The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

DEHog wrote:JH does it have anything to do with Brady stepping down? I hate the thought of Biden's son replacing her!

No. Actually...Brady stepping down would be motivation for me to stay (I'm not nor have I ever been a big fan of Jane).

Notwithstanding, I think it's time to make the move. I have the financial ability to do it now...so if not now, when?

Justice Hog wrote:

DEHog wrote:JH does it have anything to do with Brady stepping down? I hate the thought of Biden's son replacing her!

No. Actually...Brady stepping down would be motivation for me to stay (I'm not nor have I ever been a big fan of Jane).

Notwithstanding, I think it's time to make the move. I have the financial ability to do it now...so if not now, when?

When will then be now?

Soon!

DEHog wrote:I hate the thought of Biden's son replacing her!

Oh...and I forgot to touch on this one.

I can 100000% guarantee you that Gov. Ruth Ann is gonna pick Joseph R. "Beau" Biden III as the interim Attorney General....until election time comes around.

I understand that he was going to be the democract party candidate for the position during the election so if Ruth Ann can get one of her boys in that spot to keep the seat warm, she is certainly going to take that opportunity.

You're leaving the Brady Bunch ?
Good luck, big guy. Gonna miss the play-by-play commentary you gave us once in a while. Since we've never met, I don't know how you'll handle the night and day switch you're making, but you'll never know unless you try.
Go like Riggo man. Put yer head down and move the pile. You'll be fine.

Justice Hog wrote: I have always prided myself as being a prosecutor that follows the rules of Professional Conduct. Under those rules, a prosecutor is not just an advocate but a "minister of justice" requiring me to assure that all defendants have procedural justice as well as assuring that each person not be convicted except without sufficient evidence.

Because of that, I have always made sure that each criminal defendant that I have dealt with received all information that I had to afford them procedural justice.

Nothing wrong with that.

Justice Hog wrote: Lately, I have been chastised for telling defendants that I was unable to prosecute them because my police officer was not present or my neccessary civilian witness was not present. Instead of trying to get a plea from the defendant, I (honestly) tell them that I am not in a position to prosecute them . . . and that they should ask for the judge to dismiss the case.

It is the policy of my office NOT to provide such information but instead, to try to secure a plea.

They are right and you are wrong here.

If somebody is INNOCENT, they would NEVER accept a plea bargain under the advice of their legal counsel. If their legal counsel does their job, as they should. And the accused is INNOCENT, they have nothing to fear. The case will go to Court and it would be dissmissed immediately.

If they seek a plea bargain as a matter of free choice and/or recommendation by their legal counsel, they were GUILTY in the first place of the original charge and they are actually lowering the charge in exchange for a lower sentence.

You are assuming that their legal counsel was not available and/or was incompetent. None of those two options are a reason for a career move.

By the way, PRIVATE lawyers that make it through the system, actually MAKE A LOT more money than government prosecutors.

There are FINE government prosecutors and bad ones as well. There are FINE defense lawyers and bad ones as well. The O.J. Simpson case was a typical case of well intended but incompetent prosecutors as well as very competent but sleazy defense attorneys.

There are good and bad people on both sides. Do not characterise thesystem and government lawyers as unethical or improper because they pursue a plea bargain in some instances because sometimes that is the ONLY protection we have against some BAD people out there.

What are you going to do once you discover some sleaze among defense attorneys? Will you then go back to government?

It is about one's vocation. It is not about a perfect world. I deal with the world as it is, not as I would like it to be. We all have to deal with great and terrible people every day of our lives.

justice hog -- I know some attorneys who worked at Justice in DC...they've moved to Treasury where I work. Ever work with any of these guys?

Brian Ferrell
Brian Self
Paul Wolfteich

Redskin in Canada wrote:They are right and you are wrong here............

Until you put yourself in my shoes and know what I know about this profession and exactly what I go through, I would respectfully suggest that you are in no position to tell me who's "right" and "wrong" here.

If you suggest that a person who is INNOCENT never accepts a guilty plea, then I'm afraid you're just naive. I've seen people profess their innocence before taking guilty pleas because the plea will result in a non-prison recommendation. If they risked going to trial, they would be looking at a possible prison sentence. Were they innocent? I don't know; however, they certainly claimed they were...and their attorney told me they would rather plead guilty to a a charge they didn't do to and get probation (avoiding the possibility of jail) than to fight the charge in Court [hoping justice will prevail] only to be possibly found guilty and going to jail. Some will plead "guilty", others will plead "no contest" - same result. Sure....it sucks....and if I felt the person were innocent, I would drop the charge and we would never reach this issue...but, my friend, it does happen: innocent people do plead guilty....all of the time.

And....I certainly recognize that there are good and bad attorneys on both sides of the law. There are good and bad people in *ANY* profession. When I joined the Department of Justice, I prided myself on being one of the GOOD GUYS (wearing the white hat). As of late, with the directions I am given regarding trying to secure pleas when I am unable to prosecute the case, I'm not so sure that the upper-management of the office are the GOOD GUYS any more.

Under Rule 3.8 of the Delaware Rules of Professional Conduct (dealing with the Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor), comment #1 states that a prosecutor is not just an advocate but a "minister of justice" and that it is our responsibility to ensure that each defenadant has procedural justice and is not convicted except based on sufficient evidence. In my opinion, our policy violates this rule.

Finally, you ask what will I do when I discover some sleaze among defense attorneys....will I then go back to the government.

With all due respect, this question is silly.

I have seen sleaze among defense attorneys. I expect to see more sleaze among defense attorneys.

The big difference here is:

When I work for the government, I have to do as I'm told....which includes doing things that I believe might be unethical.....so I'm in a position where I might have to be sleazy myself.

When I work for myself in my own law firm, I can maintain a higher standard of integrity and never falter. Sure there may be "other" lawyers that are sleazy....but I will never be one of them....so that will have no effect on me.

Understand?

fredp45 wrote:justice hog -- I know some attorneys who worked at Justice in DC...they've moved to Treasury where I work. Ever work with any of these guys?

Brian Ferrell
Brian Self
Paul Wolfteich

No. I really wouldn't have the opportunity to know of any people that worked at the federal level...since I have very little opportunities to deal with federal cases myself.

Justice Hog wrote:Until you put yourself in my shoes and know what I know about this profession and exactly what I go through, I would respectfully suggest that you are in no position to tell me who's "right" and "wrong" here.

...

Understand?

I thought you wanted comments thus the purpose of the post. I now do -understand- that you really don't.

I am not questioning anything relating to your choices. I have never doubted your integrity or professionalism.

I have reservations about your characterisation of government policy above. But I do not intend to engage on a debate about it under the impression I gathered from this last message above.

I wish you every success in your professional endeavours. Peace.

Redskin in Canada wrote:I thought you wanted comments thus the purpose of the post. I now do -understand- that you really don't.

The purpose of my original post was not to solicit comments....especially comments such as your telling me that the reasons for my decision were "right" or "wrong".

The reason for my original post was simply to announce a major, almost dramatic career change . . . a pivotal move in my life. It's one of those major life decisions that a person makes.

I told my friends. I told my family. Because I consider a lot of people here sort of my surrogate family, I wanted to tell you all here as well.

I apologise if the exchange was so poorly written on my part that it may have been misunderstood. My main intention was to discss the policy and not your choices. It was not intended to make you feel uncomfortable at all and I regret that.

RiC

No worries. Have a beer and let's all watch the Skins kick the crap out of the Bucs.

Justice Hog wrote:

skinsfan1 wrote:Can you provide some insight (as much as you are willing to share) on why such a drastic change in a career?

Well....I will say this much.

I have always prided myself as being a prosecutor that follows the rules of Professional Conduct. Under those rules, a prosecutor is not just an advocate but a "minister of justice" requiring me to assure that all defendants have procedural justice as well as assuring that each person not be convicted except without sufficient evidence.

Because of that, I have always made sure that each criminal defendant that I have dealt with received all information that I had to afford them procedural justice.

Lately, I have been chastised for telling defendants that I was unable to prosecute them because my police officer was not present or my neccessary civilian witness was not present. Instead of trying to get a plea from the defendant, I (honestly) tell them that I am not in a position to prosecute them . . . and that they should ask for the judge to dismiss the case.

It is the policy of my office NOT to provide such information but instead, to try to secure a plea.

About a week after being told to do that, I got 2 guys to plead guilty to a DUI charge that I knew I didn't have enough evidence to prosecute (either because my police officer wasn't there or I knew the evidence I had was too weak to secure a conviction).

I felt awful about it.

Rather that continue to destroy my integrity by honoring/following such a practice which I believe in my heart is unethical....I am choosing to take a major risk in my life and open my own law firm.

...so I can be my own boss.

...so noone else can damage my integrity again.

I hope that sheds a little light for you.

Ohhhhhhh, so you just want more money?

Sure he does...what sleazy defense lawyer doesn't ?

I'll tell y'all this much. The idea of making more money than I currently am is certainly appealing.....but I am starting out with $0.00 guaranteed income, which is scary as hell. It'll all depend on whether I can get this thing up and running like I want to.