Wednesday, June 30, 2010

The Kagan Fraud


Under questioning from Sen. Orrin Hatch – the first Republican to ask her about the American College Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists partial-birth abortion memo – Elena Kagan admitted her authorship of the memo." Human Events blog, 6/30/10

This type of behavior is why I stopped practicing law. Here we have an attorney who persuaded a group to present a false statement to a court of law. This is behavior which is subject to attorney discipline, and, considering the import of the case(s) in which this false statement was presented, potentially disbarment.

What did Kagen do? Simple. She was presented with a report which had the following language:

"[A] select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure [intact D&X abortion], as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. (Good review here, with links to the full documents in PDF format.)

At the time, Kagan was a political hack in the employ of the Clinton Administration. She knew the above language was "disastrous" to any attempt to overturn the federal ban on partial birth abortions -- a Clinton goal.

But, she also knew that the report by the supposedly non-partisan ACOG would be presented to a federal judge who would review it as evidence and give it at least some weight.

So, what did she do? She asked ACOG to change its conclusion. Not change its language. She asked ACOG to delete the disastrous language and substitute the following:

An intact D+X, [partial-birth abortion] however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and a doctor should be allowed to make this determination." id.

This isn't a change of "wording," it is a change, in the opposite direction, of meaning. It isn't what ACOG said in its original report; it is essentially the opposite. ACOG could not believe both statements to be true.

Nonetheless, ACOG complied with the request and the altered report was presented to several federal judges and was accepted by them as evidence which was relied upon at least to some degree in making their judgments. (ACOG's role in this fraud is despicable and far reaching, including, apparently, making the assertion that they had not had contact with anyone concerning their report when, in fact, they had met with the Clinton administration (including Kagan) earlier and had (at least) the conversations with Kagan as related herein. But, ACOG ain't up for SCOTUS...)

Her actions (and the actions of the other lawyers complicit in this fraud) violate the Professional Rules of Responsibility on many levels:

"Rule 3.4: Fairness to opposing party and counsel

A lawyer shall not:

(a) unlawfully obstruct another party' s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;

(b) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law; ... "

"Rule 8.4: Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession; Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) ...

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

..."

This is reprehensible behavior for any lawyer. It is even worse when that lawyer is a "public servant" on the public payroll advising the President of the United States, and especially reprehensible when the intent is to affect public policy through the employment of fraudulent documents.

It is unfortunate, but such behavior is common amongst attorneys. That doesn't mean, however, that when it is rooted out, it should be ignored -- especially when it is perpetrated by a potential Supreme Court Justice!

Someone should immediately file a disciplinary complaint against her. She should be chastised, disciplined and, potentially, disbarred.

Unfortunately, it is more likely that this political hack who is willing to perpetrate fraud on the Judicial System will soon be writing opinions from the highest bench.

Monday, June 21, 2010

Incompetence in the Gulf? Depends on what "is" is...

The lame stream media is finally beginning to hammer Obama. Even the most left-wing of sycophants have taken to questioning Obama's competence.

Susan Estrich
Thomas Friedman

Amazing.

Amazing on several levels. Wrong, however, I think, on all.

The right blogosphere is all atwitter with cries of "Gotcha!" Right wing pundits engage in volleys of "Told ya so!" directed towards the left and the traitorous right (Noonan and fellow travelers). They were warned that Obama's lack of executive experience was inviting disaster -- and that lack of experience has now (again) resulted in unmitigated disaster in the Gulf.

Could be. Could be.

But, what if it's not? What if his mis-steps in Israel, his bowing to foreign leaders, his betrayal of allies, his disrespect of the U.K., his insane over-printing of currency, his attitude towards events in Iran (now and the "uprising"), his abandonment of Israel, his failure to address North Korea, etc. etc. etc. aren't acts of incompetence but, instead, purposeful?

How stupid do we believe him to be?

Assuredly, he can read a poll. Or several polls. Or every poll. He can see what effect his actions are having on the chances his party will retain power in 2010. No matter how "teleprompter dependent" he might be, no sane person can think that he doesn't see what's happening. And has been happening since before the "health-care" debate became so inflamed against him and the Democratic party.

Certainly, he could see what his inaction in the Gulf (and his actions which were contrary to actually cleaning up the mess) was doing to his, and his party's, chances in 2010.

Again, just how stupid do we believe him to be?

Me? I think that most of the pundits simply read Obama wrong. They think he's a politician, a run-of-the-mill (albeit a Chicago) politician.

If viewed as such, then, of course, many of his actions, destructive not only of the potential continued supremacy of his Party but of his own re-election in 2012, are either the result of insanity or of incompetence.

But, if viewed, instead, through the eyes of a true believer who cares only about his agenda -- and nothing and no one else -- then, events take on a whole other meaning, don't they?

He wanted Health Care. He got Health Care. He may have lost the House and perhaps the Senate in the process, but he got Health Care. The camel's hump is under the tent.

He got Cap & Trade through the House. It stalled in the Senate. The oil spill presents new opportunity to push it through. But, not if it is stoppered quickly and cleaned up with little damage. So, it isn't stoppered quickly and the clean up is stymied at every turn. And, he pushes his Green agenda -- including Cap & Trade.

So, are his actions here (and elsewhere/when) "incompetent?" Or, is he simply uncaring about everyone/everything else other than his AGENDA?

Personally, I don't think he's stupid. Nor, do I think he's utterly incompetent. I simply believe that he doesn't care whether the Democrats retain the House or that he be re-elected. These would be nice, but the agenda is all.

Health Care has been passed. It is highly unlikely that it will be fully repealed. And, if it isn't fully repealed, it, like every other government program, will grow. The same with Cap & Trade, if it gets passed -- in any form.

When it is your goal to "transform America," you must be willing to make sacrifices. Of anyone and of anything -- except your agenda.

Almost a year...

It's been almost a year since my last post. I suppose I could blame life intruding as the fault. Been busy, don't you know...

But, in reality, I've been lazy. It's work to create posts which are (or are intended to be) entertaining and informative while not just parroting what others elsewhere do better.

So, instead of putting my head down and plowing through, I just ... put my head down.

Here's another go...