Posted by
NOTLEGALROADKILLYET on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 5:49:07 PM
BW has the courtesy to respond to my
handiwork of last night. As I stated I would do, I have brought his comment forward to a regular post for discussion. His post is pretty long, so I will make some quick comments here and individual posts later in the week. My blogging time is limited tonight as I have to go to a mandatory election judge class.
I am impressed that you took the time to address my post. Thank you. Your comments add quality to what I am trying to do.
A few notes. It must be mentioned that I have access to information regarding this case that you do not. I won't get into exactly why this is, only that I can assure you that it is true. I am not surprised. Even so, my methodology is to take the information that is publicly available and comment on that.
With regards to your ongoing argument that Mr. Steiner chose a Jury Trial in this case, the fact is that Barrantine herself chose this course of action, NOT MR. STEINER! So his ethics are not in question here. The truth of this matter is that Mr. Steiner tried many times to gather the information needed to clear Barrantine but she failed, or refused, to even return his call. They never even spoke directly to one another. This is on her, not him as he tried--as was his job--to get the needed information. I took the information at hand, combined it with my experience, and made a reasonable deduction. If we take Steiner and Barrantine totally out of the argument, my point that the legal ethics system does nothing to protect the public from attorneys who run up bills unnecessarily stands. Ethics rules are designed to protect attorneys from the public, not to protect the public from unethical attorneys.
In response to your comment that I have condemned our system of government by stating that I would not get the same representation as did Barrantine--essentially a direct call from the HEAD DA in my defense--perhaps you are correct. But I stand by that statement. If I, a random citizen, called her office with a complaint as common as this one, I would be stunned if she herself addressed my complaint. I would expect her OFFICE to address the issue, but not her personally. Does she not have more pressing issues to address? In this case, since it was her friend--and let's not pretend they are not friends as it seems clear to me they are certainly more than acquaintances since her spouse would likely not represent her Pro Bono if that is all they were--she decided to take the lead. Problem is, she clearly didn't look into the facts of the case prior to this action. Had she, she would have seen that her friend misrepresented the facts of the matter and that she was walking into a hornet's nest by making the call. Tabled for later discussion.
Lastly, her contention that her threat was not directed at Mr. Steiner, but at "collection agencies in general" is comical at best, and, at worst, a flat out lie. If that is what she meant, then that is what she should have said. But she didn't. Once again, poor judgement on her part especially given the fact that she knew she was being recorded. Tabled for later discussion, tonight if I can get to it.
Now, I would agree that the Supreme Court might be making an example out of Mrs. Chambers. But where we part company is that, in my opinion, she has only herself to blame. The ethical questions you have regarding Mr. Steiner and his actions are the facts which you lack and are what I am saying you will see come to light next Monday. The concept of Stare Decisis is both a blessing and a curse to our legal system. Tabled for extensive discussion.
I'll finish by saying that I am not an attorney myself, only an informed citizen with an opinion. I will reiterate though, I am better informed about this case than you are, for at least the time being, so I would simply encourage you to wait until the full facts of the case are disclosed before making a final judgement. In the early 1980's I got an MBA. One method of instruction at the time was the case study method. We were presented a set of facts. No one questioned or was expected to question the case as it was presented. Real life, as we are seeing is a bit different.
Even so, there are many modern examples of trials of very guilty people that are abandoned because to proceed would do more damage to the public than letting the Defendant walk. I strongly believe, and will continue to argue that this is one such trial, guilt or innocence aside.
---------
BW, I am happy for you that the system seems to be working. It troubles me that you doubtless think I am needlessly interfering with your concept of what justice would be in this situation. I sleep well at night, not because I always do right when writing what I write, but because I always try.
I have eight years of examples of system failures. Unless the many people involved in my situation have a warped sense of right and wrong, I doubt they all can say the same (some can).
The necessities of blogging require that I skip around in subjects a bit to keep readership up. I am not dodging your very good and welcome comments, except in the very short term.