Taken from Chapter 6 of Wake Up and Smell the Lawyers — Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire.
Why liars make good lawyers and lawyers make good liars. Determining whether one needs to be a lawyer before one becomes a good liar or be a good liar before one is deemed a good lawyer (try saying that three times very quickly!) is sort of like choosing which comes first - the chicken or the rotten egg? When it comes to lawyers, the question is moot. Lawyers lie and they lie all of the time. That’s just the way it is. When it comes down to misleading, deceiving and baffling regular folks on a regular basis, lawyers are the absolute best in the business. They can turn fact into fiction and fiction into fact. Regardless of whether you’re talking about a little white lie or a major league whopper, lawyers simply have no peers. The oath their victims must swear to - telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - doesn’t apply to them. No sir, they simply cannot allow the truth to mess things up or get in their way. Lying and lawyers, lawyers and lying, this dynamic duo just seems to go hand in hand. And like it or not, that spells double trouble for the rest of us.
But come on, can lawyers really be blamed for their appalling lack of honesty or integrity? Can they really help themselves? After all, just look at the company they keep. In a profession literally laced with some of the sleaziest con artists and shake down specialists the world has ever known (we’re talking about the lawyers, not their clients!), lying, cheating and swindling is the name of the game. The legal field is replete with shysters who have become virtual virtuosos in the fine art of deception and deceit. And as far as their profound propensity for obfuscating, prevaricating and equivocating at every turn, aren’t we being a little picky? When you get right down to the nitty-gritty, fabricating the facts, twisting the truth and finagling the figures are requisite tricks of their trade and no self-respecting lawyer would leave home without them. Whether we like it or not, lying has become an integral facet of our legal system. And lawyers, by and large, wouldn’t have it any other way.
Taken from Chapter 8 of Wake Up and Smell the Lawyers —
Guilty Until Proven Innocent.
The presumption of guilt. In America’s judicial system, everyone is supposedly granted the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. Heavy emphasis should be placed on the word “supposedly” however. This presumption of innocence, the cornerstone of our legal system, is designed to provide the bedrock backdrop for fair and unbiased legal proceedings. The rules of legal engagement are clearly defined and delineated. The law stipulates that the burden of proof lies squarely with the party bringing the charge, regardless of whether the setting is civil or criminal in nature. The plaintiff must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt based on the facts of the particular case and the evidence presented, not on hearsay, speculation or innuendo. Additionally, the defendant is granted the opportunity to defend himself or herself against the charges being levied. The presumption of innocence is of paramount importance if the accused is to receive a fair and equitable hearing. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth than the presumption of innocence these days. The presumption of innocence in America’s jurisprudence is indeed a presumption these days - presumed dead and gone that is.
Lawyers rarely give a hoot about innocence or guilt. To their perverse way of thinking, guilt and innocence are nebulous, abstract, pie in the sky type of concepts and generally aren’t worth getting all worked up over. Besides, guilt and innocence generally have very little to do with the lawyer getting paid. Speaking of money, can there be any debate about whether guilt and innocence in the courtroom depends a great deal on which side of the table the lawyer is sitting. The presumption of innocence the lawyer maintains for his or her client is always directly correlated to the size of the client’s bankroll. It should be noted that lawyers, especially those criminal lawyers engaged in the criminal defense area of law, have always believed that the very best client to have is one who has a great deal of money and who finds himself in a great deal of difficulty. The lawyer would naturally prefer that his or her client actually be innocent of the charges levied, but that fact alone is not going to carry the day or pay the piper for that matter. And even if the lawyer’s client is as guilty as sin, many a lawyer will manage to overlook that minor inconvenience for the right price.
By and large, lawyers are quick to pin the guilt on the other party. Very quick. Regardless of who is right or wrong in the dispute, lawyers hold the position that it’s always the other side’s fault. Always. The lawyers have to hold that position, regardless of how absurd or indefensible that contention may actually in fact be, or they would be out of business lickety split. Pinning the blame on someone else is the very foundation on which the legal industry operates. Lawyers know that this “pin the blame on someone else” message plays well to the masses. Blaming others is second nature to most of us anyway and lawyers have mastered the ability to tap into this universal tendency. Blaming others is good for their business, very good indeed, and lawyers specialize in pinning the blame on the other guy.
If we know one thing for certain about lawyers in general, it is that lawyers play no favorites. As long as a potential client can pony up and foot the bill, lawyers will generally take any and all comers. They have no ethical hang ups about taking on shady, disreputable clients or even those who are plain as day guilty - mainly because the lawyers have no ethics themselves. I have personally witnessed lawyer upon lawyer, representing some of the most reprehensible varmints on the face of the earth, run roughshod over one innocent party after another, falsely accusing the innocent individuals of virtually everything sinister under the sun. Without so much as a blush or a blink of the eye, they trample all over the opposing parties’ rights and kick sand in the face of that bothersome presumption of innocence crapola. All the while, they righteously defend their own censurable clients’ rights and presumption of innocence - the legal equivalent of having your cake and eating it too.
The madam opened the brothel door and saw a rather dignified, well-dressed, good-looking man in his late forties or early fifties. "May I help you?" she asked.
"I want to see Valerie," the man replied.
"Sir, Valerie is one of our most expensive ladies. Perhaps you would prefer someone else," said the madam.
"No. I must see Valerie," he replied.
Just then, Valerie appeared and announced to the man that she charged $5,000 a visit. Without hesitation, the man pulled out five thousand dollars and gave them to Valerie, and they went upstairs. After an hour, the man calmly left.
The next night, the same man appeared again, once more demanding to see Valerie. Valerie explained that no one had ever come back two nights in a row -- too expensive -- and there were no discounts. The price was still $5,000.
Again the man pulled out the money, gave it to Valerie, and they went upstairs. After an hour, he left.
The following night the man was there yet again. Everyone was astounded that he had come for a third consecutive night, but he paid Valerie and they went upstairs.
After their session, Valerie questioned the man. "No one has ever been with me three nights in a row. Where are you from?" she asked.
The man replied, "South Carolina."
"Really" she said. "I have family in South Carolina."
"I know," the man said. "Your father died, and I am your sister's attorney. She asked me to give you your $15,000 inheritance."
The moral of the story is that three things in life are certain:
Appeal of ELIZABETH TIMS and DENISE WITTMANN from action of the Board of Education of the Amityville Union Free School District and Dr. Brian M. DeSorbe, Superintendent, regarding termination of employment.
Decision No. 15,322
(November 17, 2005)
James R. Sandner, Esq., attorney for petitioners, Antonio M. Cavallaro, Esq., of counsel
Guercio & Guercio, attorneys for respondents, Raymond G. Keenan, Esq., of counsel
MILLS, Commissioner.--Petitioners challenge the decision of the Board of Education of the Amityville Union Free School District ("respondent board") to dismiss them from their probationary teaching positions. The appeal must be dismissed.
Respondent board appointed petitioner Denise Wittmann ("Wittmann") to a probationary position as a business teacher effective September 1, 2001 and petitioner Elizabeth Tims ("Tims") to a probationary position as a mathematics teacher effective September 2, 2003. By letters dated May 21, 2004, Superintendent DeSorbe ("superintendent") notified petitioners that he was recommending to respondent board that their teaching appointments be terminated effective July 22, 2004 and that respondent board would vote on his recommendations on June 22, 2004.
By letters dated May 27, 2004 (Wittmann) and May 31, 2004 (Tims), petitioners requested explanations for the superintendent�s recommendations. By letters dated June 8, 2004, the superintendent responded to those requests. On June 22, 2004, respondent board adopted the recommendations to terminate petitioners effective July 22, 2004. This appeal ensued.
Petitioners contend that the responses to their requests were untimely and impermissibly vague. Petitioners request that the terminations be annulled.
Respondents contend that the appeal is moot, that the decisions were rational and lawful and that they substantially complied with all notice requirements.
The appeal must be dismissed as MOOT. The Commissioner will only decide matters in actual controversy and will not render a decision on a state of facts which no longer exist or which subsequent events have laid to rest ( Appeal of B.K. and R.K., 44 Ed Dept Rep 195, Decision No. 15,146; Appeal of V.L., 44 id. 160, Decision No. 15,132; Appeal of Garvin, 44 id. 30, Decision No. 15,087). Respondents state, and petitioners do not dispute, that on August 17, 2004, respondent board rescinded the terminations of petitioners� probationary appointments. Accordingly, the appeal is MOOT! THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
END OF FILE http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume45/d15322.htm
Someone should write a paper about how many times a teacher wins against the NYS Education Department - including cases against principals, superintendents, unions, BOE! That should be very interesting. Only a few of us have paged through those decisions of Commissioner R. Mills to discover that you cannot find one case where the teacher wins, but everybody knows this, let's stop kidding ourselves. Not only do we not win, we are dismissed, put out to pasture. Now why do you suppose that happens? Why is it that as soon as you mention the word "superintendent", no lawyer wants to talk to you? Oh, they'll talk to you for $300 per hour, but that's about it?
Warning to teachers: Do not waste your money on a lawyer. Mr. Mills has all his stock "legal" phrases that sound suspiciously the same no matter what the occasion. It has nothing to do with the law, or in fact, he won't even address the subject or petition at hand. Another lawyer ($300 per hour) told me blatantly that they all make deals.
Don't waste your money on a lawyer. Better yet, don't waste your time in the Public School system unless you have very low self-esteem, are a tad masochistic and enjoy being tortured.
Are you filing the suit in Federal Court? That might make a difference. I had to contact an employment attorney about sexual harassment at my school (STUDENT on teacher harassment) He took the case on a contingency basis; he must feel the case is winnable or he wouldn't have taken it. He let me know that it would be a waste of time to try this in the state court system; everyone is "in bed" with one another. Federal courts are the way to go. As to the public school system (administrators and higher ups--I say torture them back! They HATE negative publicity. readkitty
This is where I am trying to go, hopefully before the statute of limitations runs out. I have to contact an attorney when he returns from vacation in January. There are attorneys who will take your cases on contingency, and that is really the only way one can fight the districts which drag cases on for as long as a decade.
I would never even have hope if it wasn't for an employment lawyer. I had to email lots of employment attorneys before I even got one that contacted me, but that one has given me hope in my lawsuit against the DOE. My advice is to send lots of emails about your problem, sticking to just the facts, and over summer vacation, interview the ones who do contact you. If you cannot find an attorney (most will only take cases they know they can win) MAKE the union do something to help you. Email Mike Mulgrew if necessary. Contact the media if you have to. And document, document, document, how you have been treated by your school. Evidence (and witnesses) is the only way an attorney will take the case and they might take it on a contingency basis. Only deal with the ones who will take it on a contingency basis. The DOE takes lawsuits seriously; it is the only thing that half way scares them. Do something; fight back and maybe you will win. If you don't try, you'll never know.
I couldn't do anything about my case, unfortunately. I missed the deadlines with EEOC and DOL, which the "union" never told me about, naturally. My SOL in filing a civil suit ran out. I am absolutely up the creek with this district. I am ruined from even trying to find work anywhere in the country.
Too many teachers are "sitting" on information, thinking they can always use it at another date. Then the statute of limitations runs out. Knowledge is not power in these cases. We know things, but are powerless to use the info. The time to use the information is as soon as you get it.