Follow up on my gripe of the week
Well, I sent an email to the Asst DA basically telling him he lied to me. He replied today claiming that when he said the victims were going to hold a press conference it was when their proposed book was coming out.
Guess what? He lied again. He expressly told me they were going to hold a press conference soon because of the advice I gave them.
The he rolled out this piece of tripe:
"Of course, I never said it was not a crime what happened to her husband, notwithstanding her obvious inaccurate interpretation of my various statements to her, her husband, and their attorney who was also present at our meeting, and who did not at any time disagree with anything I said and in fact concurred with much of what was said."
Really? That's not you told me, you sack of lying -hit. He told me there was no crime that anyone could be charged with. Third lie.
Then he wrote this:
"If you want to support the (victims), that is your prerogative, but as a non-lawyer, you cannot give legal advice unless you are a licensed attorney, something you advised me that you are neither, i.e., you are neither licensed to practice law anywhere, nor are you an attorney. You clearly gave the (victims) legal advice and a legal opinion, of which you admitted or conceded, was wrong as you do not know the law generally and certainly do not know the law in Pennsylvania. Furthermore, you do not know all of the evidence, including that which exists and that which does not exist. Furthermore, you admitted and apologized for giving a legal opinion that was wrong, and for making my job more difficult in this case. Whatever you say now, or attempt to re-tract does not change the fact that your opinion as expressed in your e-mail to the (victims) and forward to me by them on May 3, 2006, was simply wrong, inaccurate, and indefensible."
Hmm. I never said I was a lawyer. I was giving the victims my expert and personal opinion on their situation. And guess what? I know more about the situation then he thinks. And I took away my apology because he lied. And my opinion was not innacurate, wrong or indefensible. In fact, I am more sure now than ever that I was right - the parents of the kids who posted the threats on Myspace should be held responsible for what their kids posted, since all the families involved claim they all share one computer and one email address.
The victims have been told not to go to the media, but you know what? I'm hoping they will now. This so-called Asst DA needs to be stopped.
You, Mr., are reprehensible, ineffective and shouldn't be an assistant DA.
Guess what? He lied again. He expressly told me they were going to hold a press conference soon because of the advice I gave them.
The he rolled out this piece of tripe:
"Of course, I never said it was not a crime what happened to her husband, notwithstanding her obvious inaccurate interpretation of my various statements to her, her husband, and their attorney who was also present at our meeting, and who did not at any time disagree with anything I said and in fact concurred with much of what was said."
Really? That's not you told me, you sack of lying -hit. He told me there was no crime that anyone could be charged with. Third lie.
Then he wrote this:
"If you want to support the (victims), that is your prerogative, but as a non-lawyer, you cannot give legal advice unless you are a licensed attorney, something you advised me that you are neither, i.e., you are neither licensed to practice law anywhere, nor are you an attorney. You clearly gave the (victims) legal advice and a legal opinion, of which you admitted or conceded, was wrong as you do not know the law generally and certainly do not know the law in Pennsylvania. Furthermore, you do not know all of the evidence, including that which exists and that which does not exist. Furthermore, you admitted and apologized for giving a legal opinion that was wrong, and for making my job more difficult in this case. Whatever you say now, or attempt to re-tract does not change the fact that your opinion as expressed in your e-mail to the (victims) and forward to me by them on May 3, 2006, was simply wrong, inaccurate, and indefensible."
Hmm. I never said I was a lawyer. I was giving the victims my expert and personal opinion on their situation. And guess what? I know more about the situation then he thinks. And I took away my apology because he lied. And my opinion was not innacurate, wrong or indefensible. In fact, I am more sure now than ever that I was right - the parents of the kids who posted the threats on Myspace should be held responsible for what their kids posted, since all the families involved claim they all share one computer and one email address.
The victims have been told not to go to the media, but you know what? I'm hoping they will now. This so-called Asst DA needs to be stopped.
You, Mr., are reprehensible, ineffective and shouldn't be an assistant DA.
Comments
Fleabag lawyers! The majority of the nasty ones give the small number of good ones a bad name! :(
"You are wrong not me, and I did not lie to you. You are now making things up.
What do you think the (victims) are going to do at there press conference they said they were going to hold when charges are not filed? They told me at our 4/26/06 meeting that they had in fact obtained an opinion from an expert (apparently this was not correct) and they would hold a press conference about this matter."
-------------
This is news to me. And lie #4. He did not tell me this when we spoke over the phone. And his spelling is not very good.
--------------
"Moreover, this tit-for tat on your erroneous interpretation of a conversation from a meeting in which you were not present is not relevant to your erroneous legal advice of which you have failed to defend for the second time after conceding your legal opinion was wrong."
-------------
Lie #5. I was not referring to a conversation from a meeting that I did not attend. I was referring to a phone call I had with *him.* He told me the victims were going to hold a press conference soon based on the "bad advice" *I* gave them. He doesn't read well.
------------
"The P.D. and the District Attorney’s Office has spent countless hours and diverted investigatory resources on this matter, and you are now obstructing this investigation."
-----------
Lie #6. I'm obstructing an investigation that, according to him in his telephone conversation with me, is at a standstill because there are no criminal charges that can be filed? So wha investigation is he talking about?
------------
"I was going to review this case this weekend and work on it, but now every minute I spend responding to you is one less minute we will spend on this case for the (victims name). Already, I have spent an hour and a half with you and not on the (victims name) case."
----------
Wow. It took you that long to write two emails? No wonder lawyers charge so much by the hour.
-----------
"As a self-styled 'cybercrime expert' you should understand and know what it means when someone expressly revokes any permission to communicate via this address. It appears you are now no longer 'working to halt online abuse', but rather now contributing to the abuse. Get your facts straight."
------------
Hitting below the belt is not nice. I bet your mom is proud of you. When supposed adults like you act like 12-year-olds and treat true victims like they're the criminals, you should have your law license revoked. And that's my personal opinion.