tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30409206.post6161161982056522345..comments2024-01-14T00:50:25.555-08:00Comments on The Cool Justice Report: Message To Alleged CT Rat Defense Lawyers:The Cool Justice Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02073992081523946106noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30409206.post-70989110670103993392010-10-01T21:54:54.838-07:002010-10-01T21:54:54.838-07:00The latest in what appears to be a Pattis combo ma...The latest in what appears to be a Pattis combo marketing junket/defense of minella. <br /><br />Q and A with Hartford Business Journal:<br /><br />www.hartfordbusiness.com/news14963.html<br /><br />I guess potential white collar clients read it.<br /><br />I guess his Minella strategy is if he just keeps talking, the feds are going to get really confused. Or maybe he believes all that judiciary paranoia that juries are easily contaminated. Is this some hail mary pass to own the jury pool come trial time? I am sure that jury nullification passion will really reach a fever pitch when the feds have the nerve to prosecute a lawyer! <br /><br />My thoughts about the QandA, his recent rants against defense lawyers who report suspected wrongdoing by lawyers, rants against the white collar defense bar, etc.,: <br /><br />I am not one to disagree that federal prosecutors can create criminals on a whim, I know they can, and do. And everyone knows what grand juries are, puppets of prosecutors. It is not a mistake that it is both a cliche and a very old one at that, that grand juries will indict a ham sandwich if prosecutors tell them to. We all know the wire fraud code, false statements code and so on give prosecutors carte blanche to create criminals out of thin air.<br /><br />Lets separate that from the OTHER point Pattis has been driving hard on for weeks now: Pattis has maintained, repeatedly and unequivocally, that it is totally improper for law enforcement and prosecutors to investigate suspected wrongdoing by attorneys. <br /><br />He maintains that they must not interview lawyers' clients. This is not only absurd, it is obviously absurd, yet media does not probe it, so far. <br /><br />I also would like to mention that Pattis has published that lawyers lie to and manipulate the press, and includes himself in that, yet publications continue to interview him without making any disclaimer about the reliability of what he says. The Hartford Business Journal says nothing. The Law Tribune, well, he's their security blanket that makes it feel it is hard hitting, because Pattis has ticked people off, who cares whether he ticks them off with the truth or his own ranting obnoxiousness, the Law Tribune will take what it can get and doesn't know the difference.<br /><br />The Connecticut press has given Pattis an unchallenged and unquestioned platform time and again. It's not the job of the press to fail to probe and question at all and it makes the press look foolish. <br /><br />Pattis is a media hound and almost sociopathic marketer of himself. The least the press could do is try not to look so darn sycophantic and sophmoric around him. I mean, you look foolish.<br /><br />Cont.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30409206.post-3481069064192756052010-10-01T21:54:14.475-07:002010-10-01T21:54:14.475-07:00The latest in what appears to be a Pattis combo ma...The latest in what appears to be a Pattis combo marketing junket/defense of minella: <br /><br />See Q and A with Hartford Business Journal.<br /><br />Potential white collar clients read it.<br /><br />I guess the Pattis Minella strategy is if Pattis just keeps talking, the feds are going to get really confused. Or maybe he believes all that judiciary paranoia that juries are easily contaminated. Maybe it is some hail mary pass to own the jury pool come trial time. I am sure that jury nullification passion will really reach a fever pitch when the jury learns the feds have the nerve to prosecute a lawyer. <br /><br />My thoughts about the QandA, his recent rants against defense lawyers who report suspected wrongdoing by lawyers, rants against the white collar defense bar, etc.,: <br /><br />I am not one to disagree that federal prosecutors can create criminals on a whim, I know they can, and do. And everyone knows what grand juries are, puppets of prosecutors. It is not a mistake that it is both a cliche and a very old one at that, that grand juries will indict a ham sandwich if prosecutors tell them to. We all know the wire fraud code, false statements code and so on give prosecutors carte blanche to create criminals out of thin air.<br /><br />Lets separate that from the OTHER point Pattis has been driving hard on for weeks now: Pattis has maintained, repeatedly and unequivocally, that it is totally improper for law enforcement and prosecutors to investigate suspected wrongdoing by attorneys. <br /><br />He maintains that they must not interview lawyers' clients. This is not only absurd, it is obviously absurd, yet media does not probe it, so far. <br /><br />I also would like to mention that Pattis has published that lawyers lie to and manipulate the press, and includes himself in that, yet publications continue to interview him without making any disclaimer about the reliability of what he says. The Hartford Business Journal says nothing. The Law Tribune, well, he's their security blanket that makes it feel it is hard hitting, because Pattis has ticked people off. Who cares whether he ticks them off with the truth or his own ranting obnoxiousness, the Law Tribune will take what it can get and doesn't know the difference.<br /><br />The Connecticut press has given Pattis an unchallenged and unquestioned platform time and again. It's not the job of the press to fail to probe and question at all and it makes the press look foolish. <br /><br />Pattis is a media hound and almost sociopathic marketer of himself. The least the press could do is try not to look so darn sycophantic and sophmoric around him. I mean, you look foolish.<br /><br />Pattis also has made it clear to the Criminal Defense Lawyers Assoc. in Connecticut that they have no right to report suspected wrongdoing by a fellow lawyer to authorities. <br /><br />Pattis is making as jagged and wincing an attempt to enter the arena of white collar defense as he has with everything else he does. <br /><br />And it is not surprising that no sooner does he embark on this, does he come out as an authoritative critic on the ethics of this practice group as well. one of his recent blog entries focuses on this too. He is shocked supposedly at how other lawyers treat their white collar clients and potential clients, as if. <br />Ever hear of a Gaslighter?<br /><br />I guess his handling of a former Pequot Hedge employee's divorce qualifies him now as Connecticut's, wait, New England's most prominent white collar crime attorney. In that case, he was whipped by opposing attorney, then his own client.<br /><br />Let's not even get into how he treats his clients on his new twitter account, which is rightly causing a buzz in the blawgosphere, and should be causing press coverage here but is so far a nonstarter with the clueless Connecticut press. <br /><br />This is a dog and pony show, and I hope F. Lee Bailey isn't doing his talk for free. <br /><br />Maybe Norm should focus on editing his legal briefs so they have at least as few spelling and factual errors as his blog entries, which appear to be the subject of much more care and attention. .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30409206.post-33621033493243171752010-10-01T21:44:46.882-07:002010-10-01T21:44:46.882-07:00The latest in what appears to be a Pattis combo ma...The latest in what appears to be a Pattis combo marketing junket/defense of minella. <br /><br />Q and A with Hartford Business Journal:<br /><br />www.hartfordbusiness.com/news14963.html<br /><br />I guess potential white collar clients read it.<br /><br />I guess his Minella strategy is if he just keeps talking, the feds are going to get really confused. Or maybe he believes all that judiciary paranoia that juries are easily contaminated. Is this some hail mary pass to own the jury pool come trial time? I am sure that jury nullification passion will really reach a fever pitch when the feds have the nerve to prosecute a lawyer! <br /><br />My thoughts about the QandA, his recent rants against defense lawyers who report suspected wrongdoing by lawyers, rants against the white collar defense bar, etc.,: <br /><br />I am not one to disagree that federal prosecutors can create criminals on a whim, I know they can, and do. And everyone knows what grand juries are, puppets of prosecutors. It is not a mistake that it is both a cliche and a very old one at that, that grand juries will indict a ham sandwich if prosecutors tell them to. We all know the wire fraud code, false statements code and so on give prosecutors carte blanche to create criminals out of thin air.<br /><br />Lets separate that from the OTHER point Pattis has been driving hard on for weeks now: Pattis has maintained, repeatedly and unequivocally, that it is totally improper for law enforcement and prosecutors to investigate suspected wrongdoing by attorneys. <br /><br />He maintains that they must not interview lawyers' clients. This is not only absurd, it is obviously absurd, yet media does not probe it, so far. <br /><br />I also would like to mention that Pattis has published that lawyers lie to and manipulate the press, and includes himself in that, yet publications continue to interview him without making any disclaimer about the reliability of what he says. The Hartford Business Journal says nothing. The Law Tribune, well, he's their security blanket that makes it feel it is hard hitting, because Pattis has ticked people off, who cares whether he ticks them off with the truth or his own ranting obnoxiousness, the Law Tribune will take what it can get and doesn't know the difference.<br /><br />The Connecticut press has given Pattis an unchallenged and unquestioned platform time and again. It's not the job of the press to fail to probe and question at all and it makes the press look foolish. <br /><br />Pattis is a media hound and almost sociopathic marketer of himself. The least the press could do is try not to look so darn sycophantic and sophmoric around him. I mean, you look foolish.<br /><br />Pattis also has made it clear to the Criminal Defense Lawyers Assoc. in Connecticut that they have no right to report possible wrongdoing by a fellow lawyer to authorities. <br /><br />Pattis is making as jagged and wincing an attempt to enter the arena of white collar defense as he has with everything else he does. <br /><br />And it is not surprising that no sooner does he embark on this, does he come out as an authoritative critic on the ethics of this practice group as well. one of his recent blog entries focuses on this too. He is shocked supposedly at how other lawyers treat their clients and potential clients, as if. <br />A Gaslighter?<br /><br />I guess his handling of a former Pequot Hedge employee's divorce qualifies him now as Connecticut's, wait, New England's most prominent white collar crime attorney. <br /><br />Let's not even get into how he treats his clients on his new twitter account, which is rightly causing a buzz in the blawgosphere, and should be causing press coverage here but is so far a nonstarter with the clueless Connecticut press. <br /><br />This is a dog and pony show, and I hope F. Lee Bailey isn't doing his talk for free.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30409206.post-88754937490210475092010-10-01T21:35:50.544-07:002010-10-01T21:35:50.544-07:00The latest in what appears to be a Pattis combo ma...The latest in what appears to be a Pattis combo marketing junket/defense of minella. <br /><br />Q and A with Hartford Business Journal:<br /><br />http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/news14963.html<br /><br />I guess potential white collar clients read it.<br /><br />I guess his Minella strategy is if he just keeps talking, the feds are going to get really confused. Or maybe he believes all that judiciary paranoia that juries are easily contaminated. <br /><br />My thoughts about the QandA, his recent rants against defense lawyers who report suspected wrongdoing by lawyers, rants against the white collar defense bar, etc.,: <br /><br />I am not one to disagree that federal prosecutors can create criminals on a whim, I know they can. And everyone knows what grand juries are, puppets of prosecutors. It is not a mistake that it is both a cliche and a very old one at that, that grand juries will indict a ham sandwich if prosecutors tell them to. We all know the wire fraud code, false statements code and so on give prosecutors carte blanche to create criminals out of thin air.<br /><br />Lets separate that from the OTHER point Pattis has been driving hard on for weeks now: Pattis has maintained, repeatedly and unequivocally, that it is totally improper for law enforcement and prosecutors to investigate suspected wrongdoing by attorneys. <br /><br />He maintains that they must not interview lawyers' clients. This is not only absurd, it is obviously absurd, yet media does not probe it, so far. <br /><br />I also would like to mention that Pattis has published that lawyers lie to and manipulate the press, and includes himself in that, yet publications continue to interview him without making any disclaimer about the reliability of what he says. <br /><br />The Connecticut press has given Pattis an unchallenged and unquestioned platform time and again. It's not the job of the press to fail to probe and question at all and it makes the press look foolish. <br /><br />Pattis is a media hound and almost sociopathic marketer of himself. The least the press could do is try not to look so darn sycophantic and sophmoric around him. I mean, you look foolish.<br /><br />Pattis also has made it clear to the Criminal Defense Lawyers Assoc. in Connecticut that they have no right to report possible wrongdoing by a fellow lawyer to authorities. <br /><br />Pattis is making as jagged and wincing an attempt to enter the arena of white collar defense as he has with everything else he does. <br /><br />And it is not surprising that no sooner does he embark on this, does he come out as an authoritative critic on the ethics of this practice group as well. A Gaslighter?<br /><br />I guess his handling of a former Pequot Hedge employee's divorce qualifies him now as Connecticut's, wait, New England's most prominent white collar crime attorney. <br /><br />This is a dog and pony show, and I hope F. Lee Bailey isn't doing his talk for free.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30409206.post-90244968137198982962010-09-21T09:32:00.774-07:002010-09-21T09:32:00.774-07:00I'm tired of this thing being fought in public...I'm tired of this thing being fought in public in innuendos that only a certain audience with separate non public knowledge will really understand. <br /><br />The badly written post by "criminal law today" says preposterously that it is "a matter of public concern." Well if that is the case, then treat the public with enough respect to be explicit about it. Give us the background, the facts, and stop throwing tea leaves at us to read. <br /><br />If you can't do that, then keep your cat fight behind closed doors, take a time out and think about the childishness of acting out. <br /><br />God knows, half the sorry members of the bar treat their clients like objects of gossip and derision as it is.<br /><br />I hope to hell Minnella knows what he is doing hiring Pattis because this is no joke.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com