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. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

    2. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

    3. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

    4. Dear Fan, let me help you correct the title to your post. "ACLU is [Left] most of the time" will render it accurate. Just google it if you doubt that I am, err, "right" about this: "By the mid-1930s, Roger Nash Baldwin had carved out a well-established reputation as America’s foremost civil libertarian. He was, at the same time, one of the nation’s leading figures in left-of-center circles. Founder and long time director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Baldwin was a firm Popular Fronter who believed that forces on the left side of the political spectrum should unite to ward off the threat posed by right-wing aggressors and to advance progressive causes. Baldwin’s expansive civil liberties perspective, coupled with his determined belief in the need for sweeping socioeconomic change, sometimes resulted in contradictory and controversial pronouncements. That made him something of a lightning rod for those who painted the ACLU with a red brush." http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/biographies/roger-baldwin-2/ "[George Soros underwrites the ACLU' which It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board." http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237 "The creation of non-profit law firms ushered in an era of progressive public interest firms modeled after already established like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP") and the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") to advance progressive causes from the environmental protection to consumer advocacy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_lawyering

    5. Mr. Foltz: Your comment that the ACLU is "one of the most wicked and evil organizations in existence today" clearly shows you have no real understanding of what the ACLU does for Americans. The fact that the state is paying out so much in legal fees to the ACLU is clear evidence the ACLU is doing something right, defending all of us from laws that are unconstitutional. The ACLU is the single largest advocacy group for the US Constitution. Every single citizen of the United States owes some level of debt to the ACLU for defending our rights.

    ADVERTISEMENT