Hear, hear!

In my view, step #1 to "try[ing] to resolve the perceived problem" is to raise awareness of the problem, which I've done (or attempted to do) here. The volume of traffic to my blog from Texas (e.g., AG's office, OCDC and Brazos, Tarrant, Hays, Lampass, Brazoria, Fort Bend, Gray and other counties) at least suggests that some folks are interested in the topic.

The fact that I appear to be "chewing" on this forum, is because I'm responding to snarky ad hominem attacks.

The fact that the problem is characterized as "perceived" and there's a question ("if there even is a problem") demonstrates that there is no awareness of it (at least among the vocal members of this group) or that there's overt denial of it, in spite of the truth of the matter.

So are you done raising awareness, yet?

.

I'll quit if you will, Pete.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Gandhi

Iustitia

Sean,

It is unfortunate that Gretchen and David really have no idea what your experience is or is not with the TDCCA, or do they care? Your an outsider, Right? They believe that all you do is sit around thinking up ways to sue good people who do nothing, but work hard for the children and families in Colorado. WOW, how WRONG are they? Let's take an inventory, shall we? You have given a voice to the parents that have had their children ripped away by unqualified, incompetent egomaniacs. You take great care in finding truth BEFORE you allow anything on a site that I feel is mine as well. You have given encouragement and hope too many parents and activates that are tired of being beat down by attorneys that only take on cases for the money or to fulfill their own agendas, not for TRUTH and JUSTICE.

It seems to me that the individuals that fight against you are fighting against us all, and they mock a site they have little to no understanding of and feel that it is some sort of an entertainment for you to put yourself out there to uncover the truth. And for all of us that have put our fights on your site as to be a resource of others. Let�s not waste anymore time on ignorance and continue to fight the good fight.

P.S. David, try putting yourself in the life of someone like Sean, you may see that you are wrong about him, or are you to ashamed to admit that perhaps you really have no idea what you are talking about?

Okay, first, all I was ever talking about was the way Pete Smith went about opening the dialogue he claimed he wanted. Shannon, given his experience with people who come to this forum, reasonably saw Pete Smith's initial communication as provocative and inflammatory. Shannon called him on it. He didn't censor him. Pete, I just don't feel comfortable using his first name and I'm sincerely trying to be respectful, Mr. Smith responded by attacking Shannon personally. Then, when everyone started attacking Mr. Smith, he started claiming that he was the victim of personal attacks, implying they were unprovoked.

I responded with sarcasm. I admit, it's not productive or precise. But if you all note, I criticized Mr. Smith's method of communicating his point, not Mr. Smith. I did that because it appeared to me that Shannon's initial assessment of where this was going to lead had proven to be quite accurate. Mr. Smith responded by attacking me personally. I can see why he did that. Again, this is what happens when I rely upon sarcasm without speaking plainly. Sure it was funny, but it was at Mr. Smith's expense, and I regret that. If I have hurt his feelings, I apologize.

Look, I went back and chased down all his links and while I still think it was reasonable for me and others to regard Mr. Smith's intentions as hostile given his approach, I also see that he clearly has deeply held feelings about the self-regulation of attorneys on top of the research he's done. In light of these deeply held feelings, I can see how HE might not think he was being hostile just as much as I can see why others could reasonably interpret his charged language as a sign of hostility.

And none of this gets us to the dialogue Mr. Smith says he wants, so how about this: Mr. Smith has expressed not only his love of language, but also his objections to the regulators of attorney conduct and the concept of self-regulation of attorneys. Taking him at his word, he's objecting to the institution and not Ms. Popps (who, incidentally started this thread merely to try and do her job of regulating attorney conduct better). Fine. Got it.

Sincerely, what the alternative? Easier civil suits? More criminalization? Government regulation? I'm not saying one or the other of these are bad or good. Neither am I saying that self-regulation is bad or good. I'm just suggesting (as I believe Gretchen did) that we move beyond simply railing at the current system (which seems to be where all the danger of miscommunication is coming from) and look at possible alternatives.

And if it makes you feel any better, I'll even concede that I know nothing about a subject I never sought to engage. I saw personal attacks against a guy I've worked with in the past and know to be a pretty smart cat. In my own, ham-fisted way, I sought to defend him. Sorry for the distraction. Enjoy your debate. I won't try to interfere with it anymore as I'm sure I don't have anything of value to add.

If I could be so bold as to borrow a phrase from a great Texas philosopher:

Exit only.

Well, in that case, I apologize, too. It certainly wasn't my desire to attack anyone (viz., Shannon) but, instead, to call attention to the speciousness of the regulation system.

And frankly, it's not about overworked regulators or minimal budgets or laziness (although I did use the word "lazy" in a previous post). I have had so many experiences with attorney regulators (e.g., John M. Richards, OCDC) knowingly making statements or taking positions that were disrespectful of the truth, that I was outraged and --I think-- any reasonable person situated in my shoes would have been. I have also come to conclude, after years of follow-up, that the entire system was designed (or, perhaps, a product of its own evolution) to be illusory. And I don't like being lied to. And, I assume, neither do you.

So, when I read the Grits blog and found this thread, naturally, I felt compelled to call attention to what I believe is sophistry. Said differently, how could any one employee of an institution that is based on a lie, not be infected by its culture and be trustworthy.

And I appreciate Shannon permitting me to express my views without censoring me out, as he certainly could've done.

Laura--

I just tried to email you, but the email bounced. There is an article in the Dallas Morning News today about a lawyer who pleaded guilty in the City Hall bribery case. Here's the link:
Lawyer pleads guilty.

Has anyone seen the performance of Creedence Clearwater Revisited? I see they are touring right now, and will be playing several Texas cities soon.

Apparently, the drummer and the bassist of Creedence Clearwater Revival are the original members, augmented by three musicians. I wonder how good it could be without John and Tom Fogerty?

Thanks, Gretchen. I'm not sure why the email bounced; it is listed correctly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeteSmith:
Well, in that case, I apologize, too. It certainly wasn't my desire to attack anyone (viz., Shannon) but, instead, to call attention to the speciousness of the regulation system.

And I appreciate Shannon permitting me to express my views without censoring me out, as he certainly could've done.

---

On that note ... time for everyone to get back to work.

Nothing to see here. Please, disperse.