What was he thinking? Part III

March 25, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

I’m thinking this may become a regular feature on the blog – questioning attorneys’ decision-making skills.

A deputy in the Johnson County prosecutor’s office resigned Thursday after admitting he sent an e-mail from his personal account to Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin suggesting the governor stage some kind of attack on himself to discredit the public unions. Carlos Lam sent the e-mail in February urging the governor not to give in to the union demands. The e-mail came to light after The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism found it through an open-records lawsuit settlement.

In it, Lam told the governor that he is an Indiana public employee and has been involved in GOP politics in Indiana for 18 years. If he would have left the e-mail at that, he’d probably still have a job.

But instead, Lam went on to suggest Walker employ a “false flag” operation. “If you could employ an associate who pretends to be sympathetic to the unions’ cause to physically attack you (or even use a firearm against you), you could discredit the public unions.”

“Use a firearm against you?” Wow.

Does Lam think it’s in anyone’s best interest for the governor to be shot at or possibly take a bullet in order to make the unions look bad?

According to media reports, Lam initially denied writing the e-mail and said someone must have hacked into his account. Later he admitted to writing it and resigned.

Lam’s e-mail and resignation come just a few weeks after an attorney in the Indiana Attorney General’s Office was fired after making the comment on Twitter to “use live ammunition” on protestors in the Wisconsin capitol building.

Lam has been admitted to practice in Indiana since 2002, according to the Indiana Roll of Attorneys. His status is active in good standing and he has no prior or pending discipline.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Really?
    What a loser!
    • Really?
      When adults think firearms are the answer to disputes, how can we be surprised when a teenager, with presumably less judgment, uses a gun against a fellow student with whom he has a disagreement? It's a sad state of affairs.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT
    1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

    2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

    3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

    4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

    5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

    ADVERTISEMENT