“Once many people believe something and enjoy a significant amount of communal reinforcement, they get very selective about the type of data they pay attention to in the future”.
Fact is seemingly irrelevant to the Patsy Brumfield-wannabes-but-can’t who, like wolves at the sight of the full moon, prefer howlin’ and jowlin’ “communal reinforcement” to informed discussion.
In addition to the Complaint filed by Scruggs and the response filed by his former attorney Anthony Farese, the members of the Committee on Professional Responsibility for the Mississippi Bar Association had an Ethics Opinion drafted by former Bar President Cham Trotter (linked here and below in Scribd’ format).
Read Trotter’s Ethics Opinion, take a look at his attached Curriculum Vitae and see if you, like the Bar Committee, find “No ‘clear and convincing’ evidence” of “inadequate representation”.
SLABBED reports, you decide.
[scribd id=51273134 key=key-2aumxnexgzmv11mc0u47 mode=list]
You know the term “clear and convincing” evidence is not my choice of words, Nowdy. It’s a very arbitrarily applied standard that I personally believe is abused.
As far as the ethics opinion submitted by Zach Scruggs, I’m not sure that an “opinion” is actually “evidence” of any kind.
The Opinion was based on the “mostly uncontested facts” – and those facts were based on the Zach’s Complaint/Exhibits; attorney Farese’s Answer and his “Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19.20 and 2 1”; Zach’s Reply to Farese’s Answer; the “Affidavit of John W. Keker”; consultation with Zach; an interview with Curtis Wilkie, before Zeus was published; and, Trotter’s reading of the “Kings of Tort by Alan Lange and Tom Dawson”.
IOW,the Opinion was based on evidence presented to and/or available to the Committee – and submitted as additional evidence and my review of Trotter’s Vitae indicates Courts consider his opinions to be evidence.
However, NAAS, my purpose was simply to provide readers the opportunity to see the basis for Zach’s Complaint examined by a recognized expert in legal ethics as opposed to the opinions of those with a horse in this race.
I realized “clear and compelling” wasn’t your choice of words but you were the only source I found without a “horse in the race” – albeit, some simply had a nag on the track.
Moreover, I agree “clear and compelling” is “a very arbitrarily applied standard” – and one that is definitely “abused” in this state. Much like what I’ve observed in Louisiana, here it’s not what you did but who you know that counts.
And it just might be that certain people in legal circles in the State of Mississippi (who are not serving “hard time” in the Federal Penitentiary, or who were only recently released from same), ie. “the SHEEP”, have decided that “enough is enough”. They may have decided that they are no longer going to cow-tow to self-admitted FELONS, and their relatives, no matter how rich they are or will be when they get out of prison. GUILTY pleas in connection with attempted (and actual) bribery of two Judges (that we KNOW of) is simply ENOUGH! And “anyway”, Zach obtained competent representation AFTER it was learned that Mr. Farese was representing the FELON Mr. Langston, and Zach’s plea of GUILTY to misprison of a felony had NOTHING to do with Mr. Farese, although certain “WOLVES”, nay “WEREWOLVES”, would like to persuade the SHEEP otherwise, and then EAT the SHEEP. PLEASE, Mississippi, send some of you sheep to Louisiana, where I can introduce you to the likes of: Supreme Court Justice Catherine D. Kimball, her Chief Disciplinary Counsel Charles B. Plattsmier, Jr., former Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., Assistant U.S Attorneys Michael Magner, Stephen Higginson and Brian Marcelle (among others like Letten’s First Assistant Jan Maselli-Mann), and numerous individuals within the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, and numerous other Federal, State and Local agencies. These people are not only “wolves”; THEY ARE SCUM, and Ashton O’Dwyer can prove it. Ashton O’Dwyer (with no sympathy for Zach Scruggs or his Dad and their co-conspirators whatsoever).
OH! And how did I forget those bastions of judicial and legal ethics: Federal Judges Stanwood R. Duval, Jr. Ivan L.R. Lemelle and Lance Africk, among others, as well as those exemplary pillars of the Louisiana Bar Calvin C. Fayard, Jr., Joseph C. Bruno and many, many others. Ashton O’Dwyer (disbared, disgraced, humiliated and embarrassed, but still holding his head up, and still fighting).
Ashton, considering your 1st comment on this post, the only honorable thing for you to do is withdraw “Exhibit 6” (Zach’s Motion to Vacate] from the Brief you filled with the Fifth Circuit.
You should be “humiliated and embarrassed” to pilfer a work product produced and paid for by those you hold in such contempt!
http://slabbed.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/usa-v-odwyer-ashton-files-appellee-brief-with-5th-circuit/
Ashton, if you weren’t so consumed with yourself, you might learn about others and how it is not All About You. Zach’s claim has more to do with what he learned after Dawson and Lange released their book, he filed a complaint with the bar, the bar made Farese answer. He answered along with filing numerous affidavits and exhibits. It is because of this book and the affidavits and Skilling and lack of jurisdiction that he filed that 2255 proceeding. Thankfully your lunatic ravings don’t have any weight on the case.
To “nowdoucit”: Exhibit No. 6 to my Main Brief in my criminal case contains, admittedly, a few pages from a memorandum filed on Zach’s behalf to vacate his conviction. But the “work product” cited is not Zach’s or his lawyers’, but rather an assertion, unrefuted by the Govrenment that an E-mail transmitted intra-state in Mississippi was not an “inter-state” transmission that would confer Federal jurisdiction. My argument is that an E-mail transmitted from my home at 6034 St. Charles Avenue in uptown New Orleans to the Bankruptcy Court in Downtown New Orleans was purely “intra-state”, and not “inter-state” so as to confer Federal jurisdiction under the Federal statute I have been charged with violating, namely 18 U.S.C. Section 875(c). These arguments were not refuted by the Government in Zach’s case; they have not been refuted by the Government in my case (although there is one case in the lawbooks, not binding on the 5th or 11th Circuits, to the effect that if an intra-state E-mail went to an out-of-state network server before being delivered to the intra-state recipient, then that is sufficient to make the transmission an inter-state transmission and to confer Federal jurisdiction, even if the sender had no intent to transmit his E-mail inter-state. And to “bellesouth”: Keep up the personal attacks. I have become “steeled” to them (and to physical attacks) during the past 5 years or so. And as for “lunatic ravings”, I am reminded of the “punchline” in a joke that still makes me laugh: “Well, I may be CRAZY, but I’m not STUPID”. And if Zach’s or his Daddy’s or any of their co-conspirators’ GUILTY PLEAS get set aside for any reason, then the SHAME will be on the judicial and legal communities in Mississippi who allowed this obvious PUBLIC CORRUPTION to fluorish, unabated, for far too long (not to mention “journalists”). Ashton O’Dwyer.
Ashton, you just said you think the courts should apply the law to some, but not all, people. So, why you been complaining about how you’ve been treated?
I tend to agree with Ashton that lawyers generally do a bad job policing themselves.
Also good to see we are not the only blog that beats up on legal ethicists.
sop
I didn’t read that point in Ashton’s comment, Sop. What I see is “selective policing” – which is worse than just “poor” – and I see it in both Louisiana and Mississippi.
Must be time to get my eyes checked as I missed any “beating” SLABBED gave “legal ethicists”…IMO, the beating going on elsewhere is as “selective” as the “policing”.
Nowdy how soon you forget our friend Dane. I’m sure he is hurt to the core…..
sop
Ashton, when you can’t argue with the facts then spew lunatic ravings about how others have abused you.