WEASEL
SMACKDOWN
II!
There is a scene in one of my favorite movies, “Mars Attacks!”, in which Danny DeVito, who plays a shyster who is vacationing in Las Vegas when the Martians invade Earth, begs a Martian to spare his life. He argues (I paraphrase), “If you’re going to take over the world, you’re going to need lawyers.”
The Martian wisely incinerates him with its ray gun anyway.
That pretty much sums up my regard for the majority of lawyers.
It’s widely accepted that most lawyers are weasels. The “Dilbert” Web site conducted a poll as to what the “weaseliest professions” are. (“For the uninformed, a weasel is defined as anyone who is trying to get away with something,” the “Dilbert” Web site informs us.) Journalists came in at No. 1, with 24 percent of the vote. Lawyers came in a close second at 22 percent, and politicians came in third, at 18 percent. (I was acutely aware when I was earning my journalism degree that the public esteems journalists as highly as it does lawyers. But it seems to me that politicians should have ranked higher in the poll than did journalists.)
While it’s generally accepted that most lawyers are weasels, it’s generally assumed that most lawyers are also smart. They are not (as I will shortly demonstrate).
What they lack in brains, weaselly lawyers try to make up for in intimidation, evasion and obfuscation.
For instance, a while ago I named Douglas Gansler, a Maryland prosecutor, Asshole of the Week because he appeared to be trying to make political gains by trying to be the first to prosecute the accused Northeast snipers, John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo. Gansler made numerous television news appearances shortly after Muhammad and Malvo were arrested. Gansler has considered running for Maryland state attorney general, and the TV appearances seemed to be free ads for his political future – name and face recognition.
His wife, Laura Gansler, who also is a lawyer, wrote me a rambling e-mail stating that her husband is not an asshole. (I have reason to believe that she regularly runs her hubby’s name through a search engine to see if anyone is talking any shit about him, which is how she found out that I’d written about him.) A portion of her e-mail is as follows:
[Douglas Gansler] also believes that the justice system stands only precariously between social order and chaos, and that when the passions of an angry and hateful mob, even when the anger and hate is justified, drives any decision about the fate of criminal defendants, as is now occurring in the Ashcroft Justice Department, the line between order and chaos becomes dangerously blurred. Even, or perhaps most especially then, it is important to stand up for the rule of law and the dispassionate adherence to process. Doug feels that while the suspects should be tried in and subject to the penalties in all applicable jurisdictions, this drumbeat to base the venue for the first trial on who will execute both suspects the fastest rather than on which community was most deeply wronged is like candy, tasting sweet but promoting decay in the faith of blind and dispassionate justice.
That passage is comprised of big words, interminable sentences and nauseating figures of speech. And we don't really know any more at the end of the passage than we did at the beginning of it. Only a lawyer can write like that.
Anyway, I e-mailed Mrs. Gansler some simple questions that would determine whether or not her husband is an asshole, such as to what higher elected office or offices he aspires, and why, if he’s such a champion of the underdog, as she indicated in her e-mail, he is a prosecutor instead of a defense attorney.
I also asked her if her husband’s numerous television appearances were necessary for his job as a prosecutor and whether, in fact, his numerous TV appearances might actually detract from his job. I also asked her whether her husband’s numerous TV appearances might make it more difficult for the defendants to get a fair trial; “What potential juror hasn't seen Doug talking about the case on TV?” I asked her.
Curiously, she e-mailed me back that she declined to answer my questions.
A week ago today I posted a piece on Katie Couric and the 1997 school shooting in Paducah, Ky., titled, "No, Katie, You Wouldn’t Understand." (Read it, if you haven’t already. If you don’t read it, the rest of this won’t make much sense to you.)
This comment on the Katie Couric piece was posted on Friday morning:
I represent the parents of the three girls shot and killed by [Michael] Carneal. You have your facts wrong. Carneal was specifically adjudicated NOT mentally ill at his criminal trial. He knew exactly what he was doing, wanted to do it, and then did it.
We were all teased in high school, and we didn't decide to kill innocent third parties to "retaliate." The kid is a jerk, he is a liar about what happened, and you have no more understanding about what happened here than does Katie Couric.
The comment was from a Jack Thompson (and it contained his e-mail address…).
I posted a comment in reply:
Hmmm, Jack. Assuming that you really do represent the parents of the students who were murdered by Michael Carneal, I will say that I suppose that, in the end, no one except Carneal himself knows what was in his head. I suppose that a really good liar could fool a shrink.
As far as the LEGAL definition of insanity goes, in most, if not all, jurisdictions, one is considered sane if he or she knew exactly at the time of his or her actions what he or she was doing. However, a person can indeed be having hallucinations and paranoid delusions in his life but perhaps not exactly at the moment that he or she murders or harms someone. The person is still mentally ill, no matter what the technical, legal definition of "insanity" is.
And I would say that ANYONE who kills another person, unless it's self-defense or in the defense of others, is mentally ill. I mean, COME ON; if we say that we believe that murder is wrong, then let's really believe it.
"We were all teased in high school, and we didn't decide to kill innocent third parties to 'retaliate,'" you wrote. Well, again, we don't know exactly what Carneal went through. If he indeed was mentally ill, as he claims and as I have no evidence to the contrary, then I could see that he would not have been able to simply shrug off teasing that you and I could have shrugged off.
And we don't know what degree of harassment he went through. We weren't there, were we? And how many of his classmates would ever admit to having severely harassed him, if they did? They're all going to pretend like they were little angels and he was just a crazy and/or evil kid -- the stance you apparently have taken, Jack, because it's the easiest stance to take.
As I wrote in a previous comment, I do NOT condone gun violence, whether the victim is "innocent" or not. (Saying that someone is an "innocent" murder victim implies that sometimes murder is OK.)
My point, Jack, is that if we don't examine the harassment that kids go through in school, we won't prevent future school shootings.
Your attitude certainly doesn't seem like it's going to contribute to the solution, but will only perpetuate the problem.
After I wrote this reply, I discovered, through the magic of google.com -- the same magic by which he must have found my weblog -- that Jack Thompson is a lawyer who resides in Miami; I didn’t realize that’s what he had meant by writing, “I represent the parents of the three girls shot and killed.” I posted the results of my Internet research on Thompson in the comments section:
P.S. to my readers: I googled Jack Thompson and discovered that he represents the families of the three students who were killed in the 1997 Paducah school shooting in a federal lawsuit against entertainment companies, including the maker of the video game "Doom," because supposedly these entertainment companies' products made Michael Carneal kill.
Uh, I think the more likely case is that you can't get MILLION$ from the families of the popular students who tortured Carneal, but perhaps you can get MILLION$ from the entertainment companies. (And of course Thompson would say I have my facts all wrong -- his agenda is to win a frivolous lawsuit and pocket a huge sum of money. He's not exactly, um, objective.)
I'm not saying that the media had NO influence on Carneal's actions, but puuuuuulease. One's immediate environment and experiences -- such as how he is treated in school on a daily basis -- have a lot more influence on his actions that do the media to which he has been exposed.
There is a special place in hell for people who try to get rich(er) from the misfortunes of others.
Don't forget to bring marshmallows, Mr. Thompson.
Somehow, though, I wasn’t satisfied. So later Friday I sent Thompson this e-mail (remember that his e-mail address was displayed with the comment that he had left):
Mr. Thompson:
You left a comment today on my salon.com weblog, "Robert's Virtual Soapbox," regarding the 1997 school shooting in Paducah, Ky.
I have just three simple questions for you:
How much money do you hope to pocket from your lawsuit? What do you think your minimum take might be? Your maximum take?
I and my readers anticipate your answer.
Yours,
Robert Crook
Thompson answered my e-mail Saturday morning:
Whatever amount God, in His sovereign wisdom, might allow. This a suit intended not to pay me but to compensate these parents and to send the video game industry a message that it must stop marketing adult-rated games to children. This is presently a fraudulent activity that permeates their industry. You are opposed to fraud, are you not?
Note how Thompson answered my simple questions – not. The lawsuit, he wrote, is “intended not to pay me,” yet he refused to divulge how much money he stands to rake in. His “fraud” argument did not throw me – I recognized it for the smoke screen that it is – but I found his reference to God interesting. I wrote back:
Mr. Thompson:
So God, in His infinite wisdom, wishes that you net a huge pile of money because some young people were murdered? I don't see the justice there: Dead kids, richer lawyer. Help me understand your logic, please.
I wholeheartedly agree that too many video games are way too violent. I was shocked a few years ago when I walked into a video arcade for the first time in years and saw what kind of video games they have now -- games in which people and creatures are killed with gory graphics that make slasher films look tame.
However, I don't know who is worse: Entertainment companies that shamelessly profit from this violent trash or trial lawyers who shamelessly profit, or attempt to profit, from the human tragedy that does or does not result from this violent trash. I put you all in the same category: Scum of the earth.
You don't worship God, Mr. Thompson. You worship mammon. And you blasphemy when you state that God wants you to profit from others' tragedy. God doesn't want that; YOU want that. Because God has given you free will, you can do evil if you choose; God's not going to part the clouds and strike you down with a bolt of lightning. But you will have to face the consequences of your actions. Go back to your Bible. You might want to start with Matthew 6:19-24. The story of the golden calf in the Old Testament should also be instructive.
Yours,
Robert Crook
P.S. You never answered my questions. Why is it that lawyers make sure that witnesses don't evade their questions but won't answer even a simple question directly themselves? Is it because you are all superior to the rest of us? God doesn't want you to answer our questions, perhaps?
If you weren't ASHAMED of the money you stand to make from your frivolous lawsuit, you'd answer my questions. Perhaps the fact that you are ashamed means that there is an ember of your humanity left. I hope that you blow on that ember so that it doesn't go out.
Yeah, OK, I was preachy, and I rarely go off on people on what the Bible really says, but when someone tries to justify his reprehensible behavior on biblical grounds, I can’t help myself; he has a re-education coming to him.
Anyway, Thompson replied:
Dear Socialist, I haven't received a penny, yet I have stayed on this issue for four years because I have a son myself who is surrounded by idiot kids whose idiot parents let them play these games.
Apparently you missed the last thirty years, in which the tort system has made products safer through punitive damage awards against irresponsible business practices. Contact Ralph Nader for an explanation of how it is done.
Thompson would receive lots of pennies if he actually wins his lawsuit, so he hasn’t convinced me that money is unimportant to him. I replied:
Dear Mr. Thompson:
People resort to name-calling when they are losing an argument.
I'm proud to be a socialist. Jesus was a socialist. He preached against greedy, hypocritical, blasphemous people like you.
You have "stayed on this issue for four years" because of the money.
From my Internet research, I learned that other lawyers believe that you don't have a chance in hell of winning your suit, that this is a First Amendment, not a product liability case.
I agree with them. Your argument that you have a product liability case is flimsy at best.
You are NO Ralph Nader.
Best of luck. You'll need it.
Sincerely,
Robert Crook
Yeah, OK, I was mean – I sank to his level – but hey, he’d called me a “Socialist”...
Thompson again:
Jesus was not a socialist. Now I can also call you ignorant. Stop bothering me. I posted at a public forum. I didn't ask you to contact me with your screeds. bug off
True, Thompson did not ask me to “contact [him] with [my] screeds.” However, he could have told me after my first e-mail that he did not want to exchange e-mail with me; instead, he waited until after he was losing the argument before he decided that he would take his marbles and go home. (And I meant that Jesus was socialistic in his philosophy: He owned next to nothing, preached to give to others in need, and frequently bashed the rich, such as by saying that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the gates of Heaven. That’s not, um, exactly Republican philosophy. Whether Thompson is too dull to comprehend what I meant by “socialist” or whether he was just being contrary I’m not sure.)
Anyway, I wrote Thompson one last e-mail:
Mr. Thompson:
No problem. This is the last e-mail that you will receive from me.
Thank you for the material. I'll post it on Monday. [OK, so I’m a day late…]
Always glad to show my readers a lawyer's true colors. So far you're the second lawyer I've wrestled and pinned. [A reference to Mrs. Gansler, of course.] She wouldn't answer my very simple questions, either.
Bugging off,
Robert
Yeah, OK, I was gloating a bit; I guess I was caught up in the moment. I would be lying if I claimed that I get no stimulation whatsoever from winning an argument with someone who is supposed to be better than you and I.
Thompson sent me one last, terse e-mail:
Wow, make sure you tell them that you are a liar.
So there you have it, the account of the short but intense relationship that Jack Thompson and I had this past weekend. (Exactly what I’ve lied about I’m not sure, and I’m not sure that Jack knows, either, but Jack told me to be sure to tell you that I am a liar.)
I hope, dear reader, that I have shed some more light onto the mind of a weasel. And any of you who are thinking about becoming a lawyer but have doubts about your prerequisite intelligence should find Thompson’s level of discourse to be encouraging.
If you do become a lawyer, promise me that you’ll use your powers for good.
Update (Dec. 4): Do I have my finger on the pulse of the nation or what? (Yeah, OK, I'm gloating again...) The Dec. 6 issue of Entertainment Weekly -- "Tomb Raider's" virtual babe Lara Croft as Uncle Sam graces the cover with the words "VIDEO GAME NATION" in large print -- has a series of articles on video games. On page 36 is an article titled "Head Games," which examines whether violent video games cause some players to commit violent acts.
"Head Games" does not come close to resolving the question of whether video games contribute to actual violence. However, the article does state:
One of the best-known cases is the $33 million filing against the entertainment and videogame industry brought by families of the victims of Kentucky school shooter Michael Carneal. The suit was first dismissed in 2000 and then dismissed again in August by a federal appeals court.
The article indicates that no one has ever won a civil lawsuit against an entertainment company for having influenced an actual case of violence. What exactly Jack Thompson is still pursuing within the court system I'm not sure. I'd ask him, but we're not exactly on e-mail terms...
Update No. 2 (Dec. 4): Found some interesting articles on Jack Thompson. Read this one ("Is This Guy Nuts?", Sept. 2000) first. Then read this one, "Jack's Back...", which was written just last month.
The author of the articles writes that Thompson threatened to sue him for defamation. I very much hope that I get such a threat. I'll post it immediately. And if Thompson were to actually sue me, the ongoing lawsuit would make fabulous blog fodder.
4:37:45 PM 
|
