Posted by
NOTLEGALROADKILLYET on Sunday, October 08, 2006 12:32:02 PM
Something will be occuring in an almost unknown Denver courtroom
THAT IS IN NO WAY in the public interest. It well serves attorneys and judges, though, and that is what the legal ethics system is all about. Anyone who believes the propaganda that the legal ethics system protects the public hasn't made more than a cursory examination of the system, how it is set up, how it operates, and most important of all, who runs it.
Yesterday, I wrote a too long
article and promised follow on posts. Consider this an educational editorial. DA Carol Chambers will be appearing before Judge Lucero, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge in a court that is a wholely owned subsiderary of the legal profession.
Her "crime" if, indeed the community at large would consider it a crime, is that she allegedly used her office to attempt to protect an identity theft victim who felt that she was being harrassed by a self-described "honest" attorney. Jonathan R. Steiner, esq. was vigroously trying to collect on checks she appears not to have written.
She may also be "guilty" in the eyes of the legal community of a second crime, making a complaint against a judge.
If either of these "crimes" were to appear before a jury that consisted of common citizens,
the jury would deliberate for all of 30 seconds before they broke out in uncontrollable laughter. They would wonder why the source of the problem, attorney Steiner, wasn't also facing discipline. They would see this for what it is, a bold attempt to send a message to every attorney that they had better not rock the boat.
Make no mistake. Even if the complaint were dropped today, as the public interest demands, the message has been sent. DA Chambers has likely been forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars to defend herself against a charge that never should have been made.
This charge would likely never have seen the light of day except that it will be "tried" before what, structurally, comes as close to a
Kangaroo Court as exists in America. It consists of three lawyers, one with the title of "judge." These folks are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court. Their office is funded by that court, including their salaries. They enforce rules made by that court, and their decisions are appealable only to that court. While a jury of common citizens would likely laugh the charges out of court, these three people will take them very seriously. True, they will likely only administer "public censure" as a penalty, but the real penalty will be the $50,000 or so DA Chambers will have spent to get to that point.
When you think of that court, think of union enforcers with baseball bats. They only handle two kinds of issues. They "discipline" attorneys (in this case whether they need it or not) and they go after private citizens who are accused of "practicing law without a license." I find it most curious that when I made the complaint that my opposing attorney was less than truthful to the judge on multiple occassions, these folks had no time, money, or authority to investigate, but when an attorney makes a similar claim, they are all over it. Would union enforcers act any differently? The difference is that these folks act in the name (but not the interest) of the "People" of Colorado. "People vs. Not Legal Roadkill Yet"
Anyone at all curious as to why I would want to strip the Supreme Court of the power to make and enforce ethics rules after reading this? There is much more to come.
------
A vote against Amendment 40, term limits for the Supreme Court, is a vote against your own interest, unless you are an attorney or married to one.
------
I once wrote a
building block post on the Presiding Disciplinary Judge. I'm not happy with it and will be retitleing it and writing another.