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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

    2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

    3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

    4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

    5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

    ADVERTISEMENT