Our home LAN got struck by lightning two days ago and we spent some hours trying to get it fully up and running. We have one computer that still can't talk to one printer, though others can. Needless to say, it belongs to the wife, which makes it an emergency.
Today, just a few notes:
The Rocky came out against Bill Ritter's plan to unionize the state workforce. It confirmed that it does appear to be payback. Surprise, Surprise.
The Post had an editorial on CSAP. Just glancing over it, it looks like a very responsible and well reasoned editorial. If our impressions are correct, we wonder why some of our education centric friends aren't putting some positive comments on it. We looked at after it had been up for hours and no one had commented on it.
The Post also had an editorial on immigration. The first comment is a history lesson. This editorial now has 12 comments.
Our lawsuit is active again. The newest defense attorney has just filed a response to a motion and claimed that "the Defendant in this case has endured the misfortune of dealing with one of the worst examples of attorney misconduct imaginable..."
The state of Colorado and the Colorado Bar Association need to start looking in their rear view mirror. Long time readers will recall that we told the judge that very thing three years ago and the judge refused to take action. We told the Office of Attorney Regulation that same thing three years ago, and they took no action. We told the local judicial retention commission that no mechanism existed for a litigant to stop ongoing attorney misconduct and that the judge had an obligation to report it and refused to do so. The local retention commission decided that they had the authority to choose not to report that information to the public, so they took no action.
Because OARC would take no action, at least two other people were subsequently damaged by this attorney.
The Bar Association spent more than a million dollars to keep the Supreme Court from the limited unaccountability that Amendment 40 would have provided. They also sent their rep to the legislature to testify against HB 1227 to sidetrack another form of judicial accountability. We wrote about that here. As long as the Supreme Court is unaccountable, Bar Association members can avoid paying for reasonable liability insurance, and pay $20 a year instead.
Guess who the defense attorney claims should bear the full burden of his predecessor's "worst imaginable example of attorney misconduct." That's right, he wants to put the burden of the Defendant's attorney's years of misconduct completely on the plaintiff. If the past is a predictor of the future, the judge will do just that. We live with that kind of an Alice and Wonderland judicial system.
And finally, we got to take a trip through the looking glass when someone sent us the Supreme Court's proposed changes to the ethics code that governs attorneys. It appears to weaken protections that the public supposedly has now. It does allow judges at their discretion to allow lawsuits against attorneys for breaking the rules, something the current rules prohibit. When one considers the effort we went through to get an attorney disciplined, and the level of resistance we met, this provision is simply unethical slight of hand. No judge will ever allow such a lawsuit and the folks writing that section know that. Judges protect lawyers, lawyers protect judges, and no one protects the public.
Comments