Posting as "refugee," Gableman attorney goes on the PR offensive
Mr. Dinh avoids precisely the same dispositive issue as does Esenberg.
"Free" is not the term of art. "Gift" and "favor" are the terms of art.
IOW, Mr. Dinh attacks the reporting without reference to the law.
We are not impressed.
The comments section of jsonline is all too much like daytime TV-something that is worth ignoring-and the wanna be grenade-in-a-room comments suggesting reporter Marley has some kind of axe to grind by first commenter "barrister1" (just ahead of the "refugee" Dinh) are all too typical (although those do suggest some kind court insider with information that might be of gossipy interest, something beyond the usual name calling rants anyway-but if the barrister1 won't come out of the closet with an identity of his true self....perhaps posting just ahead of Dinh is Gableman...just another wonder of a post) but then here's an item in the rants that keeps the elephant in the room and goes to Esenberg's "nobody can afford MBF"--HOW can Gableman now afford to have a really expensive attorney doing PR--or is this just Dinh's free speech? Or more pro bono to keep the ethically challenged on the bench?
ReplyDeleteLet there be a lesson here--there is 1st Amendment protection for all for free speech--say what you will--but be prepared to own that. And if you put yourself out and run for elected office--AS AN ATTORNEY BOUND BY RULES OF ETHICS--and as part of your free speech you make assertions about your opponent that do not reflect reality (something commonly called "lies"), presumably because Gableman had no record of substance to run on--then that reckless speech will cost you something--presumably some of that salary you so desperately wanted. I'm guessing Gableman paid Bopp--as Bopp would not likely ever appear before Gableman. But for MBF, that representation was just money in the bank-imagine the 'wink/wink-nudge/nudge' as the contract was signed--otherwise, why else would MBF's counsel tell the JS about teh agreement? He was uncomfortable with what the paper was reporting-and the firm's overall future was more important that allowing McLeod to propogate a myth of 'a usual agreement'.
So, now, does Esenberg have an explanation as to how Gableman can hire Dinh? Or are those services free too? Or maybe that's just Dinh's free speech now--and what a bargain, what a 25 cent word like "casuistry"--used TWICE. Hard to see how Gableman or Esenberg or other $100k plus people can afford that--you'd have to give up some luxury item.
All of that, plus the Journal Sentinel editorial board and Esenberg -- who is apparently the only lawyer in Milwaukee of whose existence David Haynes is aware -- are talking past each other. The editorial is about recusal whereas Esenberg's "another view" is pointedly not about recusal.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of recusal, the court's Republican bloc has made it all but impossible through a series of decisions over the past few years. Their rules governing recusal were drafted by Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce and the Wisconsin Realtors Assocation and adopted verbatim by the court's Republican bloc.
Furthermore the original set of verbatim-adopted provisions was defective. The Republican judges who adopted them didn't notice the defect; it took the drafters to notice. All of this was captured on video at the court's open administrative hearings and the only one who registered any embarrassment -- or even awareness at the fact that the Supreme Court got rolled by corporate attorneys -- was Justice Prosser, who nevertheless signed on to the revised provisions' adoption a second time.
The foregoing charade was vastly underreported, if it was reported at all, and as far as I'm concerned is the single most blatant example of the Republican majority's commitment to its corporate benefactors.