Am I the only one who finds this offensive?
Submitted by James on Sun, 09/05/2010 - 10:37am
State Bar is no ordinary plaintiff.
As a regular person who is bound by the law but not trained in it, I find this statement by the North Carolina Bar Association in its Response to Petition for Writ of Supercedeas to be unconscionable if not prejudicial. Is that a fair judgment?
Forget for a moment about the facts of a case.
In the American system of jurisprudence, does the status of the plaintiff have any bearing on how the law should be interpreted?
As I see it, "standing" is a legal matter, you either have it or you don't.
But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps we have a legal system in America wherein the position/power/influence/role of those on one side of a case gives them special privilege in comparison to the position/power/influence/role of those on the other side.
If that's true, then I would be wrong in declaring this statement the "arrogance of power." It would be more properly labeled "the privilege of power."
Either way, I find it offensive.
Read more: http://bluenc.com/north-carolina-state-bar-accuses-betsy-wolfenden-posin...
- James's blog
- 982 reads
Unconscionable?
I think "unconscionable" is a little strong.
I think that it's stating the obvious that the State Bar is no ordinary plaintiff. It is an extraordinary plaintiff, and it does present a difficult circumstance for opposing counsel. But counsel will use that, as any counsel would and should, to make the argument that his/her client is being bullied by a big, powerful organization that is abusing its power and attempting to stifle justice. That argument is always going to be in play when you have a plaintiff with clout.
Likewise, when a defendant is a big, powerful corporation with lots of money, defense counsel will argue that the corporation is being targeted just because of its power and money.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Conscionable?
What's the best word?
Just fine?
Business as usual?
Harsh reality?
Obnoxious?
I hadn't looked up the word yet, didn't realize it has a legal meaning. Interesting definition.
And I found this in its application to contracts.
Is affront a better choice of words?
If I were a judge, the assertion of privilege like this would be a liability. Good thing I'm not a judge.
Confused
I guess I'm not following. I don't understand why I'm supposed to be shocked or affronted by plaintiff's statement that it is no ordinary plaintiff.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
I didn't say you were
I didn't say you were supposed to be anything, certainly not shocked. I asked whether it was fair for me to find it offensive. You've given me no reason not to. The fact that it's common practice for everyone who thinks he or she can claim special status to do so is not convincing.
In a world where everyone is supposed to be equal before the law, the assertion of special status is offensive to me on its face.
Maybe you're just resigned to how the business of justice is carried out in real life. I'm not there ... and hope I never get there either.
I'm still confused
Maybe I need more context. I don't think my reaction has anything to do with being inured to injustice or blase about right and wrong. I honestly don't understand the extremity of your reaction to a plaintiff making assertions on plaintiff's behalf in a court of law.
Was the plaintiff saying that equal treatment under the law does not apply here?
Was plaintiff saying that the rule of law be suspended because of who plaintiff is?
It just seems to me that you're placing a lot of weight on something that is not terribly weighty.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
I think it's weighty
You probably see stuff like this all the time. I don't.
And I confess to being hyper-alert for assertions of privilege.
The statement is weighty to me, it's an indication of the expectation of preferential treatment. It is expressly designed to elicit such preferential treatment against a person who, rightly or wrongly, is challenging an entire system that seems to confer preferential treatment on certain insiders.
As I said above, it's probably just business as usual. From my outsiders view, that's all the more reason to question it.
I'm confused, too
Doesn't the Bar exert influence over all lawyers with the "license to practice" thingie? Including judges?
If so, how in the hell could any (NC) court hear this case without there being a conflict?
Good Lord, James
I just went and read the danged thing.
The statement is not 'The State Bar is no ordinary plaintiff." The statement is "The State Bar is not an ordinary plaintiff." And it goes on to explain WHY. And there is not only NOTHING arrogant about what is being stated, it is the simple, plain truth about the nature of the State Bar. ORDINARILY, a plaintiff represents private interests.
For the life of me, don't understand how you could have such a silly reaction to the statement if you actually read it in context.
What is also clear from reading the Response to the Petition is that Wolfendon is bonkers.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
I can read
and have read the entire response and petition. I think I could translate the Bar's statement as follows:
You misquoted
in your original statement of indignation, and implied that the State Bar was making an assertion of privilege that it wasn't making Now, instead of acknowledging that, you go further to justify an extreme and unwarranted reaction.
Your characterization of the State Bar's stance is neither accurate nor fair. And following up a misquote with an even less justifiable paraphrasing doesn't help your credibility a bit. It does, however, remind me of something a Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh would pull.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
My assertion is both accurate and fair
There are plenty of times when I grant the wisdom of your superior knowledge in all things, but this will not be one of them.
The State Bar's assertion of special status is evident on its face, both with and without the context of their broader response. The words I focused on are plain English, and they convey intrinsic meaning at every level of semantic analysis you wish to explore.
To be specific, the State Bar is asserting that their special status warrants special consideration because of who they represent. Perhaps that's how things really work. Maybe they should get special consideration because of their special status, but it doesn't sit well with me. They didn't need to evoke their special status to make their case, it was entirely unnecessary. But they did it anyway. They asserted the kind of privilege that I see all the time, insiders who know insiders who know insiders who play the game.
In my view, all plaintiffs are ordinary and should stand as exact equals before the law. The idea that any plaintiff should get special consideration because of who he or she is, well, that's offensive.
And just to say it, the question of credibility is of zero concern to me. I am not pretending that I know anything about the law or the games lawyers play. I'm an ordinary person with an ordinary point of view that stands on its own.
No, it isn't, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself
Your misquote, which i have to believe was not deliberate, conveyed a tone completely different from the actual statement. Yet instead of acknowledging your error, you insist upon your original, sinister reading, and you don't even apologize for the misstatement.
No, the State Bar did not assert any privilege.
No, the State Bar did not imply that it deserves to be given preferential treatment.
No, the State Bar did not imply that because of who is in the Bar and who has cocktails with whom, the State Bar should be winked at instead of tested on the merits of argument. In fact, the statement says just the opposite of that.
No, this isn't about lawyers' games, James. (Legal cases and attorneys bear little resemblance to television plots and characters -- entertaining though they are).
The State Bar is not a monolithic entity, plotting like a Bond villain to destroy whistleblowers. The State Bar is a wide array of men and women.
I feel exasperated with myself here because I TRUSTED that you had accurately quoted the Bar. Had I not been wondering what on earth you thought was so insidious, I wouldn't have gone looking for the context and wouldn't have discovered your misrepresentation.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Let's let it go.
I don't get your point, honestly, and I definitely don't think my point is worth this kind of drama. In fact, I know it's not.
Peace.
Sure, James, but you did misquote, and you should regret that.
You would be the first to jump onto a rightwinger's doing just what you did. Alter a quote, by just a jot, but just enough to imply what you think should be implied.
It was wrong. And I would not have thought it of you.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Misquote
I just discovered what you're talking about. I wrote in my original post
while the document actually says something really, really different.
How could I be so wrong?
The tone, James,
is entirely different. You clearly recognize that, since you said "I love this line," as you posted the misquote.
But thank you for posting the fuller context. It helps make my point.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
It may "help" make your point
but it falls far short of actually making it.
There is no difference worth noting between the tone of what I originally posted and the State Bar quote. I could have (and should have) used it exactly as written. Unfortunately, I was working from memory.
If I had used it exactly as written, I'd stand behind everything I've said in this and other threads, which I'll offer in closing:
I'll be offline until late tonight, work calls. Take care.
_________________
PS Sorry I posted this as BlueNC, the name I use when cleaning up administrative stuff, and didn't have time to change it. It's really me, James.
Misquoting
When you misquote, and the result is a change in tone (and unwarranted support for what you say the speaker is implying), you place yourself among those who justify a "wee alteration" in a phrase just because that wee alteration is helpful for an accusation. That smacks of Fox News.
I guess for me it's a lesson learned. I'll not be so quick to assume you gave an accurate quote next time.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
I said I made a mistake. I
I said I made a mistake. I corrected it once it was pointed out.
It doesn't change the substance of this debate one iota. You are grasping at straws, trying to defend something that is indefensible.
Now you're comparing me to Fox News. Nice.
Sorry, James
I missed the part where you said you made a mistake. I was hearing you say you didn't think it mattered at all. But for you, a writer, to suggest you don't know why the difference in tonality is significant is not very credible.
So, no, I'm not grasping at anything. I'm going to NOT grasp, in the future, to the assumption that you have quoted someone accurately or accurately relayed the context of a statement.
You have done exactly what you would denounce Fox for doing, so yes, I'm observing the parallel.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
On that unhappy note
I hereby declare myself immune and impervious to whatever future criticism you might choose to send my way.
I am not an ordinary plaintiff, you see.