards to the identity theft victim--such as the fact that she never returned any of his calls regarding the matter thus giving him little choice but to be "aggressive;--it is strange that you would choose to focus your ire on him. When you use the word "ire," you strongly imply that I am taking this personally. I am not. I am treating it as an academic exercise. I was presented a set of "facts" and made my comments based on those "facts." Your late assertion that "she never returned any of his calls" appears to be contradicted by the Post article which purports to relate a conversation between the two of them.
The fact is, a DA of this state placed a direct call to an attorney and had the unbelievable lack of sense to leave a VOICE MAIL threatening a Grand Jury investigation into the actions of Mr. Steiner. This is where you and I part company. I honestly would not care if Chambers had gone to Invesco Field and made the threat over the PA system halfway through the third quarter. For the sake of argument, I want to use the word "criminal" without impugning Mr. Stiener. I WANT DA's to feel free to go after active criminals so as to discourage further criminal activity. I don't want criminals to be able to go into or drag out litigation as a mechanism for avoiding criminal prosecution. If you think that can't or doesn't happen, come back to this blog in a few months, as I plan to discuss exactly that scenario. MY GREATEST FEAR is that this "prosecution" will send a message that I strongly object to.
She did this on behalf of an "acquaintance", not a "friend", and says she would do the same for anyone else--although that is something I doubt. You realize that you have just condemned our whole system of government with that last phrase. Unfortunately, my personal experience suggests that you are more correct than you know. If you review this blog, you will discover that I am active in politics. Without going into detail, some mighty strange things have happened to me over the seven years I have been litigating, and the official police response has been counterproductive. My attorney is aware of what has been going on, of course. When I became politically active this spring, his exact words were "if you had done this years ago, much of what has happened to you probably wouldn't have happened." You are saying the system is broken. I agree. I am at least trying to do something about it. You?
My point is, why would someone in her position EVER have the lack of common sense to even put herself in this position? Even the appearance of her favoring an acquaintance--one who was being represented for free by her husband no less--deserves attention. Once again, we part company. I am very much opposed to public officials benefiting from their own actions. You seem to admit that there was no monetary benefit accruing to the Chambers household. I would suggest that by acting Pro Bono, he may have been negatively impacting his family income. While this clearly carries no weight with you, it carries a lot of weight with me. In military terms, your axe is her shield. Find another axe.
For this she has nobody but herself to blame since she is the one who chose to leave her "threat" on a recording which could be shared with the world. I think the biggest question is, how many times has she done something similar without leaving behind evidence of her actions? Once again, we part company. I want her to be free to intimidate active criminals who happen to be litigants and if the cost of that freedom is that an occasional overzealous attorney is "intimidated," I consider that a very small price to pay. I think most Coloradan's would agree.
My suggestion to you is to make yourself a bit more acquainted with the facts from both sides of the case before passing out judgement. On the 23rd of this month I think you will find there was just a bit more to this case than you present in this forum. Ah, a suggestion with a small hint of contempt, but only a small hint. Let me offer you a suggestion in return, with no contempt. I would be honored to have you as a debating partner as I slog through these issues. It would help me sharpen my arguments. If you convince me I am wrong on an issue, I will freely admit it. Begin at the beginning of my blog and comment on any issue you see. I will bring the comment forward with the appropriate links. At the least, it will be a good intellectual exercise.
As to the 23rd, I think the whole exercise has the smell of an attempt by the legal ethics machinery to act on a "union" enforcing scheme. When the prosecutor announces "People v. Chambers" he/she should know that I am not one of the "people" the action claims to represent. I vigorously object.
But who knows, perhaps the prosecutor can prove that Chambers profited, or that the identity theft victim wasn't a victim at all. Either of those two proofs, and nothing else, would make me back down.
I have attempted to treat your arguments with respect. I skipped some sentences because I thought I had addressed them earlier. If you disagree, say so, please. Again, thank you for your comment.
-----
I could link this to death, but it seems so much easier to suggest that you go back to my so little time post and work forward. I will link the Post article.
-----
For historians: This post discusses DA Carol Chamber's misadventures with Colorado's Attorney Regulation and Presiding Disciplinary Judge concerning a threat to an attorney.