Sunday, December 16, 2007

The Bar Needs a New Missouri Plan

As regular readers know, I am a vocal supporter of the Missouri Plan, and I oppose the Republicans' attempts to use our system of judicial selection and retention as a wedge issue. So, let's be clear - I like our Missouri Plan.

On an unrelated issue, though, I think the Missouri Bar needs to recommit itself to Missouri and Missourians. Did you know that in late January, the Missouri Bar will be hosting an official meeting, complete with a meeting of its governing body, the Board of Governors, outside of Missouri? And not just outside Missouri, outside of the United States!

Allow me to quote from the Missouri Bar's website:
As January's freezing temperatures grip Missouri, The Bahamas expect sunny skies and warm days, perfect for golf, shopping, relaxing on the beach, and sightseeing. Located near the capital city of Nassau and just a short hop from Florida, Atlantis is an exhilarating adventure of thrills and discoveries amidst the tropical splendor of the Caribbean. Take advantage of CLE in the morning, with afternoons and evenings free to enjoy all this paradise has to offer.
And in case you're wondering if they're serious about "CLE (continuing legal education) in the morning, yes, the latest they even offer seminars is 11:30.

Why is a Missouri quasi-governmental body channeling its dollars to The Bahamas? Why, at a time when it is working so hard to represent the best interests of the average Missourian through its defense of the Bar Plan, is the Missouri Bar leaving Missouri behind for an exclusive resort in The Bahamas?

The resort they are visiting is named Atlantis - after the mythical island that sunk into the sea. Perhaps the Missouri Bar will take the hint and sink this tradition of using its Mid-Winter meeting as an expensive tax deduction for its wealthiest members.

Missouri Plan II ought to be a commitment to hold Missouri Bar meetings in Missouri.

Labels: , ,


Blogger Darin said...


As a sidenote, I don't count myself as either a Republican or a Democrat but rather a citizen.

What's so wrong with Democracy and the right for people to vote on what could be the most important position in the state?

Are you so inclined to believe that Attorneys - who bestow upon themselves the exclusive right to appoint supreme officials - couldn't be prone to corruption?

I assure you the bar itself is an entity on its own promoting the rights of attorneys not the will of the people.

When studying campaigns, I like to read the original documents which elaborate on the methods by which campaigns are funded.

As I watch the judicial body in my circuit court I can create a direct link to these campaign contributions.

As a resident of Kansas City I would challenge you to review your elected judges campaign contributions and see who gets assigned the $60,000 a pop Special Prosecutor appointments.

Then ask yourself, is the bar corrupt? Or rather, Is Democracy that bad of a system?

Branson Missouri

12/16/2007 1:48 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Darin -

We don't have elected judges in KC.

You really know waaaayyy too little to discuss this issue. Attorneys do not have, and never have had, the exclusive right to appoint supreme officials. So, to engage you in conversation on this issue, I'd need to first teach you the basic facts.

12/16/2007 1:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


If you look at Darin's profile, you will see that he is a Branson resident. He was pointing out that you, as a Kansas City resident, do not have the ability to see who is pushing funds to the judges.

"I'd need to first teach you the basic facts."

We're waiting. Please teach us the basics.

12/16/2007 2:18 PM  
Anonymous Ignore the Ignoramuses said...

Why should Dan waste his time educating Darin on a topic that has nothing to do with the post?

12/16/2007 2:32 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Good point, Ignore. There are plenty of other posts to discuss the Missouri Plan for judicial selection and retention.

12/16/2007 2:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Darin may have a point, though.

Who gets special appointments of prosecutor in Jackson County? Why do we have conflicts that require special prosecutors? Part of the problem is part-time prosecutors that also have a civil practice. If a resident of a nursing home is raped, then the rapist is criminally prosecuted and the nursing home may get sued. If the part-time prosecutor gets the civil case, the Jackson County Prosecutor's office has a conflict and a special prosecutor is appointed (which taxpayers have to pay for).

Some one want to trace the money to Tim Dollar?

12/16/2007 6:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(smiling) ... Interesting read. :)

12/16/2007 9:19 PM  
Blogger Ambitious Fledgling said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12/16/2007 9:30 PM  
Anonymous Traveling in Style said...

Not only that, but the president of the Missouri Bar - the one who chose to bring the meeting to the Bahamas, is Charlie Harris. Charlie Harris is the lawyer who represents Wayne "Travel Scandal" Cauthen.

12/16/2007 9:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hehehe ... and I forgot to correct you: the MoBar is NOT a quasi-governmental body. It is a committee of the Missouri Supreme Court formed in 1944, (one of 5 committees, whose Treasurer is the Clerk of the Supreme Court. See: and if you would like to see how the 14 Million Dollars a year our Supreme Court controls is spent, see:


12/16/2007 9:40 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Ironically, Ktimmerman is the only judicial candidate I have ever made a donation to, and he is a Republican!

Thanks for the correction, and the comments.

12/16/2007 9:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(chuckling) ... and I lost! That should tell you something!! :) Like you, I have mixed feelings about the "Non-partisan Plan". Honorable, reasonable persons can differ. When you cut to the quick, the issue is not how we get Judges on the bench, (history teaches good judges have been appointed and elected -- only 5 counties appoint, the rest elect.) The real issue is how to get rid of bad ones. It took the concerted effort of 3 local Bar Associations to remove an appointed Judge in Clay county. Has only happened once, in the State of Missouri, since the inception of "The Plan". Perhaps it is time to review "The Plan" ... but thankfully ... hehehe ... our Bar just voted to spend $500,000.00, (of the increased Bar Dues), to educate the public about it's benefits. "Education" funded by our Bar, (a committee of our Supreme Court), is not a political activity by judges, prohibited by Article 5, Section 25(f) of our Constitution ... is it?

12/16/2007 10:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

FYI-the fact that CLE classes are offered outside the state and even the nation is not new. It's a way to create profit and also attract people to attend the classes. Not a new issue and it is more a formal requirement to keep your status in the Missouri Bar rather than really learning anything new-unless of course you want to learn.

12/17/2007 12:24 AM  
Anonymous Traffic Law Hack and Proud of it! said...

The real reason the Mo Bar does this is because it is controlled by the members of elitist law firms who make their millions off of helping insurance companies NOT PAY what they have to.

And defending corporations who suck the people dry.

Since when have lawyers arbitrarily been given such power over the people?

I never voted for them.

And, to be fair, its not just the elite lawyers. The bottom dwellers are scum too.

Look at the municipal court.

What a proud profession; rated by the public below used car salesmen and abortion doctors.

12/17/2007 7:10 AM  
Blogger Darin said...

Hmmm. In Taney County we have the opportunity to elect our judges.

Please educate me on how Jackson County Judges are placed into office. Are they really not elected?

The Missouri Bar - the union of state attorneys - is responsible for maintaining standards and increasing income for attorneys - right?

My point is - whats good for the collective bunch of state attorneys - may not be the best idea for the citizens as a whole.

Any good attorney will tell you so. :)

12/17/2007 12:58 PM  
Blogger Darin said...

I'm still waiting for the education promised me.

The Missouri Plan allows a few lawyers to select a few lawyers for the Governor to review.

The three lawyers are usually stacked 2 from one party and 1 from the other.

The Governor than selects the 1 person who is a member of the same party as him.

This is the Non-Partisan plan. It's non-partisan because there is no choice - A supreme official appointed by attorneys - then we sprinkle the false flavor of choice and pretend the pretense of fairness and democracy are somehow applied. It's a joke.

Perhaps the appellate should offer more choices.

12/17/2007 1:23 PM  
Anonymous Learn to Read, Darin said...

Darin, Who promised you an education?

You apparently know very, very little about the Missouri Plan, and you are off-topic for the posting.

I'm sure if you offer him an hourly rate, Dan will educate you thoroughly. It might be cheaper, though, to research it yourself before making an ass of yourself on blogs.

12/17/2007 1:51 PM  
Blogger whistleblower said...

Darin, ktimmerman, and Traffic Law Hack...

Thanks for speaking up to defend the citizens of Missouri.

Dan, and Stephen Bough at CCP Blog, have been doing their best to support the Missouri Plan. They avoid the truth, and anyone who attempts to submit the truth is portrayed as a liar.

I invite you to review a couple of Dan's previous posts on the Missouri Plan entitled Missouri Plan - Retention Elections Work and Alex, I'll take the Missouri Plan for 20 Million Dollars .

Make sure you read the comments.

A while back, Dan was asked about his affiliation with the Missouri Bar. I think the person commenting was looking for Dan's motivation to support the Missouri Bar's agenda. Dan refused to answer, as he claimed that it wasn't relevant. Unbelievably, Dan does not consider the fact that he was a Member of the Board of Governors for the Missouri Bar to be relevant.

12/17/2007 2:03 PM  
Anonymous Traffic Law Hack and Proud of It! said...

I see that he has also promised to ignore you, and, given your behavior and stalking of the guy, I can't blame him. Get a grip.

12/17/2007 2:14 PM  
Blogger Stephen Bough said...


Dan and I (and sounds like you, too) happen to agree on this one; we shouldn't be spending any bar dues going to resort locations in warm places in teh winter. Let's just enjoy the moment.

12/17/2007 2:32 PM  
Blogger whistleblower said...


I haven't seen anything that would suggest that Bar dues are used to support this adventure.

What Bar dues are being spent on this Bahamas vacation?

Could this be an event that is intended to increase participation?

Generally, the 5 officers, 40 or so board members, and 15 or so other members attend; and that’s on a good day.

Do you think it will be the standard attendees, or will more members participate?

12/17/2007 3:00 PM  
Anonymous Don't get Caught in the BoG said...

But the Bar pays the costs of board members and staff to attend.

12/17/2007 3:20 PM  
Blogger whistleblower said...

Don't get Caught in the BoG...

Are you serious?

60 x $1500.00(conservative)= $90,000.00

No wonder they had to increase the dues.

12/17/2007 3:33 PM  
Anonymous Los Lobos said...

Stephen Bough said... “we shouldn't be spending any bar dues going to resort locations in warm places in the winter.”

Why no complaints about the January 17, 2003 meeting at South Seas Resort, Captiva Island, Florida?

Or the January 16, 2004 meeting in Bonita Springs, Florida?

Or the January 21, 2005 meeting at the Hyatt Regency Lake Las Vegas Resort?

Or the January 20, 2006 meeting at Marco Island Beach Resort, Florida?

Or even the January 19, 2007 meeting at Loews Ventana Canyon Resort, Tucson, Arizona?

Is Nassau really such a big jump? $210.00 per night for the hotel, about $325.00 for airfare. Not that much different than the other locations.

Mr. Bough, it looks like “going to resort locations in warm places in the winter” is what you lawyer types like to call “status quo” for the Missouri Bar. Didn’t Dan attend those warm weather meetings?

12/17/2007 4:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For those of you who would prefer an elected judiciary, ask yourself these questions:

If judges were elected:
1. would it matter to you whether your lawyer donated to the judge handling your case?
2. would it matter to you if the other lawyer gave more?
3. would it matter to you if you or your lawyer was from a different political party than the judge?

Having asked that question, I will tell you that even though I support the Missouri plan, the elected judges I know would never let any of the above get in the way of making the correct decision under the law. However, I don't know all of the elected judges or even most of them. I know that human nature being what it is, there are almost certainly a few judges who would care about things like party affiliation and donations. What about in the close case - rather than flipping a coin, would you prefer to have the judge look at the campaign contribution log? The Missouri Plan is about more than merit selection of judges - it is also about giving the public some confidence that the judges are not beholden to anything or anyone but the law.

As for the Missouri Bar vacationing in the Bahamas, the question is whether the rank and file know they are paying their leaders to go on this little boondoggle. I suspect not. Perhaps Pres. "Cauthen" Harris should spend more time contemplating his WWMFD (what would Mark Funkhouse do?) bracelet. Not that MF has any say in the matter, but his brand of fiscal concern might be helpful to the Missouri Bar.

12/17/2007 4:49 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Just one of them, Wolfie, and I always have advocated for not holding the meetings out of state.

12/17/2007 5:23 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

I notice that the minutes of the B of G meetings do not include any setting of the reimbursement rate, but, yes, as alleged by "don't get caught", the members of the board and the staff are paid their expenses to attend the meeting.

12/17/2007 5:29 PM  
Blogger sophia said...

The Missouri Bar - the union of state attorneys - is responsible for maintaining standards and increasing income for attorneys - right?

Wrong. Increasing the income of attorneys is not a stated or implicit goal of the Missouri Bar.

My point is - whats good for the collective bunch of state attorneys - may not be the best idea for the citizens as a whole.

Because legal disputes would go away if we didn't have laws! A reductive statement, I know... but you could easily substitute any profession or industry and make the same point. The mission of the Missouri bar is "to improve the legal profession, the administration of justice and the law on behalf of the public." It's not the Chamber of Commerce. If you want to criticize how it carries out its mission, go ahead and provide some specific examples.

12/17/2007 6:42 PM  
Blogger whistleblower said...

Anonymous 4:49…

According to the 2000 Census , the population was 5,595,211. The judges from Saint Louis City and County, and those of Clay, Platte, and Jackson Counties are selected under the Missouri Plan. The population of these areas totaled 2,277,171, leaving 3,318,040 to have their cases heard by elected judges.

Does anyone hear the rest of the State of Missouri claiming their judges have been purchased thru campaign finance?

Judges appointed under the Missouri Plan-
1. What if your attorney gave a gift to the judge’s daughter for graduation?
2. What if your attorney didn’t invite the judge to his Christmas Party?
3. What if he did, and the judge doesn’t like the term Christmas?

We can what if this thing to death. There are many ways an attorney can influence a judge. I doubt that we will ever be able to prevent it.

The fact is, the Missouri Plan for selection, review, and retention of judges is the least democratic method for selection to public office in the U.S.

The Missouri Bar doesn’t seem to have a problem with using deceptive methods in order to protect it either. Fact is, only one other State, Indiana, has a plan that is so Bar dominated in the areas of Selection, Review, and Retention.

The Missouri Bar boasts that 30 other states adopted some form of the Missouri Plan. What they don’t tell you is that 29 of those States modified the Plan in order to provide for more lay input, or subsequently abandoned the “Plan” completely.

Honest people, doing honest acts, don’t need to hide the truth. Further, as ktimmerman pointed out, we also need a better method for getting rid of bad judges. In Missouri we have three methods: Impeachment, Retention Vote, and the C.R.R.D.

Impeachment has only been used twice, and not since the 60’s. Both of those judges resigned before trial. Impeachment is far less likely to occur today as more and more attorneys are being elected to be our Representatives. (Gotta protect your own, ask any cop) What the voters fail to recognize is that eventually we will have a government dominated by class. The U.S. Senate is made up of 60% attorneys. Does anyone consider them to be doing a spectacular job? Does anyone think the founders of this country would have been happy to see one profession become the ruling class? (Next time you see a bad report, in the news or on a blog, about a U.S. Senator check it out, they are likely to be an attorney.)

The majority profession of our elected representatives is the legal profession. There are two attorneys for every doctor in the U.S. How do these attorneys generate their income? By creating laws that make them wealthier- more billable hours = more income. They just need judges that will go along with that; what better way than to select them themselves.

"“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.” —Thomas Jefferson

Retention elections are a joke. If nobody said anything about judges when it is time for retention election, judges would be retained by about 65% of the votes. As it is, the Missouri Bar tells the voters whether or not to retain a judge. The review process is performed solely by the Missouri Bar.

The C.R.R.D. – I won’t even bother telling you about this clearing house for complaints made against judges. Read the article on page 2 entitled C.R.R.D.
(Pronounced “CRUD”)

I didn’t vote for the Missouri Bar and until I do, they should stay out of politics.

My message to the Missouri Bar is simple. “Don’t feed me full of lies and then expect me to trust you.”

As has been pointed out, the Missouri Bar has voted to spend $500,000.00 to teach the voters of Missouri about the benefits of the Missouri Plan. Why now, after 67 years of the Missouri Plan’s existence? The Missouri Bar is entering the political arena. Are all judges members of the Missouri Bar? – Yes

Article V, Section 25(f)
Prohibition of political activity by judges.

No judge of any court in this state, appointed to or retained in office in the manner prescribed in sections 25(a)-(g), shall directly or indirectly make any contribution to or hold any office in a political party or organization, or take part in any political campaign.

It sure does look like they are, at least indirectly, taking part in a political campaign.

12/17/2007 7:29 PM  
Anonymous red scoundrel said...

Dan, I can't blame you for ignoring Whistleblower, but I hope everybody who thinks he's making any sense whatsoever will go check out the other posts where you took him apart point by point for a dozen points, which made him angry enough to attempt an expose' on the wrong person. Whistleblower is not stable, and your readers should know that.

12/17/2007 8:00 PM  
Blogger whistleblower said...

red scoundrel (the imposter)...

Is that the best you can do Dan?

I'm sure other readers have suspected that you post under other names, but the other names you use are just too supporting of you.

Let's look at Red Scoundrel's comment from a previous post entitled Missouri Plan - Retention Elections Work

Red Scoundrel said…(addressing Dan) "I did not ask for your Bar status. I asked for your association with the Missouri Bar. If you were a member of the bar, but chose to conceal the fact, that would cause me to question your objectivity and your inclination to be forthright. If you were commenting on a beer I would not ask as it would not be relevant. In this case I think it is.

I did take the time to research "whistleblower" on a number of blogs. I did find some of his posts to be confrontational but I did not see any that were full of lies, as you claim. Maybe I was looking in the wrong place. If you could provide the address of these blogs I would like to see them."

Instead of trying to pose as someone else, and claiming that you have discredited any of my claims, why don't you man-up, and give us a link to the dozen points?

If I wanted to expose you, I could have already done so.

Grow up.

12/17/2007 8:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For a pretty good overview and statistics, (number of adopting States, etc), of the "Missouri Plan" see: Although only 5 counties are subject to "The Plan", they account for almost half of our judges. As for lawyer legislators in Missouri? 25 out of 200: see Frankly, a significant percentage decline in the past 20 years.
I personally believe trial judges should be elected, (there is no better way to ensure accountability to the citizens served), while appellate judges should be appointed. I would have the trial judges in each of the 3 appellate districts nominate 3 candidates and have the governor select and appoint one of the 3 nominated. I'm still mulling over the selection process for Supreme Court Judges: but a bottom line criterea would have to be actual practice experience.


12/17/2007 9:26 PM  
Anonymous red scoundrel said...

Whistleblower, I stopped commenting when I saw how you went after Dan. The Scoundrel in my name was just a joke. I don't really like people like you.

I wanted Dan to state his connection to the Missouri Bar, but I didn't want YOU start a personal investigation. That's creepy.

12/17/2007 9:41 PM  
Blogger whistleblower said...


Actually 8 of our 34 Senators are attorneys, and the House had 20 attorneys. Since Nathan Cooper left we are down to 19 of 162. SInce the article you referenced was prior to the last election, I can see the discrepancy.

My problem with attorneys in the legislature stems from a blurring of the Seperation of Powers. If an attorney holds a license to pratice law, he is bound by rules that may limit his candor; rules that no other Legislator is bound by. If a Member of the House, he also has a duty to impeach if needed. The more defined the seperation of powers are, the better our system of checks and balances works.

You pose some interesting alternatives to the current plan. Have you voiced them anywhere else? If so, what response have you received?

12/17/2007 10:37 PM  
Anonymous Watching the Detectives said...


Separation of powers? Do you know what that means . . . . in a political science, American government kind of way? Or do you just get off on obfuscation?

What a loon. If you combined some basic civics knowledge with your love for argument, you might score some points here. Heck, if you got your GED and an undergraduate degree, you might be able to get into an unaccredited law school.

12/17/2007 11:11 PM  
Blogger whistleblower said...

Separation, sorry 'bout the typ-o. It's late.

12/17/2007 11:14 PM  
Blogger sophia said...

I did not ask for your Bar status. I asked for your association with the Missouri Bar.

Every attorney licensed to practice in Missouri is a member of the Missouri Bar. It's not a voluntary association. (Just to clarify for anyone reading along).

Heck, if you got your GED and an undergraduate degree, you might be able to get into an unaccredited law school.

That seems unnecessarily snotty, as well as not a particularly clever insult. Whistleblower may be loony, but I don't think he's stupid. I'd guess he's got an emotional block that prevents him from fully applying his intellect to this question.

12/18/2007 10:33 AM  
Anonymous Watching the Detectives said...


You're right, it was unnecessarily snotty. I just get frustrated because whistleblower is smart enough to find words and phrases that have an important meaning (such as "separation of powers") and he is either careless enough or disingenuous enough to misuse the words and confuse the issue.

I don't get aggravated when someone takes a position I disagree with, but argues the issue using logic, facts, and some sort of legitimate analysis. I agree with you that whistleblower is not stupid - that is why his posts are so frustrating - they seem intended to mislead.

12/18/2007 12:58 PM  
Anonymous Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. said...

When someone passes the Bar exam and is admitted to the Bar to practice law in a State, they become an Officer of the Court. This makes them part of the Judicial branch of government. If they then run for public office and are elected to the legislature or to an executive office, it means that they simultaneously serve in two branches of government. This violates the principle of the Separation of Powers.

The effect of this, at least with respect to lawyer legislators, is also an obvious Conflict of Interest. Certain people write laws as legislators and then find that in private life their services are needed to negotiate the same laws for the public.

James Madison wrote in Federalist #62

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?
There is no doubt that today the laws are so voluminous that they cannot be read and so incoherent (or obscure) that they cannot be understood. But it is precisely in the interest of lawyer legislators that this be the case. It becomes their livelihood to read, explain, and manipulate the laws for the sake of their paying clients. Indeed, since lawyers will be hired by both sides of a legal dispute, it is in their interest that the laws be positively self-contradictory, for they will then be able to make just as good a case, and stand just as good a chance of winning, whichever side hires them.

The remedy for this clear Conflict of Interest and breach of the Separation of Powers is obvious:

Members of the Bar should be ineligible for elective office, with the only exception being offices specifically for attorneys (e.g. District Attorney or a State Attorney General).
Lawyers could still become politicians, just by resigning from the Bar, with the proviso that they cannot be readmitted. If they are then subject to Term Limits, they will either have to count on being elected to various public offices or they will have to prepare for getting into a different line of work once their political career is over. Or they can move to a different State, where they could be admitted to the Bar again. There they would not be dealing with laws they may have been instrumental in passing back in their home State.

12/18/2007 3:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is this the same Kelley Ross who is claims that 9/11 was caused by environmentalists, and is in favor of "nude family recreation"?

Exactly the kind of person we need helping us choose our judges . . .

12/18/2007 4:42 PM  
Blogger whistleblower said...

Yes Anonymous, Dr. Ross does blame the environmentalist for the collapse of the WTC's. He claims that the protests against "all forms of asbestos", even those forms that are non-carcinogenic, resulted in asbestos insulation not being used above the 45th floor.

I don't agree with his conclusion, but I will defend his right to present his theories and arrive at his own conclusions.

And Yes Anonymous, Dr. Ross does believe in "Nude Family Recreation". He thinks that nude beaches, like those in Europe, are acceptable.

12/19/2007 9:59 AM  
Anonymous Whistleblowme said...

The dude's a whacko. Did you see that site????? High-larious!!

If the anti-Missouri Plan people want that freak to have a role in choosing judges, then I'm not interested!

12/19/2007 10:18 AM  
Anonymous UMKC Law Class of '99 said...

I found this thread of comments/opinions a bit late to perhaps actively participate; but, still wish to post two views I, as an attorney, a member of the Missouri Bar and a member of our community hold:
(1). Regarding the 12/17/200, 7:10 AM comment wherein “traffic law hack and proud of it!” stated: "And, to be fair, it’s not just the elite lawyers. The bottom dwellers are scum too. Look at the municipal court. What a proud profession; rated by the public below used car salesmen and abortion doctors.,"
I vehemently rebuke this aforestated comment.
Yes, there are "elite" collections of attorneys locally and nationally. And, yes, there's a collection of "bottom dwellers," too.
HOWEVER, this is true of ANY profession. There are always collections of professionals (actually, of any classification of workers) at the polar extremes.
What you are not accounting for are the majority of lawyers who get up and go to work 60 hours a week, do the best job they can do every day, make just enough money to make the rent, buy the groceries, pay the bills and, hopefully, put a little money away for their children's education.
We are not all getting fat, rich and empowered. I hope to just get enough put away so that when I am old and decrepit, I can go into a nursing home that isn't a "bottom dweller" (to use your terminology).
The majority of lawyers of not power mongering elitists. We are just individuals who had endured a grueling education and introduction to the real world, not the academic world, of law. For the majority of lawyers, it is not an easy, carefree career. For the majority of lawyers, there is pride and compassion in their hard work. You, “traffic law hack and proud of it!,” are only looking at the polar extremes of the profession and, thereby, stereotyping all in the profession. This is balantly not a fair, nor even accurate, means by which to "measure" a profession.
As well, I would truly like to know where you obtained the information to support your statement: "What a proud profession; rated by the public below used car salesmen and abortion doctors."
(2). I went to law school with Stephen Bough. You learn a lot about a person during law school. It's rather like being soldiers in the same foxhole under enemy gunfire for three years: You learn who's courageous, who's compassionate, who's honest, who's loyal, who's strong willed and strong minded, who's intelligent--And you learn who's some of these--And who's none of these.
Steve is one of two individuals on who’s integrity I would place my soul. [The second is a federal appellate judge-coincidentally, both in the legal profession.]
I am not a "running buddy" of Steve's. Nor am I one of his or his cause's cronies. I am simply someone who spent a great deal of time during a long period of GREAT pressure with him. I would hope he would call me a friend. But no matter, for Whistleblower to say " "[...Stephen Bough]They avoid the truth, and anyone who attempts to submit the truth is portrayed as a liar" is saying to me the earth is flat. These acts are not in his character. Perhaps Steve presents an opposing view to your/one’s and, thus, you/one take that personally and say you/one feels like he/she is being called a liar.
Or maybe this person just is a liar.
No matter which, the assertions against Steve's character are totally incomprehensible.
No, again, I am not a close friend or associate of Steve's. Should he read this, he will not even know who has written this.
But this is the truth.

1/03/2008 6:34 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Thanks for posting, '99. Both good points.

1/04/2008 5:49 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home