| Michelle Obama, Esq. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 9 2010, 08:41 AM (1,705 Views) | |
| Texas Mom | Feb 9 2010, 04:26 PM Post #16 |
|
B*R*A*V*O, Carolyn says!!!!!! You have outlined exactly what I "smelt." You are my heroine!
|
![]() |
|
| Carolyn says | Feb 9 2010, 04:46 PM Post #17 |
|
And you're mine. Gosh - thanks so much - honestly.
|
![]() |
|
| Walt-in-Durham | Feb 9 2010, 07:26 PM Post #18 |
|
I was writing about the President. I really could care less about the first lady. Your source wrote: I never met Barack, but only heard about him second hand. By definition that is innuendo. Based at best on second hand reports from people who probably don't have a basis of knowledge themselves. Further, I don't know much about where you practiced, but the law firms I practiced in and the corporation I practice for now strictly prohibit commenting on personnel matters. So either the hearsay sources don't know what they are talking about or they are violating privacy policies. Let's say the writer was Mike Nifong and he wrote: "I never met with Crystal, I never read the file, and I never read any of the medical reports, but it's clear that a violent rape took place and the lacrosse team did it." Would we take that at face value? Same with your source. He is entitled to his opinion, as are you. But, don't expect me to take it as gospel without some supporting facts. Walt-in-Durham |
![]() |
|
| retiredLEO | Feb 9 2010, 07:39 PM Post #19 |
|
Didn't Barack Obama work at this firm also? Where is the lawyer that wrote that about Michelle? Is he still in his job at the firm? One key thing you may be overlooking Walt, is this was Chicago. I do tend to agree with you, but we may have to look at the time frame and when the author of this piece, wrote it. Things tend to change, when it comes to politics. Edited by retiredLEO, Feb 9 2010, 07:42 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Walt-in-Durham | Feb 9 2010, 07:47 PM Post #20 |
|
What part of "I never met Barack... [sp]" is unclear? Chicago or not, this is unsupported hearsay. Hearsay without any obvious basis. This still looks like something Nifong would write/say. It reminds me of the choke hold news conference. Walt-in-Durham |
![]() |
|
| retiredLEO | Feb 9 2010, 07:53 PM Post #21 |
|
I was just curious as to what happened to the person who wrote that, that might explain a lot? Did he move on, was he a lawyer, or an administrator, people seem to base their info on what someone who know one know's says. Whether he knew Obama or not, if he claims he worked at that law firm with Michelle, he should have at least crossed path's with Barack. So I like you question the author and where is he now? |
![]() |
|
| Carolyn says | Feb 9 2010, 11:55 PM Post #22 |
|
Sorry - but it isn't 'innuendo'. These are apples and oranges that you are comparing - the scuttlebut which a lawyer overheard at a firm about an attorney he never met is totally different from the lies a DA deliberately made up about a drunken prostitute he never met. They're not even remotely close. One is repetition of the truth - the other is out and out lies. They are not the same - and can not be compared as such. This lawyer is not spreading malicious gossip and he is NOT telling tales out of school when he comments on the reputation of a lawyer he never met. I have worked over a quarter of a century in law firms and know that the reputation of an attorney is one which is constantly there in the ether for the legal world to discuss. It does make a damned bit of difference if you do not meet them, if you never laid eyes on them, etc. Doesn't make a bit of difference at all. The reputation exists in and of itself and you merely repeat it from one person to the next. This reputation is not only something which lawyers repeat - it is something attorneys WANT other lawyers to repeat. That is the single most important thing that you have - your reputation. And it must be talked about - it is vital to your success if it is. A lawyer is insulted, frightened, devastated if no one talks about them. It isn't gossip - it's advertisement. Your reputation is heightened, it is exalted, it is magnified by how many people are discussing it. It's like an artist's reputation, for instance, or a movie star. You are devastated if no one talks about you, it is career killing. That's one of the things we always talked first about an attorney - 'he's got a good rep(utation)'. To say that, well, that was the ultimate accolade. And trust me, the repeating of that reputation was DAMNED accurate. Never once in my quarter century as a legal secretary have I EVER witnessed an incidence in which a lawyer spread falsehoods about another lawyer. It wasn't because of the kindness of your own character - it was the panic about your own butt that would happen if you did. You didn't do that because - you were instantly destroyed yourself if that happened. To tamper maliciously with another person's reputation was an unforgivable sin. It came down on you like a ton of bricks. That was as heinous as if you were a doctor and commented that another doctor had killed their patient or something. YOU would pay for it instantly and lose your license, etc. No - making knowing falsehoods about a lawyer's reputation is not done in the legal world. The ONLY person you could lie about was yourself - and that doesn't go very far. This attorney here is perfectly in tune with ethics and legal requirements to repeat the reputation of another attorney he had not met. He has done nothing wrong - and he most certainly has done nothing to be smeared with the charge of 'innuendo' for. Furthermore, this attorney who's repeated this information about Barack has the 'supporting facts' to totally buttress his statement. First, he's worked at the same firm that Obama was a summer hire at, he knows the same lawyers, he walks down the same halls, etc. Ergo, this man's knowledge is impeccable. He was there, he met the people, he worked with them, etc. Trust me - this guy is repeating the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. What he says about Barack can be taken to the bank. Secondly, this attorney has gone even further to prove his veracity and character by repeating accurately the humiliating and unforgivable arrogance of Michelle in a face-to-face meeting. Plus he's proven his veracity in his observation of her total lack of work ethics, her lack of billable hours (damn, that observation alone is a killer), etc. This attorney did not practice 'innuendo'. He gave out justifiable and honest observations of both Barack and Michelle. And, personally, I would take both of those observations to the bank. Edited by Carolyn says, Feb 10 2010, 02:10 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Duke parent 2004 | Feb 10 2010, 10:28 AM Post #23 |
|
I’m puzzled. You write as if one’s reputation is something like one’s fingerprints—i.e., univocal and without variation no matter how, or from whom, taken. How do you reconcile variations? I’ve lost count of the number of differing takes on the same lawyer that I’ve been treated with over the many years I’ve worked with the advisors of my clients. For example, my best friend, a lawyer for more than thirty years, recently gave me an altogether different opinion of a lawyer/advisor from that offered me by one of my best clients, himself a lawyer of long standing. Clearly, some opinions are better than others. But this business of one’s reputation is more problematic than you seem to think. |
![]() |
|
| brittany | Feb 10 2010, 10:32 AM Post #24 |
|
It's just a posting. You can't take it as a fact. Still was an interesting read. What is MORE interesting to me is that she gave up her law license. Who would do that so soon after graduating law school, passing the Bar and working a few years for a top firm? Did Zero give up his as well? |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Feb 10 2010, 10:37 AM Post #25 |
|
Deleted User
|
It's easy to give us something you never paid for. |
|
|
| Texas Mom | Feb 10 2010, 10:54 AM Post #26 |
|
DP, you know as well as I do what the life of a new associate at a large law firm is like- long hours, boring work (initially, doc review), fear of screwing up, etc. The life of a summer clerk is less onerous, daily free lunches with older associates or partners, weekend events, but lots of watchful eyes on work product, work ethic, and ability to interact with peers. Not being offered a return engagement as a summer clerk at Sidley (which could pay for a year's law school tuition) speaks volumes, as does no offers of federal clerkships. Since ALL of Obama's records are SEALED, it remains to be seen whether or not Carolyn's and my conjectures have a basis in fact. We may NEVER know the truth of this man. |
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Feb 10 2010, 10:59 AM Post #27 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
"I hate rude behavior in a man. I won't tolerate it." - Capt. W. F. Call, Texas Ranger |
![]() |
|
| brittany | Feb 10 2010, 11:00 AM Post #28 |
|
Summer intern is a lot more fun than a summer associate. |
![]() |
|
| Duke parent 2004 | Feb 10 2010, 11:17 AM Post #29 |
|
My comments were directed more to the point that Walt-in-Durham raised than to conjectures about the bona fides of the Obamas. A more technical way of saying it would be this: If the ontology of one’s reputation is more problematic than the ontology of one’s vital statistics or actual performances, then how that reputation is constructed or transmitted is more problematic than how one’s vital statistics or performances are verified or promulgated. I, too, suspect the truth about the legal careers of Mr. and Mrs. Obama will flatter only their critics. |
![]() |
|
| Carolyn says | Feb 10 2010, 08:26 PM Post #30 |
|
Excuse me - you must mean 'will flatter only their fans'. Critics of Michelle and Barack are not flattered in the least by the actions of these two morons. And members in good standing of the legal profession are downright insulted to have two corrupt jerks like this sullying their field. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |







9:29 AM Jul 11