Thursday, October 01, 2009

Walking Softly With Big Sticks

Even more scalps on Jim Letten's* belt.

Talk about being in the pocket of the trial lawyers. A St. Bernard Parish judge and two lawyers got busted for wrecking the criminal justice system with fraud.

Here's how it works: you get arrested. Instead of pay for bond, you "hire" a lawyer. The lawyer keeps the cash and splits the fee with the judge. The judge then lets the arrested party out of jail on something called a "personal surety bond," where no money has to be put up to get out of jail. I guess doing this is cheaper than just fronting the cash or property for bond (it must be, since judges set bond, right?)

Dante will be pleased, the big fish in this case runs as a Democrat. Though I guess this one took the "change" motif to mean the change in his pocket.




(* Though seriously, Jim Letten, US Attorney for SELA, is yet another example of Obama's change I can believe in. The President kept this US Attorney for this job, despite the fact that Letten was originally a Bush administration pick. You know Bush, the one whose administration liked toying with US Attorneys for political reasons....)

.

4 comments:

patsbrother said...

Without addressing the substance of your parenthetical conclusion, I proffer a small correction. Lim Letten is the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana, which in acronym form is written on court documents "E.D. La." or in shorthand "EDLA".

I suspect that by "SELA" you were going for "Southeastern Louisiana." A federal district under that title does not exist.

Dante said...

"Dante will be pleased, the big fish in this case runs as a Democrat. Though I guess this one took the "change" motif to mean the change in his pocket."

I like what you did there. Changing the premise of what I actually said in an earlier post to a far weaker but more commonly argued premise in order to slide around it is pretty slick. My argument is and never has been who you are calling out. It's that when you call out someone on the right they must indicative of the right and a "culture of corruption" in general while when you call out the left it must be one bad seed unrelated to the left's cause. But nice try.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

@ Sprout: My bad. Between the districts, wards, congressional seats, police districts, corporate boundaries, parishes, Florida parishes and regions of this state, it is easy to get some of the monikers confused.

@ Dante: I tried to find this Democrat's campaign website to expose whatever he said he'd do vs. what he did. That's all I do to the GOP folks:

Ergo: they that run on family values platforms should not have affairs; they that run on small government/private contractor platforms should not be getting kickbacks from or illegally steering government contracts to friends or patrons. It really is that simple.

I call out the brand and the message mainly because it sets up a series of false choices, and usually the brand provides cover for the candidate.

I don't think this is a double standard, again, because Democrats do not have a brand/marketing strategy/narrative equivalent.

Dante said...

It's an awfully twisted view to assume that size of government has something to do with kickbacks and making their friends richer through shady means.

So it's not a double-standard because the other side has promised nothing? The trial lawyer isn't part of the "culture of corruption" because he never specifically said he wasn't going to cheat the system?