Prosecution Means You Never Have to Say You're Sorry

Prosecution Means You Never Have to Say You’re Sorry
and/or
Why Can’t Prosecutors, Governmental Attorney and
Law Enforcement Officers Say They’re Sorry?
and/or
Attorney General Foti and Assistant Attorney General Julie Cullen
Joins Ranks of Those Who Think They’re God

A New Orleans grand jury exonerated Dr. Ann Pou and nurses Cheri Landry and Lori Budo, on allegations that they murdered four patients in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. The grand jury felt that the allegations were not true.

But Foti, erstwhile Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff and the current Attorney General for the state of Louisiana, instead of thanking the grand jury for its civic duty and apologizing for ruining the lives Dr. Pou and nurses Landry and Budo, arrogantly stated, "I am very proud of our efforts on behalf of the victims and their families."

Also, Assistant Attorney General Julie Cullen, upon hearing the news of the exoneration, herded her fellow prosecutors Michael Morales and Craig Famularo quickly from the court and quipped, "It's our position that it was homicide."

This reaction is typical of, I would dare say, every law enforcement officer, prosecutor, and government official who tears into a fellow citizen, then is proven wrong. Why can’t they ever just apologize? Why don’t they believe in the Constitution that states that we are innocent until proven guilty? Is there some innate, genetic flaw that disallows an ounce of humility in such public officials?

Admittedly, as an attorney, when I lose a case I usually think the judge or the jury was wrong. However, please don’t tell anyone, but in hindsight there are many cases that I wish I never would’ve taken because they were mistakes for all kinds of reasons, sometimes including my fallibility, and the fact that the other side was right. There, I’ve confessed. Please let me know if you have ever heard a prosecutor, government attorney, or law enforcement officer apologize for, in hindsight, making a mistake. If so, it would be an earth-shaking revelation. The saddest thing about this all is that not only are no apologies ever given, the victims of prosecutorial misconduct are rarely compensated for their devastating losses.

Loren M. Lambert
July 28, 2007©

Moral Relativism

Unsettled by all the uncertainty looming on our national horizon with the Iraq war, global warming, the Supreme Court’s right wing verge, and finally Sean Hannity’s comeuppance at the hands of Mayor Anderson, I sought counsel from my old standby, the Thirteenth Apostle, Elder Secret Name. The same guy who has also been the lost Imam, the Fourth Wise Man, the Third Nephite and the Reclining Buddha.

He explained to me that, due to its moral relativism, western civilization is headed over the brink. I asked him if VP Dick Cheney’s use of extraordinary rendition to torture alleged terrorist suspects was an example of this. "No, no, no," Elder Secret Name counseled, "Republicans can do that, especially since they do it in Gods name and in a friendly legal forum."

"Oh, yeah, stupid me," I piped up, thinking I understood. "That’s why you, the Thirteenth Apostle, having spent time in one of those friendly legal forums when you were the Fourth Wise Man, were able to have three wives." He didn’t respond to this, but only smiled slyly.

Emboldened, I asked if I extraordinarily rendered myself into a friendly legal forum like Hilldale or Kuwait, could I pick up a couple of wives? He frowned and reminded me that I was practically a democrat, if not a libertarian, and therefore was not entitled to use extraordinary rendition for this privilege. He then suggested that I be patient, because in heaven even democrats were allowed as many republican wives as they wanted. "Why republican wives?" I asked. "Wasn’t that still against the law like miscegenation once was?"

"No," he chuckled, explaining that democrat women were unwilling, democrat men were scarce, and republican women were tired of all the prissy republican men. Besides, he said, Hilldale was being extraordinarily rendered by Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.

Yeah, what about that, I asked, what did he think of all the pomp and hypocrisy on the evils of polygamy by the descendants of the polygamists? Then he said, borrowing a phrase from VP Cheney, that it was a no-brainer. He explained that some things were not okay some of the time in some places but, as long as you were a God-fearing Republican, those same things were okay some of the time in other places."Oh," I said. "I get it. Things like drinking, speeding, abusing prescription drugs and cheating on your taxes?"

"No, no, no," he admonished, this time getting a little peeved. "Everyone, even Republicans, can share in the blessings of the principles of temperance and paying their taxes, especially if the taxes go to support a capitalistic war, and not a socialistic health care system." Hoping I’d finally gotten it, I asked him if to avoid moral relativism I just needed to become a good Republican. He then smiled serenely, blessed me and disappeared.

Loren Lambert© April 29, 2007

Cut and Run

The Deseret News Sunday Editorial states that setting a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq is naive and dangerous. It further states that, "the best course is one that quickly helps Iraqis take responsibility for their own security." What is misunderstood by this position is that we have accomplished this mission. The Iraqis have taken responsibility for their own security. They have joined up, en masse, with militias and insurgencies that they think will best accomplish this goal. If we stay, we are going to continue to get horrendously mauled no matter how many troops we send in.

When I was about 10 years old, I found myself in the wrong place at the wrong time, facing a kid twice my size who wanted to pound my head into the ground. Usually my ego is bigger than my ability, but this time I had the wisdom to make the following calculations. First, I knew if I tried to fight, I was not likely to win. Second, I lacked both life insurance and divine heritage, so no one would benefit from my death. Finally, no one was going to be better off if I stayed. So, I must confess, I cut and ran.

The Bush administration says that failure is not an option in Iraq. Fine. But, with the exception of toppling Sadam, failure has been the norm in Iraq–from the massive looting, to the prisoner abuses, to the failure to bring stability. The perception most Iraqis still hold is that it is wrong for us to be there. Unfortunately, since perception is reality, we and our allies in Iraq need to come to grips with the fact that our immense national ego cannot overcome our inability to quell the anger, hate, mistrust and skepticism of the Iraqi people. We may have the guns, but the power of Iraq’s collective angst towers over us the like the school yard bully did over me when I was ten.

We must further realize that we are not the saviors of the Iraqi people, and the Iraqis are not going to be better off with our presence. While failure is not an option, victory as we define it is not probable and nothing is going to change that by unduly delaying our withdrawal. We need to leave the Iraqis to the fate of their own self-determination. It is dangerous to think that we can dictate any outcome by the force of our fire power. It’s time to leave, and the best way to do so, in fairness to our dwindling Iraqi allies, is to let them know ahead of time.

Loren Lambert
© April 29, 2007

Disappointment in VP Dick Cheney

Vice President Dick Cheney, in response to the Scooter Libby convictions, indicated that he was "disappointed with the jury’s decision." Does VP Dick Cheney know that the jury consisted of 12 members of "we the people?" Does he know that stating he’s "disappointed with the jury" is stating he’s disappointed with the American public? Does he understand that he, the second most senior official of the executive branch of the United States has, in essence, delivered the middle finger salute to all of us? Does he think we’re that naive? Maybe so, but I would urge the American public to stand up and say, "We are disappointed in Vice President Dick Cheney; we are disappointed in the lies, flippancy and arrogance of the Bush administration; we are disappointed that apparently good people have been placed in positions in which they feel the need to rat out CIA operatives, lie about it in criminal investigations, and then fall on their swords. Yes, we the people are disappointed, and that is why we the people were forced to render a verdict against a good man who made a bad decision while working for a bad employer."


Loren M. Lambert
© March 6, 2007

Ban Tryouts in Secondary Public School Sports

Here, in the heart of pay-your-own-way, get-off-the-public-dole, be self-sustaining conservatism, why do I have to pay my tax dollars to help train your over-developed Billy or Betty to be a professional athlete? Okay, okay, okay, I admit that I am a bit piqued at some recent set backs in my own childrens’ athletic endeavors (let alone my own, years ago), however, I have always held this belief: allow all– yes, all– kids, so long as they have the desire and commitment to adhere to whatever rules are established for participation, to engage, without tryouts, in competitive team sports, up to the senior high school level.

Why? Because, while at the NFL level, Vince Lombardi was right on the money (emphasis on $) when he said that, "Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing," in our secondary schools, winning is not everything, nor is it the only thing. What is the only thing? Having the opportunity, regardless of one’s biological or environmental circumstances, to develop one’s full potential--not just intellectually, but physically, emotionally, socially and even spiritually. This goal, as perhaps many athletic greats would agree, can often be advanced through the rigors of competitive team sports.

Now, I realize that the idea of public school athletics being open to all without tryouts will cause many an old-school jock to rip out the last hairs from his balding head, pull several groin muscles, and put on sack cloth and ashes, but it shouldn’t. Tryouts do nothing more than create an unnecessary sense of entitlement, elitism, and exclusion among youthful athletes. Moreover, given that kids are a development in progress, tryouts are little more useful than if they were undertaken at the age of 9 months. Take the oft-quoted Michael Jordan story; he, the greatest basketball player ever, as a sophomore was cut from his high school basketball team. Many coaches will proclaim that Jordan’s story proves that if you have enough talent and persistence, no patently wrong coaching decision will hold you back.

This, however, is not the moral of the Michael Jordan story. It’s lesson is this--even though many think and act as if they are, and sometimes look the part, coaches are not God. Lacking God’s prescience, except when it comes to their own little Johnny or jumping Jane, coaches are ill-suited for divining the potential of our disparately developing kids, who need their instruction more than their judgment. Moreover, picking "winners," and a "winning team," should not even be their mission.

While Michael Jordan, due to his virtuosity and determination, was able to overcome the obstacle of a horrendously bad coaching decision, many who may lack his ability, but who nonetheless have the seeds of greatness, will not. Coaches are given enormous power; they can, and often do, become God-like figures over our children. By their choices, they can take two identically talented kids with similar potential, label one a loser, label the other their go-to-guy or gal, and thereby inevitably ensure that their prophetic labeling becomes a reality. The unfortunate result of such labeling is that it sometimes has no basis in fact, but is the product of bias, nepotism and sheer ignorance. Being better instructors than Gods, coaches should therefore not sit in judgment to pick "winners" and "losers," but should do what we are all paying them to do--to train and instruct all of our kids.

"No," they’ll say, "we can’t do it, there will be an overwhelming crush of scrawny, spastic, underdeveloped, belligerent, hygienically challenged kids diluting our limited capacity!"

First, in the eyes of another, the same might be said about a coach’s own bumptious progeny.

Second, if kids and their parents want an elite athletic experience, let them do as is done in Europe: pay for it in the private sector.

Third, like every other over-taxed teacher who does not have the luxury of cutting the worst English, history, or math students from their classes, you coaches will find a way.

Fourth, it is a myth, perpetuated by the egos of athletes and coaches, that everyone wants to be on the basketball or football team–they don’t–they just like the thought of it, like we all like the thought of getting up early every morning to run a mile or two and watch the sun rise.

Fifth, many wannabe athletes will sadly realize that playing game boy is more riveting than pounding out drills until puking up one’s breakfast of sugar puffs.

Sixth, more parental enthusiasm creates greater political concern about our schools, which in turn garners more mula for public schools, which in turn equates to more mula for coaches, which leads to bigger smiley faces on coaches.

And lastly, after five years of dedicated work, grades 7-11, without ever having faced the agony of a cut, and without ever having been anointed a "winner" by any coach, the Michael Jordans of the pack will have established themselves–some to the great surprise of all, including their fallible coaches. Under this system, the truly good and devoted coaches will find that they won’t have to pick the best, because, before they ever have to cut a single teary-eyed basketball wannabe, the best will materialize before them; whether as well-rounded, disciplined students who have learned the great benefits of team competition, or as great ball players headed to the NBA, WNBA or NFL .

This is as it should be, because winning in athletics in our secondary schools is so far from being "the only thing," that it, as the overarching goal, should be banned from schools as zealously as guns, alcohol, and drugs. We tax-paying parents commend our children into the care of our public schools believing, hoping, and praying that its devoted teachers and coaches will provide them with every opportunity to reach their full potential. While we may not necessarily expect our child to be the next Michael Jordan, Bill Gates, or Albert Einstein, we do expect these professionals, even though they are often under-paid and under-appreciated, to allow all of our children a place at their feet. And while it takes much greater courage, maturity, organization, and intelligence to coach, teach, and train the seemingly less able-bodied and less skilled and to stand up to the win-at-all-costs crowd than to take the path of least resistance and concentrate, and cater to, the supposed child stars and their fawning parents, we know they are up to the challenge (as well as resisting the urge to coach, whenever possible, their own kids).

Loren M. Lambert, March 1, 2007 ©

Workers Comp Predation

Recently it was reported by the Deseret News that Sen. Mayne is sponsoring a bill to "safeguard settlements" by prohibiting cutthroat financing companies from the "predatory" practice of buying injured workers' disability settlements for lump sums at 30 cents on the dollar. As an example of this pernicious evil, Alan Hennebold of the Utah Labor Commission lamented that recently a disabled truck driver sold his future $200,000 Worker's Comp. settlement for a quick $40,000.

While this bill may be an eensy weensy spider step in the right direction, the question is, how has a market been created in which an injured worker is willing to sell her $200,000 settlement to a predatory financial company? Answer: it has been created by the predatory insurance companies who own the predatory financial companies who buy up legislators, lobbyists, industrial commissions and insurance defense attorneys. They, in turn, work to ensure that, as Hennebold intimated, while "wait[ing] for [her] claims to move through the legal process," the injured worker loses her home, hearth, and health.

Ask any honest broker familiar with the Utah Worker’s Comp. system and they’ll tell you it’s more cloyed up than a poodle on chocolate. The blame lies directly at the feet of our insurance companies, their legislators, and defense attorneys, who all benefit from the injured workers’ desperation. Currently, the Worker’s Comp. system is riddled with myriad systemic and substantive problems that allow the insurance companies to deny, delay, stall, and drag their collective sagging behinds. Why? Because, well, they can. The current laws are so flawed that they not only condone this delay, but encourage it.

Hence, when the worker is told by her doctor that she is terminally ill, or she immediately needs a $40,000 surgery to return to work, or when the mortgage company puts her house into foreclosure, what can she do? She certainly can’t wait for the Industrial Commission to void, nor for the Legislature’s next round of nose-picking progress. She does what she must. Out of a fit of desperation, she takes the $40,000 from the predatory financial company, owned by the predatory insurance company--who in turn takes half of the $160,000 windfall and buys up more legislators, lobbyists, and insurance defense attorneys to cloy up the system even more. Then, the next injured worker, who becomes even more desperate, will sell his $200,000 claim for 20 cents on the dollar.

So, to slim down the beast from a plus size 24 dress to a strapping 20, maybe leaving injured workers alone with their desperation is a step in the right direction. Maybe not. You decide. Just hope you don’t become a member of this maligned minority and need that $40,000 to avert death. If you do, in the near future your only choice may be to rest in peace knowing that, instead of a predatory financial company getting $160,000 of your never realized $200,000, because you died, a predatory insurance industry kept all $200,000 of it.

Loren Lambert
©January 23, 2007

Justice or Swift Judgment

President Bush, in presenting his plan to try the inmates at Guantanamo pursuant to rules that would have made Herod, the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilot blush, explained that his goal was to give justice to those who gave no justice to others. This is in keeping with his lengthy history of sound bite blather that never bears any resemblance to the substance behind the spin. If it were otherwise, he would have admitted it was his goal to bring swift and predetermined judgment upon the heads of those that are accused of the same.

Tragically, in his haste to salvage his flagging support, he, along with many of us, have forgotten that the America we should love and idealize, is not the America of swift judgment, of retribution, of preemptive strikes or of the short term gain at the expense of the long term ideal. Nor is it the America that labels another human being a "non-combatant" so that decency can be dispensed with and torture inflicted. It is the America that, no matter how imperfectly we had lived up to its ideals, still strives to adhere to the creed that all mankind is created equal and possesses certain inalienable rights that are not lost because of the whims of an ever increasingly strident, isolated, and out of touch leader.

It is the preservation and perpetuation of this American ideal that should be foremost in our minds and that will, in the long run bring peace more assuredly than any swift trial, conviction and execution of the rabble confined at Guantanamo. Summarily try then kill this small handful of mortals and a thousand more will spring up in their place; rob them of their propaganda by taking the higher ground, and they will fade into oblivion.

Loren M. Lambert
Sept. 14, 2006 ©