Robert Tanguay's Case

I do not know Robert Tanguay nor do I have objective information on the facts of the case but his story is an interesting one. Much of it rings true to my ears. 

False allegations, no response from law enforcement because the perpetrator is part of the justice system, clear perjury, and a Kafkaesque bureaucracy which seemingly exists primary to extract as much money as possible from victims. I have experienced all of it. 

The worst part is not that an individual committed criminal and unethical deeds, it is that the system itself protects and rewards such individuals. Most do not realize just how broken our justice system is. instead of ensuring justice, it operates more like a criminal organization. 

Corruption

From the University of Exeter in England come a new study on corruption with a focus on those who enable such crimes. The thing most people do not realize about corruption is just how many "legitimate" people are involved. 

Lawyers, accountants, company service providers and other professionals often play essential roles in the movement of illicit wealth. They can be enormously powerful and effective at resisting both scrutiny and regulation. This influence, along with the complexity of this terrain, has led to a lack of consensus around what counts as “enabling” activity and what consequences should follow.

“Armies of professionals around the world are helping corrupt individuals conduct their dirty business,” said Global Anti-Corruption Consortium Director Alexandra Gillies.

Enablers are especially well  represented by lawyers who are often fully aware of their clients, as well as their own, illegal actions. 

In family court, it is often the lawyers who encourage their clients to commit crimes such as making false accusations. I am pretty sure that is what my ex-wife's lawyer did before she committed fraud herself. 

Lessons In Chemistry

Last summer I read the book Lessons in Chemistry and a few weeks ago we finished watching the Apple TV+ series of the same name. Both were quite good but there were some differences between the book and TV show. Some random thoughts follow. 

In the book, the main character Elizabeth is a scientist working in a laboratory. She only has a masters in chemistry because she was unfairly forced to drop out of her Ph.D program after a professor who she was working with tried to rape her. Elizabeth, when struggling with the professor, stabbed him with a pencil. The school wanted her to publicly apologize in order to continue in the program. Elizabeth said she was sorry - sorry she did not have more pencils.  (what a great line!) In the TV show, Elizabeth was working as a lab assistant rather than a scientist. I presume Apple did this to make it seem even life was even more unfair to Elizabeth. I guess getting kicked out of school because you fought off an attempted rape was not bad enough. 

Elizabeth's research in the book is focused on abiogenesis (something I have an interest in as well) whereas her boyfriend Calvin, who is a world renowned scientist. works in a different area. In the TV series Calvin's research has stalled and he starts to work with Elizabeth on abiogenesis. This was a weird change and honestly I cannot figure out why it was made. Yes, it makes Calvin seem less capable, and maybe that was the reason, but it also makes Elizabeth seem less capable as it makes the research not entirely her own.  

The book is about many things, science, cooking, rowing, the relationship between Calvin and Elizabeth, discrimination against women, and the horrors of orphanages.  The book emphasized discrimination against women and added in discrimination against blacks. It was a bit over the top and distracted from the story. 

We seem as a society to have become polarized. You have the Trumpists on one end which, sorry to say, is more a religious movement based on intolerance for anything other than what their leader says. On the other end, you have people who who see everything through the light of discrimination against minorities or women.  There is a conservative joke which I like but feel slightly guilty about liking which goes:

World ends tomorrow. Women and minorities to be hit especially hard.  

I liked President Obama. He acknowledged the historic meaning of being the first black president but he never once said he should be elected because he was black. Compare this to Hillary Clinton whose main message was that it was time for a woman to be in the white house. That turned people off. The result -  many people who voted for Obama subsequently voted for Trump. The lesson - going overboard to make a point can turn people, at least some people off. Often, as with the 2016 election, with devastating results. 

I Like Judge Lewis Kaplan

I kind of like Judge Lewis Kaplan. I really do. 

Kaplan was the presiding federal judge in the E. Jean Carroll defamation trial agaisnt former president Donald Trump. The jury awarded Carroll  $83.3 million. Nice.

But the reason I like Kapan stems from a bit before the award. When Kapan caught Trump's attorney Alina Habba  directly lying to him, he threatened her with jail. I wish he had followed through with it. 

Come to think of it, by the rules Hobbs should be disciplined by the bar association for her actions but I suspect she won't be. It isn't like an attorney lying to a judge is all that unusual of behavior.

In my case, when Nelly Wince openly lied to the judge and in doing so committed fraud upon the court the judge, who openly admitted he knew Wince well, ordered that I pay her legal fees. 

Cato Institute On Criminal Justice System

The Cato Institute, hardly a left wing organization given its advocacy for lowering or abolishing most taxes, opposition to the Federal Reserve system and the Affordable Care Act, the privatization of numerous government agencies and programs including Social Security and the United States Postal Service, etc., asserted a few years back America’s Criminal Justice System Is Rotten to the Core. 

Why?

1. Unconstitutional overcriminalization
2. Point‐​and‐​convict adjudication
3. Near‐​zero accountability for police and prosecutors

The third one is the most relevant to this site's purpose. When prosecutors such as John Choi can willfully obstruct justice to protect fellow lawyers without consequence and law enforcement ignores complaints agaisnt prosecutors no matter how good the evidence, it is it is clear our justice system in not just broken but institutionally corrupt. 

The level of crime in a society depends mostly on how much the public believes judicial system is fair and just.  When judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and law enforcement are able to get away with breaking the law, it has as multiplier effect on the crime rate throughout society.  I wish more people understood this. 

Male Power

Male Power Over Females Is Not the Default Social Dynamic in Primates. 

Guess what? We are primates. 

The study found that no particular pattern of intersexual power can confidently be attributed to the ancestors of many major groups of primates, and therefore an assumption of ancestral male-biased power is not warranted.

So much of what we think we know is based on what we want to be true. 

The reality is:

• Women are not the weaker sex.
• Women can fight just as well as men.
• Women are just as intelligent as men.
• Women are just as emotionally stable as men. 
• Men are just as sympathetic as women.
• Women are just as abusive as men. (This is often controversial but if you substitute whites for women and blacks for men, how would you view it?)

California Adopts Duty To Report Rule For Lawyers

Unlike most states California never adopted the The American Bar Association model Rule of Professional Conduct which requires lawyers to report serious misconduct of another lawyer.

Now they have. 

Effective August 1, 2023, Rule 8.3 requires:

A lawyer shall, without undue delay, inform the State Bar, or a tribunal* with jurisdiction to investigate or act upon such misconduct, when the lawyer knows* of credible evidence that another lawyer has committed a criminal act or has engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,* deceit, or reckless or intentional misrepresentation or misappropriation of funds or property that raises a substantial* question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.

Why did California finally adopt Rule 8.3? Mostly because of one lawyer - Thomas Girardi.  Over a 40 year period Girardi had over 200 complaints filed agaisnt him yet he continued to practice law. Many of his fellow lawyers knew how corrupt Girardi was, and some had substantial evidence, yet failed to say anything. 

The real question is whether the now in effect Rule 8.3 will change anything. I suspect not. In Minnesota we have had this rule since it came out in 1983 yet not a single lawyer has ever been disciplined for not reporting another lawyer who they knew had committed serious misconduct.  

In my case, every lawyer, including the judges, who saw the evidence against Nelly Wince should have reported her. Indeed, they were, and still are, obligated to do so. Yet not a single one did. 

The rule, at least in practice, is for show. It fools the public into thinking lawyers are able to police themselves. The reality is quite the opposite.