Comments on: NMC’s observations on this mess

By: nowdoucit

nowdoucit — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:05:31 +0000

Well, if this isn’t a fancy place – no cut/paste needed here!

By: nowdoucit

nowdoucit — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:04:26 +0000

Note that I have the “good manners” to bring the link to more information on Merlin – but not the skill to hook it up. Try cut/paste.

http://tinyurl.com/ynlqyd

By: lotus

lotus — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:45:30 +0000

Thanks, NMC (sorry about the piecrumbs).

By: n miss commenter

n miss commenter — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:37:37 +0000

I think this answers your question about Chip Merlin, the point being, I assume, that he's a likely candidate to take over the cases if disqualification happens.

By: lotus

lotus — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:25:35 +0000

Rossmiller 12/19 4:36 PM commenter "More Cowbell" says:

I read on overlawyered/pointoflaw/folo that Wolfram's writing are the basis of getting the SKG members disbarred? I want to know why Judge Senter and the 5th Circuit Ct of Appeals did not disbar SKG when Wolfram filed the exact same memo in support of the earlier efforts to DQ SKG. Only difference now is the Balducci factor. Hey, Chip Merlin is waiting in the wings for these cases.

Yo, MC, sign on in and talk to me, woncha! Who's Chip Merlin?

By: lotus

lotus — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:51:17 +0000

Mmm. True dat, nowdoucit — but one needn’t be suspicious-minded to love fried pies. Sensate suffices, don’t you find?

By: nowdoucit

nowdoucit — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:21:20 +0000

If I had to guess, Lotus, I’d say it was because you love fried pies – meaning no one can put you off by telling you all that lard isn’t good for you and then turn around and eat the whole plate of pies behind your back. Just a guess mind you.

By: lotus

lotus — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 04:08:13 +0000

Gosh-a-mickle, nowdoucit — just a LEETLE incestuous, huh? Why am I not the least bit surprised?

By: nowdoucit

nowdoucit — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:12:58 +0000

If you look at the documents filed immediately after the indictment, you will note the president-elect of the bar was copied because he represents the insurance industry. Might that have an “odor” to the “homeless” on the Coast depending on the court to force settlement of their claims?

By: n miss commenter

n miss commenter — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:07:55 +0000

I’m not sure how “standing” relates to bar complaints. Someone involved in some way will I hope be heeded. The way the process works is this: A complaint is filed, the lawyer gets asked to respond, an initial committee looks at it (much like a grand jury) and if it survives that, it goes on to be prosecuted. The panels are a lawyer and two judges, from another part of the state. The panel decisions go to the Miss. Supreme Court. The problem is really in part that the gears turn very very slowly– unless a lawyer craters completely (a criminal prosecution or other career-ending event), often there will be a period while the first complaints are going through the system while others pile on top.

None of this bears any relevance to what is happening here, though. The bar is going to sit back and let the criminal court system run its course. That is normally how they operate, although this one is a little screwy– that’s true of the bribery case, but not (yet?) of the State Farm mess.

So– tell us, State Farm, have you filed a bar complaint?