f/k/a archives . . . real opinions & real haiku

 

 

the highest pass…
the grasshopper’s cadence
outpaces the cyclist

 

 

 

 

 

 

thunderstorm
an old woman mops her step
before the rain stops 

 

 

 

mid-life crisis
raking up leaves
in the wind

 

 

MATT MORDEN  from Haiku Canada Newsletter

Vol XVIII Feb 2005 No.1

 

 

• 
  
  by dagosan:  

setting a timer

to remember

to set the timer

 

 

first sunny day

in March —

her first smile this month

                           [March 3, 2005]

Reminding us about Watergate, J. Craig Williams took a look yesterday at the attorney-client

privilege between government officials and government attorneys, noting:

“Seems to me the Courts are asking the wrong question. Who is the government

attorney responsibile to? Who’s the client here? The citizens or the government

official?”

Although ABA’s Model Rule 1.6 does not address the topic, the D.C.’s Rule 1.6 (j) says “The

client of the government lawyer is the agency that employs the lawyer unless expressly provided

to the contrary by appropriate law, regulation, or order.”   As I commented at Craig’s place, that

tends to mean that discussions by agency officials with agency lawyers about agency business

are deemed to be within the attorney-client privilege.   Until a rule can be devised and adopted that

somehow factors in the public’s interests, perhaps government lawyers need to be better trained to

know when to say, “this topic should be taken up with your own private lawyer.”  Click here for a

thoughtful, balanced article that appeared in Washington State Bar’s Bar News (Sept. 2004). 

Discussion by the guys at the Legal Ethics Forum on this one would be much appreciated. 

 

 

  Mike Cernovich, a/k/a Fed84, asserts that prosecutors should be kept out of the

Trial Lawyers College.  I’ve opined at C&F to the contrary.  (By the way, Mike told us he agrees

“that both should be allowed in each other’s tax-supported courses.”)

 

 

“witchbrewS”  The website of an otherwise obscure newspaper in the MidHudson region of New York —

Kingston’s Daily Freeman — has had a lot of uninvited visitors this week.  Its publisher, Ira Fusfeld,

is a weekly contributor to the Round Table, a show on public radio WAMC, based in Albany, NY. 

This morning, Fusfeld bemoaned the uproar caused by an innocent Reader Poll question, based on

this news story, which asked :

Do you agree with Rep. Maurice Hinchey’s theory that Bush adviser Karl Rove

set up CBS News anchorman Dan Rather? 

According to Fusfeld, the Hinchey story and the Poll got picked up by webloggers and things got out

of hand.  The survey was so swamped, that the following disclaimer (never needed before) was added

to the poll box: “Note: As with all of our polls, results are unscientific and, unfortunately, may be victim

of “ballot box stuffing” by both sides.”  Fusfeld finds it hard to believe (or, perhaps, just sad) that the 

blogosphere is filled with so many people who must make sure their side wins this very unscientific poll

on a fairly unimportant topic.  Welcome, Ira, to the world of the highly partisan and ideological — where

there is little adult supervision or participation.   [As of 11:30 AM today, 59.4% agree with Hinchey.] 

Find web coverage, e.g., there, here, here, here, there and there.

• 
  
  
  

  Criticized for floating his pure speculation about Rove, Rep. Hinchey replied:  “OilCanHFs”

  
  

  “I have a responsibility to report (my theories) to my constituents and

  
  

  tell them conclusions or ideas that I am working on or believe based upon

  
  

  my analysis and interpretation of the facts.”  He’d make a great weblogger!