Follow by Email

Thursday, September 3, 2015


Such dilemmas are faced by attorneys, investigators, and many professionals on a daily basis.  Professionals will often find their personal religious beliefs and morality in conflict with the law and professional ethics.  Individuals own and control their moral code and can change it or enforce it based upon need and desire. However, the law and professional ethics are governed by others and we can be punished for our failures in the here and now while we still suffer from the human condition.  The Kentucky clerk without question has a right to her moral and religious convictions.  However, she took an oath to perform her duties in accordance with the law and the professional ethics of the position.  Refusing to perform her duties is a moral choice but it is also a legal and ethical violation.  It is a paradox as her religious and moral beliefs conflict with her ethical and legal obligations.  When one accepts a position, any position, and religion or personal morality conflicts with ethical and legal obligations, the moral, ethical and legal decision would be to resign from the position.

Consider the attorney or criminal defense investigator who will in accordance with the demands of their positions will represent and assist murderers and child molesters.   Of course, pursuant to the law they are innocent until proven guilty.  However, what if a defendant,  protected by the attorney client-privilege, admits their guilt and explains the details of their extraordinary crimes?  Would such a person follow their moral code, one which finds such crimes disgusting, and resign from the case?  The true professional would put their moral code aside and adhere to the ethical and legal obligations demanded by their position.  If they could not, the moral and professional individual should resign.  
Stepping down from a well-paid position of power takes true conviction and courage. Otherwise, the motive for failing to respect the oath may come into question.

Thursday, May 23, 2013

IRS official claims she broke no laws and pleads the 5th!

WASHINGTON — IRS official Lois Lerner defended herself before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee this week. But her comments were brief and defensive citing legal advice in the face of a federal investigation and invoking her 5th Amendment right against self incrimination.

Members from both sides of the aisle in Congress complain that Lerner and other high-ranking IRS officials failed to inform them that conservative groups were targeted, even though lawmakers repeatedly asked IRS officials in the wake of complaints by tea party groups.   Democrats, Republicans and the general populace are angry joined by administration officials from President Barack Obama on down stating the actions of the IRS were inappropriate and inexcusable.  Of course, a politico would be engaging in political suicide if they were to defend such activity or even claim to have known about it and possibly endorsed or authorized such targeting by the IRS.

No one can deny Lerner's right to invoke the 5th Amendment.  She denies wrongdoing and claimed before Congress that "I have not done anything wrong," "I have not broken any laws, I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee."  However, one cannot help but wonder why she would not answer questions if her claims of innocence were true?  It is possible and likely that pursuant to the advice of counsel her carefully prepared and worded claims of denial are 100% accurate.   The more compelling question is what does she know regarding what others know higher on the food chain?  Who else is she protecting?   Why does she fear the probing questions of Congress?  Time may provide the answers to such question and more as the story unfolds and the truth reveals itself.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Will the Press be the death of the Republic? History may hold the answer.

The American Free Press may be the greatest danger to the 1st Amendment.  They have diminished their moral authority by assuming the practice of sophistry within the political arena.  The American public can no longer trust that they will be the objective and impartial advocates defending the public's right to know and understand.  As a whole, liberal and conservative, media outlets have betrayed their obligation of factual impartial reporting and replaced it with opinion based entertainment and hyperbole.  Banished to the quaint reflection of history are the days of Walter Cronkite and so many of those journalists who pursued their craft with honor and dedication.   The "Truth" of the events that transpired in Benghazi resulting in the death of an American Ambassador and three courageous Americans was swept under the rug and subject to misdirection during the Presidential Election.   Will the reality of this tragic event now be unearthed with the election over?  One can hardly argue that the rapid response of the press to the Petraeus Scandal is a disgrace when compared to the Benghazi incident.  The coverage of a Terrorist Attack on the Anniversary of 9/11 was minimal at best and it is difficult to dimiss political interest and partisanship.  However, it could be that the Press is well aware that the American public is ignorant as a whole and incapable of caring or understanding the complexities of Benghazi.  Collectively, the press is as profit driven as those they claim to oppose and demonize as corporate evil.  This faux enlightenment is funded by the major corporations that own them and are interested in nothing more than the bottom line.  It is clear that they understand the public's interest in reality television and are prepared to feed the proverbial beast whatever it desires as long as the beast obeys them and elevates them to the role of master.

The failure of the press is a monumental betrayal.  One can hardly blame the politicians for doing what they do best during a heated political fight for the most powerful position in the world.  This is as it has always been throughout history.  Such deviant and deceitful behavior is almost expected within the political arena by those who practice the dark art of sophistry. Sadly, the American public once had faith in the Press and their ability to reveal the truth and keep the players honest.  The government feared the press because they feared the people.  As it should be.  No more.  The Press is now the public relations and political arm of major corporations.  They, as master, control the board and ultimately choose who will run the most powerful nation on earth.  We are told what we "need" to know when we need to know and only if we need to know.  Instructions regarding how to vote and who to vote for are delivered under the pretext of news reporting.  Ironically, such deceptive and treasonous acts against the Republic are protected by the Republic. 

Have we surrendered control and become nothing more than the Roman mob demanding their "fair share" of the Republic's supply of grain?   "Feed us and give us what we demand and we will give you the power to rule us!"  What is next?  A tyrant such as Sulla or perhaps an enlightened elitist who fools us into believing he is a man of the people? "Hail Caesar!"   

Sunday, May 20, 2012

The State Vs. George Zimmerman is not a Shakespearean Play.

The press loves a good story.  Therefore, it is no wonder that they have been all over the shooting of Trayvon Martin and the fate of George Zimmerman as a criminal defendant.  The tragic death of Trayvon Martin spiraled into a media circus with a rush to judgment.  Special interests and the political sophists have hijacked the tragedy and twisted it to serve their own needs.  The exploitation reached as high as the Presidency.  Sadly, this is the course that takes place when emotions control the day and a rush to judgement dismisses the crucial component of investigation.   This is a serious case involving life, death, freedom, and liberty.  It is not a Shakespearean play written to tell a tale of good vs. evil.   

I recall the days of my childhood when the press were proverbial gatekeepers of the facts and assumed the honorable and noble role of Truth Seeker.  No more.  The press has eroded at its core and become nothing more than another form of cheap entertainment.  A "good story" is generally the product of creative writing and poetic license.  The embellished and tainted product may entertain the masses but it will do nothing in the way of preserving or promoting the Truth.

Media frenzy aside, this is an important self-defense case and it should be studied carefully as it unfolds.  Every criminal investigator should pay attention to the factual nuances and the questions that will be presented.   The facts will reveal themselves but it is important to remember that as investigators we are seeking the Truth.  Personally, I will pay attention with a scrutinizing eye but I will withhold judgement until this matter has run its course.   The question has already been presented to me many times and my professional opinion remains mute on the point of guilt.  My only opinion is that this matter demands the highest level of investigation possible.  The pursuit of Truth and the cries for Justice demands no less on every case. 

Unfortunately, I have absolutely no faith in the press and therefore cannot trust them as a purveyor of the facts and source of credible information.   My faith will remain entrusted in the judicial process with the hope that the professionals will flush out the Truth and reveal what really happened on that fateful day.