Aren’t Lawyers ethically bound to tell the Truth?

by jhwygirl

Which is why I have been so absolutely perplexed about the bullcrap recently blogged over at Carol Minjares’ website, attacking Forward Montana.

At first I went looking for the “Humor” tag, given her propensity towards bad jokes.

But alas, it was missing.

She frames the Roosevelt Institute as a “Soros-funded conglomeration of think tanks.”

The Roosevelt Institution has an annual budget of around $150,000. Can’t much fund a conglomeration of think tanks with that kind of budget, now can we? (But honestly, if you want to see who’s funded well, check out that link.)

Google is your friend.

She disses on his 2 year communications director gig at Progressive States Network because they were funded with $30,000 ($30,000! The horror!!) grant from the Proteus Fund, which is separated by how many degrees? Three? Six? Fifty? to George Soros?

Lord!

Then she goes on to connect the $250,000 grant that Forward Montana got to “Jon and Peter Lewis of Skyline Public Works.”

Skyline Public Works is the baby of Deborah and Andy Rappaport – and hell, Google is your friend on that one too..

From there she takes that lie and ties the Lewis’ false connection to Soros – which she admits didn’t work out too well – and connects Matt to Soros.

But wait! It gets better! She then takes an anonymous post to that first lie-filled post and creates another post about how Matt supposedly had a conversation with a group of strangers, in a public place, bragging about his connections to Soros!

Look – I’ve been around ‘think tank’ people on both sides of the aisle – if you want to believe me – and I sure don’t go throwing around the names of who I’ve hung out with and how much money they spent on whatever they’re spending they’re money on. You just don’t get to be around people like that if you’re going to do stuff like that. Period. You wouldn’t last 3 minutes – they’d nullify you in a heartbeat.

Even The Montana Misanthrope, I’m sure, would back me up on that one.

But it shows the gumption of wanna-be’s who will print anything to drive up traffic on their site.

Now aside from Forward Montana’s mission statement that basically reads:

Forward Montana is:

Cultural Politics – combining music, art and political activism

Mobilizing for Change – using media, email, and the masses to make our voices heard

A New Generation of Leaders – recruiting and training young Montanans to lead in the 21st century.

What does all this stuff mean? In short – a new model for political participation that recognizes that we can make serious change and have a little fun at the same time.

And aside that, as I’ve noted above, just about everything she tried to smear Forward Montana, and in turn, my friend Matt Singer with was lies and bullcrap….

I don’t give one rat’s ass over where in the hell that organization is getting it’s cash.

I know some of it is from me. And I will be calling them tomorrow to up that meager donation I make to them a meager amount more. Yep. That’s right. THIS WHOLE DIRTY AFFAIR IS MAKING ME WANT TO GIVE THEM MORE MONEY!

~~~~~~~~

But back to the topic at hand:

I know lawyers are supposed to twist the facts to make the best case they can for their clients…but are they really supposed to lie?

{Now I really feel dirty. I’ve said what I’ve had to say – so don’t expect me to say anything more. Ugh.}

Advertisements

  1. Rich

    I can’t help but notice that Matt Singer has specifically not denied the allegations contained in the anonymous comment that seems to have upset you people the most. If Singer wants to come clean and categorically deny what was said he obviously has the resources to do so. Sorry “jhwygirl,” while your defense of a friend is admirable, you might want to approach the situation with more caution in the future. “Lies and bullcrap?” Don’t think so, hon. When will you call for Mr. Singer to finally come clean and either flatly deny the “lies and bullcrap” or admit that the conversation did take place? Won’t hold my breath.

    She then takes an anonymous post to that first lie-filled post and creates another post about how Matt supposedly had a conversation with a group of strangers, in a public place, bragging about his connections to Soros!

    Look – I’ve been around ‘think tank’ people on both sides of the aisle – if you want to believe me – and I sure don’t go throwing around the names of who I’ve hung out with and how much money they spent on whatever they’re spending they’re money on. You just don’t get to be around people like that if you’re going to do stuff like that. Period. You wouldn’t last 3 minutes – they’d nullify you in a heartbeat.

  2. Therein lies an interesting ethical conundrum. Do you respond to an anonymous smear of your character?

  3. Defend what? Swiftboating?

    How do you BUDGEt your time to defend a lie? Something that doesn’t exist in the first place?

    How do you make proof – evidence – of a conversation that never happened?

    He said vs. He said?

    I’ll take you one honorable person and raise you one?

    My honest person is more honest than your honest person?

  4. Rich

    That’s an interesting attempt at spinning. How do you know it’s a lie? Do you know for a fact that the conversation didn’t take place? Either it did take place or it didn’t but Matt Singer refuses to answer. If he refuses to answer it’s because he’s afraid that someone else might jump forward with proof of the conversation, which proves the point. If he admits to the conversation your credibility is shot, pimps now and always.

    I don’t exactly see a name or face behind the handle “jhwygirl” yet you expect me to take you seriously despite your anonomity? When 4&20 first started all we had was “touchstone,” again, an anonymous handle, and yet you expected to be taken seriously. Do the rules not apply in other arguments? You’ve already claimed elsewhere that Matt Singer should directly answer the charges contained in the anonymous comment so why not a post encouraging him to do so? Could it be that you’re collectively afraid of what the answer might be?

    Rich, dear…more lies? From you? I’d never expect…

    You’ve already claimed elsewhere that Matt Singer should directly answer the charges contained in the anonymous comment…”

    Please, do direct me to where I’ve done this.

    I won’t expect an apology, but I’d hope for a clarification.

    Regarding my anonymity? That deserves a full post unto itself, and I’m truly flattered that you’d care so – but I have to wonder why in the hell you would care? I don’t dismiss you because of yours.

  5. Hey girl, you spelled my name wrong. It’s Carol MINJARES.

    My apologies Carol – I really do know better.

  6. The Roosevelt Institution is up to about $350,000 annual budget now, but the claims are equally absurd. I am happy Carol found us, though.

  7. Jay Stevens

    Could it be that you’re collectively afraid of what the answer might be?

    No.

    As for the anonymous posting…that’s an interesting comparison to commenting. I’m going to treat this as a serious question, and not as a dig at Matt as it was probably intended…

    First, I don’t judge anyone for posting anonymously. It’s your right. I don’t know the situation of any particular blogger and commenter and why they choose anonymity, so I don’t judge their decision.

    That said, I chose to become un-anonymous because I felt it was important to put my name behind my blog, especially during the last election to reassure the doubters that I was real and no Democratic plant. I still use my name to stand behind the authenticity of this blog and all the folks who blog here.

    That said, anonymous posts and comments can still easily earn authenticity. Does the poster or commenter offer valid evidence to back claims? Does the poster or commenter have a history of accuracy? Certainly alpha-girl here at the b’birds has earned our trust. And with equal certainty we can say that Carol M’s anonymous commenter has not.

    Will Matt respond? Hell if I know. Is it worth his time? Who knows? Of course, you could always just email him and ask him to respond.

  8. Ayn Rand

    if attys are ethically bound, alphabet girl IS NOT an attorney. Nice cherry picking and leaving out the thruths. You could get a job in the Flathead at cherry harvest time.

    ?? Are you saying I’m lying Ayn? Because if so, I’d ask that you be specific

  9. Rich

    And with equal certainty we can say that Carol M’s anonymous commenter has not.

    Will Matt respond? Hell if I know. Is it worth his time? Who knows? Of course, you could always just email him and ask him to respond.

    Why should I email him to ask a response? It’s quite simple, really. A three-word post consisting of, “it’s a lie,” which would suffice as a categorical denial. The anonymous commentor at Mrs. Minjares blog has obviously gained the same trust among that group as “jhwygirl” has here, so what’s the beef?

    My take on the issue? Matt Singer can’t deny the allegation because it’s true. If he did, and there’s other corroborating information that would support the anonymous comment that just hasn’t been released or posted yet he’s finished, back to the kitchen at Perkins. That’s why the wagons are starting to circle around him demanding specfically that he not address the allegation because it’s “anonymous.” You guys stand to lose your credibility on this issue, and I can’t help but believe that deep down on some level you know this.

    Until then I guess we’re left with “my anonymous commentor is better than your anonymous commentor” line of reasoning. We’ll pick up the pieces later.

  10. Rich, you crack me up. You’re really ridin’ the comment hard, aren’t you? Bottom line? Your credibility has little value. You criticize the character of anyone on the left. That’s your modus operandi. This seems like just another gratuitous cheap shot.

  11. Rich

    Bottom line? Your credibility has little value.

    In the greater scheme of things I’d like to think we both bring equal credibility to the issue. It’s just that now you start resorting to personal attacks because it’s all you have to fall back on.

    You criticize the character of anyone on the left. That’s your modus operandi.

    Is it? Really? I posit you know nothing about me, my motives, or my M.O. I voted for Jon Tester and Brian Schweitzer because I thought we needed a change. I think the Bush presidency is a pox on all of our houses, and I have nothing but complete and utter contempt for a Republican congress that forgot they were conservatives and got drunk on power. I honestly believe you’re a good spokeman for your cause but others on your side simply lack the intelligence to be anything other than cogs in the machine.

    Again, I applaud (I really do) the benefit of the doubt you provide Mr. Singer but as I’ve said elsewhere, you’ve now been goaded into creating a body of commentary that backs you into a corner with no way out. Mr. Singer could put this issue to rest once and for all with a simple categorical denial of the allegations against him but chooses not to.

    I ask, and hope you look honestly for an answer and not immediately towards the defense of a friend, would you provide the same benefit of doubt if this were an issue concerning a conservative money laundering organization (of which there are plenty) with an anonymous comment coming from the left, say from the anonymous “jhwygirl” (who is known to you but not others) without providing that there might be more unpublished information from what other folks are honestly considering a valid source?

  12. It’s just that now you start resorting to personal attacks because it’s all you have to fall back on.

    Wait? Am I mixing you up with another Rich? This isn’t the same Rich who accused me of malingering because I lost my health insurance?

    As for the rest…I know Matt. He wouldn’t say the stuff he was accused of. Period. Your “friend” may think he heard what he heard, but maybe he read into what he heard. Kilgore was there, and he certainly doesn’t remember the way your pal does. I’m sure Matt was happy with his efforts helping Jon win the race. But I’m also sure Matt didn’t try to influence any voters illegally or deceptively.

    I’m not just standing up for a friend. I’m standing up for someone I know and am familiar with against a comment claiming behavior that’s unlike Matt. Should I believe some random comment because you happen to know the author? No.

    But don’t let us stop you from complaining about it.

  13. Rich! For crying out loud! I’ve backed up what I said with real links! I did not write a piece that appeared to be researched vis-a-vis the pseudo-illusion of wikipedia links…

    If you knew that was my name was Cathie Burkland and I was divorced with 2 children and a monthly court-ordered support of $5,000 a month, would it make my words more worthy?

    Or perhaps if my name were Cheryl Mahoney and I were 27 years old, living on disability, would it make my words more worthy?

    I live my life and I write my stuff such that I can look back on what I did and what I wrote and consider myself proud. Consider it with no shame. With no doubt.

    How we live our life should be more important than who we are – but alas, such is the mentality of those who have so little in their own life that they have to obsess over someone else’s.

  14. Rich

    I believe I’ve made my point sufficently, and certainly have you on record as supporting Matt Singer, “period.” You still didn’t answer the question as to whether or not you’d provide the same benefit of the doubt if this controversy concerned a conservative or republican organization, which I think in a way was a kind of answer in and of itself.

    Yes, “jhwygirl” you have backed up what you wrote with real “research.” I might mention that many of the allegations have actually been proven correct judging from an exchange on Mr. Budge’s blog but I guess that’s the conundrum concerning facts, and damn facts. No one here is obsessing over the life of someone else but when you put yourself out there in the public sphere and expect credibility while at the same time refusing to refute or rebut an anonymous allegation, which should be quite easy to do, actually, it’s telling.

    I am downright proud to be supportive of Forward Montana, and the work Matt Singer has done with both that organization and his progressive words on Left in the West and Montana’s Senator Jon Tester. Unwaveringly supportive. Yep, you got me there Rich.

    Any organization that wants to draw the young folk out to vote is right by me Rich – right by me.

    Further, I take insult at your suggestion that I am in some way providing Forward Montana with some “benefit of the doubt” with regards to this latest smear. There is no “doubt” as to what is true and what is not. You’ve seen what I wrote – I was pretty clear.

    As for whether I’d provide the same benefit to a local conservative or republican organization should the same smear job be done upon them? Well, I guess you’ll just have to wait and see. I don’t deal well with crap like that which I’ve been critical, and I believe that I’d be fair.

    Rebutting an anonymous personal smear on someone is not in anyway similar to blogging ‘anonymously’ Rich – if you can’t think yourself through to the disconnect in that logic, well, I just don’t know what else to say.

  15. Jim Lang

    LOL at Rich’s pathetic attempt to stir up controversy where none exists. An anonymous Republican posted an attack on Matt Singer.

    Whoop-tee-do.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,671,413 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,737 other followers

  • October 2007
    S M T W T F S
    « Sep   Nov »
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Categories


%d bloggers like this: