The last post leads me to what Knecht had to say about the "lawyer contact" issue. There is at least one closely related question (unasked until now) that remains publicly unanswered: Was the letter Raeder referred to from the attorney (Haws) and, if so, was it, a) public record or , b) attorney-client privilege? I can guess, but have you ever gotten a letter from an attorney that they didn't consider privileged? I seriously doubt it.
That raises a very serious question: If privileged, what violation(s) did Raeder commit by disclosing the contents in a public meeting without a vote of the board (or even a non-voting "consensus") to do so in a lame attempt to slam Murphy? After all, Raeder herself went way out of her way to make the point that only the whole board is represented by counsel and can make legal decisions (or even contact the attorney, apparently). What effect does her unilateral waiving of attorney-client privilege have on PUSD?
It is common sense that Raeder's unethical conduct will scare off more potential legal representatives than the hiring of an additional law firm ever could.
Showing posts with label Lawyers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lawyers. Show all posts
Monday, July 23, 2007
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Reporting Questionable Conduct Is A "Threat" (Unless You're Debra Raeder)
Sometimes I get such a kick out of the Duo's blatant hypocrisy!
With regard to contacting the lawyer directly (discussed at the July meeting), they both recently cast aspersions on Murphy's explanation with empty rhetoric, leaving out the actual facts of which they claim to be so fond. They completely omitted any mention of Erb's extremely defensive outburst, in which he said that he was the "staff" person in question. He never once disputed the timeline or substance of Murphy's description of events.
Apparently, Murphy was telling the truth. Otherwise, Erb would have specifically refuted at least some of the substance of Murphy's statement once he identified himself as the "staff" person.
As for Erickson's "Clintonesque" comment, that is pure sophistry, and he knows it! There is a huge difference between asking for the definitions of "threat" and "is." The word "is" has one clearly understood meaning. The word "threat" (when speaking of lawyers in particular) can have any number of meanings and was purposely used to inflame the situation. Saying you will report questionable conduct (is that really a "threat" anyway) is totally different from a physical threat. Raeder was using the timeless "Do you deny you beat your wife?" tactic. Speaking of being "worthy of the best litigator," it was quite artful for Murphy to force Raeder to define the "threat" rather than sounding defensive by doing it himself.
Where the Duo is concerned, here's the clincher. Several meetings ago, didn't Raeder "threaten" Douglas with possibly reporting her for an open meeting violation? For some strange reason, the Duo failed to chastise Raeder for that "threat." Unfortunately for all of them, Douglas' comment turned out not to be a violation at all. In fact, the statutory reason it was allowed was printed right on the agenda under Raeder's nose!
That wasn't just a "threat," it was an "empty threat" and the height of hypocrisy. But hypocrisy is nothing new for Raeder. Apparently when you're motivated by irrational hatred (with a lot of butt-covering thrown in), your own hypocrisy is tough to notice.
With regard to contacting the lawyer directly (discussed at the July meeting), they both recently cast aspersions on Murphy's explanation with empty rhetoric, leaving out the actual facts of which they claim to be so fond. They completely omitted any mention of Erb's extremely defensive outburst, in which he said that he was the "staff" person in question. He never once disputed the timeline or substance of Murphy's description of events.
Apparently, Murphy was telling the truth. Otherwise, Erb would have specifically refuted at least some of the substance of Murphy's statement once he identified himself as the "staff" person.
As for Erickson's "Clintonesque" comment, that is pure sophistry, and he knows it! There is a huge difference between asking for the definitions of "threat" and "is." The word "is" has one clearly understood meaning. The word "threat" (when speaking of lawyers in particular) can have any number of meanings and was purposely used to inflame the situation. Saying you will report questionable conduct (is that really a "threat" anyway) is totally different from a physical threat. Raeder was using the timeless "Do you deny you beat your wife?" tactic. Speaking of being "worthy of the best litigator," it was quite artful for Murphy to force Raeder to define the "threat" rather than sounding defensive by doing it himself.
Where the Duo is concerned, here's the clincher. Several meetings ago, didn't Raeder "threaten" Douglas with possibly reporting her for an open meeting violation? For some strange reason, the Duo failed to chastise Raeder for that "threat." Unfortunately for all of them, Douglas' comment turned out not to be a violation at all. In fact, the statutory reason it was allowed was printed right on the agenda under Raeder's nose!
That wasn't just a "threat," it was an "empty threat" and the height of hypocrisy. But hypocrisy is nothing new for Raeder. Apparently when you're motivated by irrational hatred (with a lot of butt-covering thrown in), your own hypocrisy is tough to notice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)