The Smearing of Subodh
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 9:14am.
I knew a time would come in the AG race when I would have to write this. The rumblings under the surface were always going to boil over, and in the last few days they did. First in a Vindy piece and then in the comments here at BSB. It's time we addressed a few issues that have gone largely unspoken.
Let us address the simple smear first as it is seen in the comments here.
Tim, you’re not the only one who has picked up on this arrogance. A lot of lawyers in Cleveland have stories about Subodh’s lack of respect for those who didn’t graduate from a top-tier school or don’t have white-shoe firm experience. Does that make him a bad candidate? I don’t think so. But it does make him one of “those guys” and a lot of lawyers resent him for that.
When challenged of course it's just a "some people say" accusation, much like Dann's rhetorical trick of mentioning Chandra's educational background - and then making it an issue as if Chandra was running on it when in fact he barely mentions it. Now this isn't a smear that reaches to the same level of someone whispering war crimes about a vet - but it's purpose is the same, to attack an opponents strength with unsubstantiated innuendo.
It's an easy game to play. Some people say that Subodh Chandra's race and name is a reason folks should not support him. Is this racist or just real politik ? I don't know, but it's something i have heard from a lot of people and something Chandra addresses at the top of every speech (Subodh - Rhymes with adobe). What I do know is that it sickens me that someones skin color and name can be used as a negative rather than the content of their character. Those who use Subodh's ethnicity as some rational ought to be fucking ashamed of themselves - if they are not, I have enough shame for them to go around.
But this really isn't the substance of the smear or the attack. Some whiny ass titty babies are all woozy over Chandra calling Dann a divorce attorney, and for not offering to support Dann if he wins the primary. It's easy to arrive at this place if you aren't furnished with all the facts, but once you are, I think Chandra becomes an even more appealing candidate.
What Chandra has been doing is making subtle hints, both with his rhetoric and even his massive personal disclosure. Chandra has been holding back.
Democrats, mistakenly have downplayed Dann's Supreme Court reprimand, and Republicans, wrongly, have used it as a ethical club. It's niether. If you take the time to read the details it is quite simply and bluntly - incompetence.
[**P2] The parties agreed that in 2002, respondent represented a client subject to a qualified domestic rela-tions order ("QDRO") that provided for the client's ex-wife to receive $3,000 in the client's pension benefits, payable in monthly installments of $200. The client paid respondent $250 to see whether an arrangement could be made wherein the client would pay the $3,000 in a lump sum, instead of withholding monthly. Respondent accepted the $250 fee and deposited the $3,000 in his law firm's trust account.
[**P3] [***429] Respondent attempted to contact the ex--wife in writing on June 4 and 11, 2002. Two weeks
later, respondent filed a motion to terminate spousal support, rather than to arrange the lump--sum satisfaction of the QDRO. In fact, no spousal support order existed.
[**P4] More confusion ensued. When respondent did reach the ex--wife, he asked her to come to his of-
fice, sign papers to terminate the QRDO, and be paid the $3,000 sum. The ex--wife went to respondent's office, but apparently his staff did not provide papers for her to sign. Respondent later advised his client, believing it to be true, that the ex--wife had signed the requisite agreement. He then compounded the confusion by waiting until July 23, 2002, at the hearing on the spousal support motion, to explain to the client and ex--wife what was going on.
[**P5] The court dismissed the erroneously filed motion to terminate spousal support, and after the hearing,
the client discharged respondent. Respondent returned $2,940 to the client by a check drawn from his client trust
You can read the entire report here, it isn't much more than this snippet.
This isn't some mild rebuke. In 2004 (the year Dann was reprimanded), there were over 40,000 attorneys in Ohio, and only 3 public reprimands. You wouldnt get a top notch law job with this on your record.
Were this the only instance we might want to overlook it for political expediency, but sadly it isn't and the next case is far more egregious.
Marc Dann and his law firm represented a man who they plea bargained 4 months in jail - for a crime that didn't exist. Yes, you read that right. Worse still Dann engaged in ex-parte conversations with the judge - Gysegem.
Warren, Ohio--A gay man jailed for breaking a nonexistent sex law is suing the people involved, including a candidate for Ohio attorney general.Keith Phillips of Youngstown filed suit March 22 against his former attorney Benjamin Joltin, Warren Municipal Judge Thomas P. Gysegem and Wayne Trimble, one of his accusers.
He is also suing Joltin’s boss, state senator and Democratic attorney general candidate Marc Dann.
The Eleventh Ohio District Court of Appeals opened the way for the suit in December when it cleared Phillips of all wrongdoing in the case.
Phillips, 19 at the time, was convicted twice in 2003 of violating Ohio’s importuning law, which had been struck down by the Ohio Supreme Court seven months earlier.
The measure had made it a crime to ask someone of the same sex for sex, if it might offend them. It did not apply to heterosexual situations, which is part of the reason the court found it unconstitutional.
Phillips served four months in jail, and did not discover there was no such law until after he was released.
It gets so much worse.
Dann’s employee Joltin represented Phillips in the second importuning case, and convinced him to take a plea bargain with a jail term after telling him that Gysegem “has a hard-on” to convict him.Phillips says in court papers that Joltin came to that conclusion because Dann had met with Gysegem and counseled him on how to handle the case before giving it to Joltin.
The fraud claim alleges that Dann misrepresented or concealed his firm’s ethical obligation against representing Phillips due to the conflict of interest produced by the one-sided or “ex-parte” meeting with Gysegem.
Instead, when Phillips’ grandmother, Barbara Berndt, approached Dann to represent Phillips, he told her he couldn’t do it himself, then gave it to Joltin.
In subsequent interviews with this publication, Dann used the pronoun “we” to describe decisions that he and Joltin made about representing Phillips.
Dann has repeatedly said that he and Joltin did what they thought was best to give Phillips the least jail time possible.
So not only did Dann fail, he also failed to supervise his employee.
These are separate inquiries- the malpractice suit and the disciplinary complaint Phillips is considering filing with the Ohio Supreme Court. Discipline is likely given the numerous ethical issues involved:
1. Ex parte conversations with the judge- Dann discussed with the judge the appropriate sentence for Phillips. Lawyers (and judges) are prohibited by the ethical rules from having direct one-on-one conversations on a matter before the court. Counsel for Keith Phillips should have been notified. This rule protects parties from one-sided conversations and ensures that the defendant gets due process and a fair trial.
2. Competence- Even if the conversation was permitted (which it was not), Dann advised the judge without researching the charges…. And failed to discover that the crime Phillips was charged with did not exist. This is law school 101, and goes to Dann’s competence as an attorney.
3. Conflict of interest- Dann could not take the case because he had advised the judge. Under Ohio’s ethical rules, if an attorney can’t take a case because of a conflict of interest, no one in his/her firm could take the case. Conflicts are imputed to all members of the firm. Referring Phillips to Joltin was a clear violation.
4. Failure to supervise – Dann failed to supervise his associate Joltin
Dann faces a very real danger of having his license suspended because of this case.
There is more to this story, but this post already has a lot to chew on, so to conclude. What we have is a candidate in Subodh Chandra who has pulled his punches not wanting to damage a fellow Democrat - knowing full well that everyone knew about this - including Betty Montgomery.
We have those who are without these important facts thinking both men are fine candidates and excellent lawyers - which is clearly not the case. There is only 1 excellent lawyer in this race. The other Marc Dann has repeatedly been prone to significant errors and mistakes both personally and in his supervision of those working for him - something we simply cannot afford to have happen in the AG office where the case load is higher and the work more complex and demanding.
Further links in the extended
http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories03/03sep19.htm#story4
http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories03/03nov14.htm#story2
http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories03/03nov21.htm#story5
http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories03/03dec12.htm#story4
http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories04/04apr23.htm#story4
http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories05/march/0325056.htm
http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories05/september/0930053.htm
http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories05/december/1216051.htm
agreed
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 9:59am.
this should be an serious campaign issue in the primary. it is certain to be one in the general should Dann win.
I dont see too many folks voting for someone who gets his client 4 months in jail for non existent crimes - with a SC reprimand on top of it. It's ridiculous.
I agree
Submitted by AmberCat on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:44am.
Despite the fact that Montgomery is way more filthy, Republicans are just so much better at using this type of material.
ALL Subodh said was
Submitted by AmberCat on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:43am.
"I've never been reprimanded or sued for a case I've worked on."
That to me isn't "dismissing him using faux populism." It speaks directly to these specific charges, while pulling punches exactly as mentioned.
I think I'm a little confused about what you are saying. You've attacked Chandra for excessively attacking Dann but now you say you would prefer he spent his entire time allocation detailing the charges against Dann? I personally wouldn't prefer that, and I was aware of the Warren case on Saturday morning, having read the extensive story in the Gay Peoples Chronicle already.
amber, for the last time
Submitted by Tim Russo on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:58am.
listen to the podcast before you make this argument. your comments indicate you haven't. if you keep running off at the mouth about stuff you haven't read or heard, you're just going to continue talking past the issue.
www.meetthebloggers.net
www.meetthebloggers.net
You've lost me now LOL
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:59am.
what you talking about willis ?
Don't you mean the smearing of Dann?
Submitted by modernesquire on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 9:37am.
I don't get the point of your post at all. I mean, the vast majority of your post is to smear Dann, not an attack of the "smearing" of Subdoh.
Second, if that's your case that Subdoh is being "smeared," it's very weak, if not outright non-existent. Calling Subdoh elitist is hardly a smear. What Bryan Flannery said about Strickland a month ago, that was a good ol' fashion smear.
If you can't handle your candidates being called elitist and "doesn't play well with others," then you have a very weak stomach for politics. I hardly consider that a smear and if it were, I can't imagine it's a very effective one.
Besides, from what I read about Dann's tendencies to grandstand, I hardly think his camp should be play the "elitist attack" card. Which, by the way, you can block with a saving roll of +4. Sorry, couldn't resist.
I say this as a supporter of Subdoh: what you are talking about is hardly a smear. And what right do you have to complain about it even if it were one when you make a smear of Dann yourself?
I wouldn't call on public reprimand and the mere allegation of another act of impropriety evidence that "Dann has repeatedly been prone to significant errors and mistakes." (emphasis added.)
It's fine to say that based on these instances Dann doesn't seem to be well-suited to manage the AG's office, but to overblow the significance of these allegations to say that Dann repeatedly been prone to commit legal malpractice seems to be a bit of overplaying your hand.
The facts
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 9:57am.
the facts of this second screw up are not mere allegations. his client DID go to jail for 4 months for a non existent crime. I dont know about you but if that happened to me i would be more than upset with my lawyer.
This isn't a smear at all it is presenting VERY uncomfortable facts that are already in the almost public realm.
Did you ask Dann...
Submitted by NAB4SE on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 9:38am.
about this at MTB? I know I'm just a "whiny ass titty" baby, but I would like to know.
I'm sorry...
Submitted by NAB4SE on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:06am.
Not the right forum? You’ll have to explain that, because it was my understanding that the purpose of MTB was to ask the candidates questions. And it seems that you have some questions about Dann’s ability to do the job. Why didn’t you take the opportunity to ask Dann about these troubling allegations? I’m sure your readers, and followers of MTB, would like to know.
MTB is not about muckraking
Submitted by Tim Russo on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:08am.
it's about substantive issues of policy. if Subodh wanted to make the charge that Dann is incompetent because of these allegations, he needs to make it. it is not the responsibility of MTB interviewers to bring up attack lines on candidates.
Unless
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:10am.
they're Sherrod Brown.
Sorry, couldn't resist Tim.
Sorry, couldn't resist Tim.
Sherrod never did MTB
Submitted by Tim Russo on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:29am.
and if he did, we'd stick to policy and substance as long as Sherrod's unstable personality traits of raging against bloggers for no reason at all, which is the reason he hasn't done the interview, would have allowed.
I'm Sorry
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:38am.
My biggest weakness is that I can't resist a good straight line. When I see an opening I have to pounce.
Brown was foolish for avoiding MTB. I think that it would have helped him alot. You guys have always been super respectful. A real credit to what we're all about.
Brown was foolish for avoiding MTB. I think that it would have helped him alot. You guys have always been super respectful. A real credit to what we're all about.
I'll take this one
Submitted by Jill on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:33am.
Actually, before Sherrod Brown's MTB date was cancelled, I was involved, at least once, in face-to-face conversations with other people who've participated in MTB interviews during which we specifically discussed not having that kind of session with Brown (or anyone who sat for an MTB interview). I promise you, those of us dedicated to not permitting that kind of questioning were extremely adamant about it. There was to be no initiation of conversation that could even lead to personal or opponent-centered attacks. I can't speak for others, but every MTB session I've attended - and you can listen for yourself - has stuck almost 100% to substantive issues that have little to do with opponents, tactics or strategies.
Exactly right
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:40am.
I still think that Sherrod should do MTB.
Isn't one's competence as a lawyer...
Submitted by NAB4SE on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:18am.
a substantive issue in a race for Attorney General?
I think so
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:24am.
hence why I have put this post up. Folks have been saying "both would be great" - obviously that might not be the case - and i am being kind here.
i only attnded the debate
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:09am.
i never went to Dann solo MTB.
So which is it?
Submitted by modernesquire on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:21am.
If it's not a smear, then why wouldn't be appropriate at a forum such as MTB?
I DIdnt attent Danns MTB
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:23am.
to even consider asking him, and at the Debate I certainly didnt think it was the right forum to bring such a topic up - and i am not sure i was even aware of this when Dann did his MTB.
How were comments made about Chandra's . . .
Submitted by Mr. Common Sense on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 9:55am.
. . . elitism a smear? In my postings, I discussed my own personal experience, as well as that of friends of mine who are attorneys and who worked with Chandra. They had negative encounters with him, as did I. That's not smear.
If it were smear, then, similarly, your own disdain for Sherrod Brown over his treatment of you at a party and then discussing it via your blog would be smear. But it's not, Staff. That is your own personal experience, and more power to you for writing about it (ad nauseum).
You also lose significant credibility when you call anyone a "whiny ass titty baby." Not because it's insulting, but because it is so poorly written. What's a "titty baby" anyway?
bull shit
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:03am.
you dropped a steaming pile of crap unattributed in the comments.
My reporting of Brown at the xmas party was atrtributed - BY ME - I was there and i stand by what i saw and heard and have since the day it happened.
folks who complain about a school someone goes to, or trumps up mythical detractors are whinny ass titty babies.
It's a smear
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:04am.
because you provided no details. What exactly did he say?
I can employ the same tactics against Marc Dann and it would have the same lack of value.
You've got nothing substantial to say so you resort to this crap.
The fact that you are so ignorant on the phrase "whiny ass titty baby" puts all of your other comments in a bad light.
I can employ the same tactics against Marc Dann and it would have the same lack of value.
You've got nothing substantial to say so you resort to this crap.
The fact that you are so ignorant on the phrase "whiny ass titty baby" puts all of your other comments in a bad light.
My "ignorance" of an oft-used blogger . . .
Submitted by Mr. Common Sense on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:15am.
. . . phrase puts my comments in a bad light? Good god.
To paraphrase "Billy Madison:"
"Ohio 2nd, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
Watch out
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:17am.
you don't want to come off as a whiny assed titty baby now do you?
really
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:19am.
or are you just dumb because it made perfect sense to me.
if you just float crap about someone out there without any attribution or substance it is in fact a smear - not the most sophisticated kind but one all the same.
anyway - keep on topic and off personal...
Staff, you're the one making personal attacks . . .
Submitted by Mr. Common Sense on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:26am.
. . . on Marc Dann. Not me. You make broad generalizations about Dann's legal practice based on mere allegations. That would seem to be a personal attack.
Further, I stated that myself, and others, have dealt with Chandra at events in Cleveland and experienced his arrogance and dismissive attitude. That is my personal experience and my telling you about it is exactly the same as your telling me about your experience with Sherrod Brown at a party. They hold equal weight, whether it be very little or very much.
Please heed your own advice, Staff. You have the tendency to rip into a person personally when you disagree with his or her opinion on an issue. It's hypocritical to criticize another for a tactic that you employ all too often.
oh bullshit
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:32am.
his reprimand is not a mere allegation.
his client going to jail for a non existent crime is not a mere allegation
Both are substantive on the record facts.
This isnt a personal attack. I am talking about his professional record. You do understand the difference right ? If i called him smelly or a womanizer or such that would be personal.
As for your claims
I can attest to Chandra's behavior at political functions back when he was the Law Director on Cleveland. He was arrogant and dismissive. Further, I have enough friends who are attorneys who have said that in legal circles in Cleveland, Chandra is not well-liked because of his elitist attitude.
You did far more than present your own anonymous recollection. Gimme a name. Just one and i will call them.
My reporting of the Brown party was also supported by EVERY SINLGE other blogger there.
Equal weight ? you wish.
I think his comments were arrogant,
Submitted by NAB4SE on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:17am.
Russo though other comments were arrogant, MR.C.S. thinks he's arrogant because of his own interactions w/ Chandra. I know other people who live in Cleveland and are lawyers and actually had some professional interaction with Chandra and think he's arrogant. Do you want me to list them all? Will you know any of them? Will you track them down to verify my information? Chandra has a reputation in his home town (where I don't believe you live) as being arrogant. I thought his comments were indicative of such an attitude, as did Russo and Mr. C.S. You know, in court, evidence of one’s reputation in the community is 100% admissible. I don’t know why you get so upset by all of this.
Oh, and Mr.C.S.’s unfamiliarity with the genesis of “whiny ass titty babies,” in my mind, provides him with much more credibility. Makes me think that maybe he actually goes to work during the day.nice try
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:21am.
go look up your comments again.
If you want to say he is arrogant that is fine - but you didnt do that -
Tim, you’re not the only one who has picked up on this arrogance. A lot of lawyers in Cleveland have stories about Subodh’s lack of respect for those who didn’t graduate from a top-tier school or don’t have white-shoe firm experience. Does that make him a bad candidate? I don’t think so. But it does make him one of “those guys” and a lot of lawyers resent him for that.
That is your entire comment twisty. No where did you say YOU thought he was arrogant you said "a lot of lawyers" and still havent named a single one.
Just gimme 1 name and I will call them. If there are so many openly flapping their gums to you surely one will go on record ?
This is what you're upset about?
Submitted by NAB4SE on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:45am.
Maybe I was playing a little legal inside baseball, but for those of us who went to law school, this is a very defined type of personality. Almost something like a term of art that might not be readily apparent to the layperson. In legal communities everywhere, there are “those guys” who went to the “right” schools and worked for the “right” firms; some of whom have a very holier than thou attitude. Chandra has a reputation in Cleveland for being this way. I kept my mouth shut about this up until now because I like him and I think he’d be a good AG. But, when he spoke about Dann filling a need by doing his legal work, it reeked of elitism. If you went to law school, you know exactly what I’m talking about. So, once it was brought up by Russo, I injected into the conversation what I knew. That you want me to out these lawyers is incredible. It’s his reputation. That’s what people say. I’m not betraying confidences that could injure their careers just to appease a guy with a Chandra banner on his site. I just wanted Tim, who I know went to law school and would know what I was talking about, to know that his perception was not a radical one.
you are arrogant!
Submitted by plunderbund on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:51am.
sure, had to throw in that "for those of US who went to law school" comment. so you went to law school and are better than all of us now? how arrogant!
i am of course kidding...my sarcasm meter is up too high today. lol.
"You better get politics or politics will get you" - my grandmother
i am of course kidding...my sarcasm meter is up too high today. lol.
"You better get politics or politics will get you" - my grandmother
"Us" and "Them," Plunderbund.
Submitted by Mr. Common Sense on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:54am.
They're just rubbing their law degrees in our faces!!
Kidding.
Bullshit again
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:54am.
I dont know how often you have to be called on this.
Give a name of one of these masses of lawyers - or stick to your own personal knowledge or opinion.
All of a sudden your mythical lawyer buddies aren't just bad mouthing him it has morphed into a "reputation"
The fact of the matter is you cannot name anyone otherwise you would. If this was such common knowledge as you assert there should be at least one person who would go on the record. Put your own name on the record.
Still waiting...
Submitted by NAB4SE on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:59am.
to hear who told you about Blackwell dropping out the race. When I hear a name, I'll give you three lawyers' names who think Subodh is arrogant.
Bog difference there buddy
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 11:01am.
that wasnt a character attack - unlike what you are doing which is making specific allegations - nice try.
Gimme a name of a lawyer who thinks Subodh is arrogant.
Some support
Submitted by Jill on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:54am.
Having also gone to law school AND being rejected from Yale (and growing up with Yale in my backyard and working there, as did my mother), yes, what you say is true about that sense between "those guys" (and GALS I might add) and anyone who isn't a those guy.
BUT, each of "those guys" chooses for him or herself as to how they behave, professionally and personally. They can choose to or have a demeanor that doesn't play up to the fact that they might be one of those guys.
As for Subodh, I suspect, and am happy for him, to probably have always been a confident person who exudes confidence. No one should be attacked for having such self-confidence. It comes from being who he is, not just from having gone to Yale - if it comes from that at all.
Such confidence becomes offensive when it's used to berate or belittle others.
IMHO, I think Subodh has very carefully drawn the line right on top of the fence, I do not think he's crossed it. Dann raised the school issue at the MTB debate. I perceived Subodh's comments as pointing to Dann's range of experience, in attempt to say, you want to choose between us based on something factual and rationale? Here you go.
I'm not saying that it's crazy for someone to perceive Subodh as having crossed the line, but I don't think he has. It would be WAY too easy to do that, and I really don't think Subodh is interested in that kind of tactic. It's just too low.
Bottom Line
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:58am.
Let's call this what it is: prejudice. When minorities and women excel in roles that are dominated by White males many White males call them names: Bitch, uppity, elitist, arrogant.
We see this time and time again. We are seeing it with NAB4SE. For me this sort of crap is nothing more than race baiting.
It's funny that you would intimate that..
Submitted by NAB4SE on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 11:00am.
I am a racist without having any idea what color my skin is.
Are you an indian ?
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 11:03am.
or of Indian decent ?
We could clear this up right now. Be the first thing you have cleared up in this entire debate.
staff,
Submitted by NAB4SE on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 11:18am.
honestly, I thought I'd get some support from you. But, instead, you actually CARE about the color of my skin. For your information, my race is mixed. What that means to any of you is beyond me. I guess, being educated, from the North, and having grown up in a family where race was not in the least bit important, I can’t see how Chandra’s race is front and center in this campaign. Yet, those who actually support him made it so on this site. Seems ironic to me. Even more so when it’s used to quiet a dissenting voice on a site that “was created to allow a full and free discussion of Ohio Politics.” Well, you’ve won. You won’t be hearing from me anymore.
They come in all flavors
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 11:04am.
The color of your skin doesn't matter.
Race is front and center in this race. The line of your attack plays right into it.
Race is front and center in this race. The line of your attack plays right into it.
Moreover...
Submitted by NAB4SE on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 11:06am.
where's your evidence. You can't keep your heart in your chest when I suggest that Chandra has a reputation for being arrogant in Cleveland - an assertion that I believe is supported by his comments - because I don't cite to the Martindale directory. But yet you'll just about call me a racist - not a term I take lightly - based on what? Any facts? I think you've done more to damage your own reputation than mine.
QUACK QUACK
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 11:12am.
Whisper campaigns. Anonymous trolls. He's uppity... he's elitist... he's arrogant. "People" say this. "People" say that.
I maintain that those people say that because they are racist and have a problem with a non White Male in a leadership position. PROVE ME WRONG. You make the attack. I counter. My counter has the weight of YEARS of experience by every Woman and Minority in a leadership position. Show me the credible evidence that you have to counter my aggressive line.
You opened the door... the burden is on you... I'm just helping you close it. If you've got a problem with the line... I suggest you shut up.
I maintain that those people say that because they are racist and have a problem with a non White Male in a leadership position. PROVE ME WRONG. You make the attack. I counter. My counter has the weight of YEARS of experience by every Woman and Minority in a leadership position. Show me the credible evidence that you have to counter my aggressive line.
You opened the door... the burden is on you... I'm just helping you close it. If you've got a problem with the line... I suggest you shut up.
my lord
Submitted by RMC2000 on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 1:30pm.
your asking a man to prove to you that he's not a racist? what is that old adage about proving a negative? old bull connor sure would be proud of you boys today.
Welcome Back
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 1:38pm.
I missed you.
I'm asking anonymous trolls to justify their reasoning for their anonymous attacks since to me they seem to be motivated mainly by racism.
Tell me who they are. Why specifically they feel this way. The fact that they are ashamed to come forward seems to me a sign of their guilt. Surely if they have valid reasons that are based on reason there should be no problem coming forward. Why would someone hide from publically saying something unless they were ashamed of it because it was something less than honorable?
When I hear anonymous people attacking minorities and woman such as Senator Clinton as being a bitch, or arrogant, or elitist, to me it smacks of prejudice. I've never heard tough White male senators called bitches simply for being tough.
Please, prove me wrong. You'll have to forgive me, but it's very hard to do anything but assume the worst when anonymous trolls such as yourself attack people without any basis in reality..
I'm asking anonymous trolls to justify their reasoning for their anonymous attacks since to me they seem to be motivated mainly by racism.
Tell me who they are. Why specifically they feel this way. The fact that they are ashamed to come forward seems to me a sign of their guilt. Surely if they have valid reasons that are based on reason there should be no problem coming forward. Why would someone hide from publically saying something unless they were ashamed of it because it was something less than honorable?
When I hear anonymous people attacking minorities and woman such as Senator Clinton as being a bitch, or arrogant, or elitist, to me it smacks of prejudice. I've never heard tough White male senators called bitches simply for being tough.
Please, prove me wrong. You'll have to forgive me, but it's very hard to do anything but assume the worst when anonymous trolls such as yourself attack people without any basis in reality..
thank you for your kind welcome, sir
Submitted by RMC2000 on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 1:46pm.
it is good to be back. particularly after the terrible morning i've had. i guees i'm just not sure how anyone can prove that he is not a racist. seems like a difficult task. do you think he also molests children? that's pretty bad too, you know? i think everyone needs to sit back, enjoy the spring weather (is it warm up there), sip a cool glass of lemonade (put a splash of sumthin in there if you'd like) and tone things down a bit. i'm sure mr. chundra and that dastardly dann would agree.
That would be Chandra
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 1:52pm.
and all he has to do is give some names and we can then discover the motivations - without that speculation is all there is.
the same kind of anonymous speculation that everyone in cleveland doesnt like Chandra.
Just so
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 1:53pm.
Just as it's impossible for Chandra to defend himself against anonymous attacks. The difference is that I base my assumptions on the information before me. You give me the reason for my assumptions. You provide all the vile baseless garbage that draws out the worst in me.
I recommend that you stick to attacking people based upon facts that you provide. This will help you avoid people like me assuming the worst from you since we have nothing else to work with.
I recommend that you stick to attacking people based upon facts that you provide. This will help you avoid people like me assuming the worst from you since we have nothing else to work with.
no not really
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 1:40pm.
he culd provide some names of his "some people say" assertions, I could call them and maybe they say it because they are disgruntled people he has beaten in court or not given contracts too.
This is very easily proven - provide names to back up the allegation and we can then determine the substance of them.
naming names
Submitted by RMC2000 on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 1:55pm.
just seems so, well, unseemly. i'm sure you have had private conversations with people who would rather not have thier names and opinions posted on the itnernet. i know plenty of people from texas who think tom delay is a (insert your own colorful term), but i know they'd string me up if i wrote down their names on your web site. hell, some of those people even gave money to the guy, just because thats what you do if you're from huston. anyway, i just don't think calling a man a racist is a good idea. sort of like comparing someone to hitler or the nazis. always a good idea keeping those terms under wraps.
To me it's a meme
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 2:03pm.
It's something that you are trying to promote to counter Chandra's skills. Since he's so much more qualified than Dann, you can only attack him on his strengths by making them appear as weaknesses and appeasing to people baser instincts.
That’s honestly how I see this.
while i'm not quite sure what
Submitted by RMC2000 on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 2:15pm.
a meme is (been a while since i had a vocab lesson), i think i see your point. chandra (rhymes with chundra, though, doesn't it?) does appear to be a strong candidate. dann, too. to be honest, i don't know all that much about this race. i've been spending more time watching smarmy dewine try to rewrite history. anyway, the only reason i piped up is because it looke dlike things were getting a little heated. we have to remember that, even though we may back different horses, they are all of the same species. plus, anytime i can persuade a fellow democrat to join me in a cocktail, i'm a happy man.
But
Submitted by Jill on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 11:16am.
As someone with a legal education, NAB, you know that asserting without providing the specifics is going to be subject to dismissal (as in, people dismiss assertions that don't have specific backup). That's just a fact of how our legal system. There's no reason to expect that in real life, people prefer tangible evidence - i.e., a name - to assertions about "people say."
I know I do that all the time, and I don't even practice law anymore.
Practice
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 11:20am.
the word practice when it comes to lawyers and especially doctors always makes me nervous - I really prefer they know what they are doing and not practice on me ! LOL
Furthermore
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 11:25am.
Are you telling I can't go into court and be an anonymous lawyer and present my "some people say" evidence and get a conviction ?
Where's the fun in that ?! What if it's "lots of people say" ? Or what if "everyone knows he has a reputation!"
I think this whole witnesses thing is over rated. I think we should be allowed to convict people based on anonymous hearsay.
Good lord, Staff.
Submitted by Mr. Common Sense on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 11:08am.
If this isn't crossing a line, I'm really not sure what is.
I'm through with this conversation. I can respectfully agree to disagree with everyone on here, but I'm not into commenters calling other commenters racists. Especially when the issue of racism is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion.
I am a white male and have never employed that kind of hateful logic. I am disgusted by Ohio2nd.
really ?
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 11:17am.
unsubstantiated allegations or rhetoric is cutting isn't it ? I don't think the topic is all that relevant.
btw, I do think the issue of race is a HUGE MASSIVE ENORMOUS factor in this race. I think to think otherwise is silly.
As a white guy myself I aint qualified to speak to what is and isn't racist to be honest - but i know that i have felt the undertones of it a number of times regarding this election for AG - if people were really so color blind why would Chandra feel the need to make it part of his stump speech - in a Democratic party primary ? I also know enough to know that Racism isn't usually overt and often not even conscious anymore because of its taboo
I think Editor also has a greater insight into this issue than I too.
I'm more than willing to take it back
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 11:22am.
by reviewing the evidence. Since there is none, we are forced to examine the cause using generic common experience. "People" are often racist without realizing it. "People" who are White males often have a problem with non White males being in authority over them.
Everything that has been mentioned in this attack fits most logically within that framework.
I can be proven wrong when "people" turns into an actual person who wants to say something of substance. Since they don't exist, we are forced to work within the abstract. I maintain that my interpretation is the best one given the evidence on the table.
And BTW, all you lawyers can take your law degrees and...
Everything that has been mentioned in this attack fits most logically within that framework.
I can be proven wrong when "people" turns into an actual person who wants to say something of substance. Since they don't exist, we are forced to work within the abstract. I maintain that my interpretation is the best one given the evidence on the table.
And BTW, all you lawyers can take your law degrees and...
AGAIN
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:55am.
Submitted by Mike Cosgrove on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 8:38am.
I worked in Cleveland's Law Department for all but a few months of Chandra's tenure as law director. He did many things for the department that greatly improved the work environment, including bringing outsourced work back to the department because the department's attorney were just as qualified to do the work as the big firm lawyers that previous law directors doled out the work to. (Imagine the changes that could come to the Ohio Attorney General's office!) That doesn't sound at all elitist to me.
Chandra also fought hard to improve the pay for his department's attorneys (I was making $36,500 when I first came on, but that number rose quickly). He showed confidence in us and backed us up--whether we were Ivy League/big firm attorneys or not.
As Cleveland's law director, Chandra showed the strength of his skills in leading a large public-interest law firm. He is an excellent leader and a great lawyer. I can't imagine a more qualified candidate for Attorney General.
Please, if you've got someone else that would like to say something, you are free to provide them. Just make sure that they are real people with names and stuff instead of anonymous trolls like you.
Nope
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:24am.
Sorry, but anonymous troll posts are not 1% admissible. So far I've read one REAL character description here about Subodh Chandra from someone who worked with him:
Now if you've got something to say by SOMEONE real, bring it on.Submitted by Mike Cosgrove on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 8:38am.
I worked in Cleveland's Law Department for all but a few months of Chandra's tenure as law director. He did many things for the department that greatly improved the work environment, including bringing outsourced work back to the department because the department's attorney were just as qualified to do the work as the big firm lawyers that previous law directors doled out the work to. (Imagine the changes that could come to the Ohio Attorney General's office!) That doesn't sound at all elitist to me.
Chandra also fought hard to improve the pay for his department's attorneys (I was making $36,500 when I first came on, but that number rose quickly). He showed confidence in us and backed us up--whether we were Ivy League/big firm attorneys or not.
As Cleveland's law director, Chandra showed the strength of his skills in leading a large public-interest law firm. He is an excellent leader and a great lawyer. I can't imagine a more qualified candidate for Attorney General.
Thank you.
Submitted by Muffet on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 1:26pm.
As a lawyer, and damn proud of it, I'm glad to see someone who thinks facts are more important than anonymous whispers.
defined
Submitted by plunderbund on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:06am.
i think most all babies are whiny ass titty babies...except mine, who were whiny ass bottle babies.
...sry, just felt the need to inject humor here.
"You better get politics or politics will get you" - my grandmother
...sry, just felt the need to inject humor here.
"You better get politics or politics will get you" - my grandmother
titty-sucking babies would,
Submitted by NAB4SE on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:08am.
I think, be the correct term.
My previous comment
Submitted by Mike Cosgrove on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 11:06am.
I just wanted to reiterate my comments responding to your post from yesterday (in the other chain of comments). My experience working for Chandra in Cleveland's Law Department gives me confidence that he will be a great Attorney General. He did great things for the department, backed up his attorneys, and greatly improved morale.
Wait, get your facts straight.......
Submitted by modernesquire on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:29am.
Um, has anyone bothered reading the news articles linked in the post?
From http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories03/03sep19.htm#story4
"A few weeks after sentencing, on April 16, Phillips was arrested at work, this time charged with felony importuning under a section of the law still in effect that deals with juveniles."
In the first case, the one where the Ohio Supreme Court ruled the charged statute was unconstitutional, the gentleman entered a no contest plea at arraignment without counsel. He was given a suspended sentence. In the second case, which Dann's firm represented him, the statute was still in effect and constitutional.
Read them all
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:35am.
it's complex - took my a while to get my head around it.
First case - law was not constitutional. He went to jail
Second case - he was innocent of the charges even though the law was constitutional - but Dann had him plea for fear of having his parole revoked on the first non existent conviction.
He has subsequently been cleared of all charges. This guy had a VERY significant miscarriage of justice perpetrated on him.
The second case isn't all that complex
Submitted by AmberCat on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:52am.
As you state, staff, the client was clearly innocent and had ample proof that he was innocent. Yet Dann urged to him to plead to something he absolutely hadn't done. Given the level of panic about pedophiles, it would have been insane to plead guilty when you have a whole bunch of people who can testifiy that you were at work and when the car identified clearly wasn't yours.
right
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:57am.
that's right.
The entire situation is complex - but each of the pieces are quite simple.
For all the gum flapping by people asserting to be lawyers in this thread I am shocked none of them have addressed the substance of this case. A lack of due diligence, ex parte conversations with judges, mis representation - the list of screw ups is long.
Reality Check
Submitted by Joseph Alverson on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 11:54am.
I also know Subodh from his time at City Hall. I think that there are a lot of issues getting confused here. I'll try to address them one by one.
Reputation in Cleveland: Subodh is a reformer. He slashed spending on outside lawyers by 85%. Of course, there are some lawyers that dislike him. He cut into their bottom line and they are pissed. You take several million dollars off several firms' bottom line, and you get some mad lawyers. Duh! He reformed the Department. There were some great lawyers there before he got there but he hired more and he fired a handful. Of course a few dislike him, they are disguntled former employees. You supervise 125 people, not all of them love you. But most were stunned and disappointed when he left. People actually cried. There are others in Cleveland, frankly, that dislike him because they got their asses kicked by him in court. One prominent lawyer who does criminal defense work hates him because Subodh beat him in court when he was a federal prosecutor. He bad mouthes him every chance he gets. You can't shake things up without pissing off some members of the establishment.
Yale: The guy never throws around his degrees. Its other people that seem to be intimidated. Tim, to mention that Bush went to Yale also is idiotic. Bush was a legacy admittee. That means he got in because pappy went there, and pappy's pappy went there. Subodh got in by being smart and busting his ass. The guy is the son of pretty middle class people. Not so poor that they had to struggle to put food on the table, but middle class that struggled to send their kids to good schools.
Hiring: He hired smart people from all schools. Yes, some people in the department were intially threatened by his resume and bristled when he brought in a few Ivy Leaguers. But he also brought in good people from other schools too. Almost ALL of his top deputies were all Case or Marshall grads. You can call and find out.
Holier Than Thou: Yeah, ethics. When people offer you shit for favors and you don't take them up on it, they start labeling you as holier than thou.
Finally, if he was so condescending towards people with non-Ivy league degrees or someone who worked for small firms or did plaintiffs work, he wouldn't have married his wife. She is all of the above. Just Google her.
His beef with Dann is about qualifications. Dann is a great legislator and deserves tons of credit for Coingate. It doesn't make him qualified to run a 350 lawyer operation. Thats executive office. Its a different skill set.
Anyway, my two cents. Now you guys can stop debating if Subodh is a prick and start celebrating Tom Delay's departure from our lives. We all know that he IS a prick.
Thanks.
Submitted by Muffet on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 2:01pm.
I have already celebrated Delay's departure!
I agree the problem is qualifications. As I said yesterday, as a lawyer who does workers' comp, I am very qualified to be an Industrial Commissioner. Due to my prior work experience, as both a "white-shoe" lawyer and what I do now, I don't think I am qualified to be AG. Chandra is. Dann may be. He has some good big ideas. Chandra would be excellent, from the first day forward.
This has already been dimissed
Submitted by ratdg1 on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 12:02pm.
There's already been a case on this, involving the same accusations against Marc Dann, and it was dismissed. It says so right in the article you quoted from.
read it all
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 12:17pm.
it was dismissed without prejudice (and with some jurisdictional issues sorted out too) and the new case is based on entirely different set of charges - charges that attach very real jeopardy to Marc Dann.
Pretend it isnt real if you want, but I assure you it is very real.
Wait again... Dann's case WAS DISMISSED FOR PREJUDICE
Submitted by modernesquire on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 3:44pm.
I already cross-posted this at Plunderbund's blog:
Here’s what the article says:
“Boyko dismissed Dann, saying that there was no attorney-client relationship. Dann, also an attorney, employs and supervises Joltin, who represented Phillips. The malpractice claim against Joltin will go forward in state court.”
While some of the charges were no doubt dismissed without prejudice, the articles DO NOT say that the case against Dann was dismissed without prejudice. In fact, because the article specifically states that Dann was dismissed because there was never an attorney-client relationship is a ruling on the merits. Therefore, Dann’s dismissal was most likely WITH PREJUDICE. As such, any state claim against Dann would be barred by res judicata and claim and issue preclusion.
Given the lack of an attorney-client privilege, the likelihood that Dann will face discipline from the Ohio Supreme Court in this matter (which is the only possible state forum that could still hear any claim against Dann in this matter) is very slim.
Having a non-lawyer state, without any authority or qualifying support, that Dann “faces a very real danger of having his license suspended” is reckless based on these facts.
_____________________________________________
It sounds like the only case remains against Dann is the one recently filed with the Ohio Supreme Court's Board on Attorney Grievances and Discipline. Based on the language of the articles, it sounds like only an attorney grievance claim could be filed against Dann as any other state claim is barred from the federal dismissal.
No
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 3:52pm.
I am told it was dismissed without predjudice - which is a conclusion you have to come to given that his client has in fact refilled against Dann and a whole bunch of other people.
from the article
Phillips’ new suit, which was filed in Trumbull County Common Pleas Court, follows a federal suit Barnabee filed in 2003. That action was dismissed because the judge thought the matter was better suited to state court.The federal court also dismissed a malpractice complaint against Dann, saying that he didn’t represent Phillips.
The new suit puts Dann back in, this time accusing him of fraud.
So it was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, without prejudice.
I'm not sure Montgomery's 30 sec ad will get into all the gory details though - but this is something people should be aware of that is out there.
Really?
Submitted by ratdg1 on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 3:44pm.
Cause that isn't what it says in the article. It says, and I quote:
It doesn't say dismissed without prejudice, it says dismissed cause he's the wrong person to be complaining about. But the facts don't matter when you're smearing a guy, do they?The federal court also dismissed a malpractice complaint against Dann, saying that he didn’t represent Phillips.
If a party to a cause of action,
Submitted by Muffet on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 3:51pm.
dismisses a case without prejudice, the case can be re-filed within one year of the date of dismissal. (Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 41)A).
If a judge dismisses a case, that's it, unless it is appealed to a court of appeals.
Difference between dismissals
Submitted by modernesquire on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 4:21pm.
A dismissal without prejudice is normally for jurisdictional or other non-substantive defects in a claim. Ohio Civ. R. 41(A) does not apply because: 1) the first case was a federal case dismissed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and 2) because the dismissal was not voluntary.
The dismissal was involuntary. The issue is whether the Dann claim in particular was dismissed with or without prejudice. A claim dismissed with prejudice cannot be raised in a later case as its a ruling on the claim's merits. Just because some of the claims were dismissed without prejudice does not mean all the claims were. The fact that the article states that the claims against Dann were being dismissed because there was never an attorney-client relationship with Phillips indicates it was a dismissal on the merits. Therefore, it was likely a dismissal with prejudice.
The fact that Phillips' attorney has refiled a new fraud claim in State court does not indicate, in any way, that Dann's claims were not dismissed with prejudice. In fact, the fact that Phillips' attorney is raising a new claim against Dann instead of the cause of action in the federal suit indicates that claims against Dann were dismissed with prejudice.
However, even the new claims against Dann are likely to be dismissed under Ohio Civ. R. 12(b)(6) under issue preclusion and res judicata. Because Phillips could have raised his fraud claim against Dann in the federal suit, which was likely dismissed with prejudice, then he is probably barred from raising them in a new state suit as they are essentially about the same events, parties, relevant evidence, and occurances.
Based on this, I seriously doubt Dann will be found civilly liable. Phillips is not barred from the federal suit from filing a disciplinary complaint against Dann with the Ohio Supreme Court, but since there was no attorney-client relationship, I have little confidence they will make a public discipline finding against Dann, either.
ok ,so explain this to me
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 4:37pm.
How can Dann have an ex parte conversation with the judge in this case, then knowing he cannot take Philips on as a client hand him off to his employee - which amounts to taking the case himself - without being liable. His referal to his employee was improper because of this ex parte conversation.
The dismissal of the federal case because Dann wasn't his direct attorney doesnt release Dann from his obligations to supervise his employees nor hand off referrals when there has been ex parte conversations.
I am not aware that Philips made a fraud claim against Dann in the federal filing, I think this is a new claim.
Also how can his firm avoid liability for plea bargaining a client to 4 months in jail for a crime not on the books ? That really is the essence of what we have here.
There are numerous ethical issues involved here - the judge is in some pretty hot water for slander too....
I think you assume too much
Submitted by modernesquire on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 7:55am.
Let's face it. The news article is inartful and rather unclear. I simply can't believe that Dann would talk to the judge about this case unless Phillips was already a client. Why would Dann even know about the case? It just doesn't make sense to suggest otherwise.
As I've already said, just because the fraud claim is new doesn't mean that it isn't subject to a dismissal with prejudice by the federal court under issue preclusion. Same thing with negligent supervision.
You keep saying that Dann's firm had plea bargain a client to four months in jail for a crime not on the books. That statement is false. Dann's firm had him plea to a charge that was a constitutional criminal statute at the time he pled. The problem is that Dann's firm advised him to do so because of the possibility that he could otherwise be found in violation of his probation from when Phillips, without the advise or counsel of legal counsel, pled to an earlier criminal complaint based on a criminal statute the Ohio Supreme Court recently found to be unconstitutional. There is a rather significant distinction between the two.
In fact the negligent supervision claim sounds more like a disciplinary complaint than a civil suit. Second, we're assuming Dann had an ex parte conversation with the judge. For all I know, it could have be a pre-trial hearing in chambers. I haven't seen the prosecutor assert that there was an ex parte conversation, and they'd be the party mostly likely harmed by such a conversation.
If there was an ex parte conversation between Dann and the judge, then why hasn't a disciplinary complaint been filed against the judge as well?
Assuming for the moment that Dann, having no reason to know of Phillips case, nor any interest as an attorney in it, did talk to the judge about Phillips case. There's no conflict. From the context of the article, it appears that Dann's conversation with the judge was not one that prejudiced Phillips. It seems from the face of the article that all the conversation was about is what the judge was likely to do as sentencing in the case. A rather common conversation betwee judges and defense attorneys and not the kind of conversation that disqualified an attorney, or his or her firm, from continuing to represent the person.
What I have been tireless trying to tell you is that there is a story there, but don't make it out to be more than what it is (which you have been doing) because the story loses credibility when you do.
A Good Defense
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 8:22am.
We are all speaking out of ignorance. I think that more research is needed of the evidence at hand and that it then needs to be reviewed by experts in the field. We will not uncover the truth through anonymous I don't thinks.
We need to hurry because soon it will be handed over to the other side and we know that they will be using it to do the maximum damage, and trust me when I say that your very articulate defense will be useless in the court of public opinion.
We need to hurry because soon it will be handed over to the other side and we know that they will be using it to do the maximum damage, and trust me when I say that your very articulate defense will be useless in the court of public opinion.
seems to me
Submitted by staff on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 8:56am.
that Dann has created a mess that isnt easy to clear up for what shuold have been a simple case - and not for the first time, however you look atthe law - not the kind of guy we might want representing the state in very complex cases.
I dont want his potential 3rd strike to affect millions of people and not just 1.
ps. if Dann talked to the judge there is conflict because Dann passed the job off to his employee which isnt allowed, that is the same as if he had taken the job himself.
anyhow - all pretty irrelevant considering it will be given to the masses in a 30 second montgomery ad and that will be the end of that.
Thanks.
Submitted by Muffet on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 12:18pm.
I didn't read the cases. Not enough time. People just kept saying "without prejudice" like it was some big deal. It's not really. We've all done it a few times. If it's on the merits, the only thing that can be done is to appeal. Your explanation is very good.
Go fuck yourself Rat
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 3:55pm.
I am just about sick of your pathetic attempts of attacking the messenger.
Reporting what is already reported and a matter of public record is not smearing anyone you fucking idiot. and how about putting the full quote out there
Phillips’ new suit, which was filed in Trumbull County Common Pleas Court, follows a federal suit Barnabee filed in 2003. That action was dismissed because the judge thought the matter was better suited to state court.The federal court also dismissed a malpractice complaint against Dann, saying that he didn’t represent Phillips.
The new suit puts Dann back in, this time accusing him of fraud.
dismiessed because it had jurisdictional issues asshole. there is more than 1 case pending against Dann because of this.
Pull this crap again and accuse me of this and you will be finding a new home to act like a whinny ass titty baby.
Why is it...
Submitted by AmberCat on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 7:08pm.
...that the most active threads are the ones where people start insulting each other? Tim Keeps condescending to me, claiming I don't know what I am talking about, when I specifically am addressing exactly what I know and have seen and hear. Meanwhile, staff is going all Cheney on the trolls. Sheesh. I think I'll go have dinner and email all the friends who have written to me expressing pleasure in Tom DeLay's unjust (he claims) downfall!!!!
Crossing a line.
Submitted by Mr. Common Sense on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 7:38pm.
Hey, Staff:
"Dude, your crossing a line here. Won't be a second warning. People can disagree without being disagreeable."
Follow your own advice. Agree without being disagreeable. Otherwise, continue being a hypocrite.
no
Submitted by staff on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 9:07pm.
difference here.
there is a difference between making shit up and attacking someone with false allegations and simply getting pissy and saying go fuck yourself - ratdg has a history of this and this was hist last warning.
I try to be fair and keep the forum for dialouge open to just about everything, and sometimes i do need to heed my own advice - this isnt one of those times in my mind though.
to be clear
if Subodh wants to charge that Dann is incompetent, he should say so explicitly and take responsibility for the charge, using evidence like this.