Weight: 18 pounds, 13 oz   75th percentile

Head Circumference: 45 1/2 cm  90th percentile

What our Crew has been doing lately:  spitting (rasberries), sitting up by himself, getting up into the crawling position and rockin back and forth, talking, smiling and laughing, eating solids (he loves it all!), eating cheerios.  Still no teeth poking through, but I'm positive that he's been teething so we're expecting one anytime now.   I found him sitting up in his crib today.  Even more amazed when he saw me and pulled himself up to a standing position in his crib.  Where has my baby gone? 

posted by JMJ at 4:50 pm local time, via mobile (philadelphia, usa)

comments @ nin.com

posted by Rob at 4:03 pm local time, via mobile (philadelphia, usa)

comments @ nin.com

Follow all the action on and off the water at www.littlebritain.co.uk/blog

Keith Philpott, who owns Ocean Spirit with his wife Beverley is a construction consultant, and for nearly forty years a boating enthusiast. He is a qualified RYA Yachtmaster Offshore skipper with commercial endorsement. As skipper he is responsible for the safety of the passengers, boat and crew. In addition to navigation, weather, and rules of the sea he has first aid, sea survival, radio operator and management training to reach his current qualifications.

You can rely on his judgement in relation to weather, sea conditions and the many other factors affecting your cruise, so that you have a safe and enjoyable experience on Ocean Spirit.

posted by Alessandro at 1:11 am local time, via mobile (east rutherford, usa)

comments @ nin.com

     In his defense, Pastor Hammond argues that the audit was only opened for political reasons.  He states an IRS official illegally opened the audit and did so at the behest of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington based on the perceived Michelle Bachmann endorsement.  This article isn't really getting into delving into those facts.  It is worth pointing out again that Pastor Mac Hammond did state he would "almost welcome an IRS audit." 

     The main concern is that a good portion of Pastor Mac Hammond's defense is really a defense of the prosperity gospel.  He points to a national conspiracy to attack ministries involve in what he states has come to be called the "prosperity gospel."  He even states "the gospel-the good news that God is good and our covenant of blessing will provide increase in every area of our life."  However, that is NOT the Gospel.  The Gospel is John 3:16 (KJV) For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth him shall have eternal life.

     Pastor Mac Hammond goes on to suggest that what is happening is politically motivated because the "enemies of the gospel" are afraid of wealthy Christians and the influence that they may weild.  He states that to limit the influence of the church, the wealth needs to be limited, and that is done by decreasing the willingness to donate.  Pastor Mac Hammond clearly delineates that "clergy" can and should be wealthy and that the media and enemies of the gospel want to keep them poor, and as such keep the church poor.  Pastor Mac goes on to state that God can do anything and that the only limits on what God can and will do is our faith.  In essence, it reads to me that our faith becomes the means by which to get God to do what we want, which usually is increasing our personal kingdoms such as by wealth. 

   The question again comes down to what Kingdom is really being built.  Do we give our all.  Pastor Mac Hammond in is defense graciously offered to sell all and give it to the church. Great, but until that happens it is just words that can make one look good.  Actions speak louder then words. Now Pastor Mac Hammond indicates he donates a large sum to the church which he indicates is how a person avoids the temptations of lukewarmness and decreased God-depenency.   The generosity is good, and praise God for that. Only God and Pastor Mac Hammond know what is at the core of the giving.  Only God and Pastor Mac Hammond truely know what kingdom he is really serving.  However, the defense Pastor Mac Hammond gives leaves me troubled, regardless of the facts. The defense is all about emphasizing prosperity and the church needs to be prosperous to influence society.

    The church is called to be salt and light to a community. But the influence of salt and light come not from the influence of wealth or from involvement in the political realm.  The influence of the church is in changing hearts and minds and drawing people into surrender to Yeshua.  It is about turning from self. There is a reason Jesus stated that it is hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God, yet with God all things are possible. 

Man, I HATE saying that phrase! It's comes so many times each year, over and over, and always around, well, when summer's about to end. Because NO ONE wants it to end. They're all talking about the inevitable doom that is the end of summer. The end of gold, the end of warm, the end of t-shirts, and swimming. All the things in life that make life GOOD.

I should also point out that winter is probably worse in Canada than in America, which is probably stereotypical or something, but whatever.

There's one thing in particular about winter that I despise. I think I might be the only one I know who hates it, but here goes. The thing I hate most about winter, well not the most, but one of the things I hate the most is the fact that in the winter time, the tilt of the Earth causes the sun to stay low in the sky, all the time. This means that the sun is always in one's field of vision, making the outdoors significantly brighter and more painful on the eyes than in summer time. I kinda have sensitive eyes, by the way. So that's the reason that thing bugs me.

I go back to school in EIGHT DAYS. I haven't even started school shopping yet. I don't think it'll be that hard really, considering I care less about this school year that any other school year I've ever been through. Why is that, you may ask. It's because this is going to be one of the easiest ones yet.

I took Grade 10 Pre-IB, which means I learned a lot of Grade 11 stuff in Grade 10. So, that means I know a lot of the material that I'm going to be taught this upcoming year.

Anyway, I used to make a big deal out of school shopping. I wanted to make sure I got all the right things, the top of the line gear, etc. But this year, it's going to be easy. I just get the stuff I need, end of story. No double checking, no bullshit. Just get in, get out.

It's not all bad, at least I get to hang out with all of my friends again. The best part is lunch time at school. We're allowed to go into town to eat, and me and "The Lunch Crew" usually go to a few different places each week, which is really fun (and tasty... and slightly expensive {for me anyways}).

And hey, there's another summer next year, too. And because of global warming, it's probably going to be hotter and longer than any summer ever before. Hooray!

Sorry for the delay in the match report.  I'm feeling under the weather, and work is picking up, which means that both my time and my motivation are on the wane.  Blurg.  Anyway, another stellar performance for Guillermo Barros Schelotto.  Is the non all-star a player of the year candidate? He absolutely should be, but looking at the all-star voting, GBS gets shocking little (almost no) respect from other coaches and GMs.  Why not?  I suspect it has to do with: a) his not scoring from the run of play; and b) his assists coming from passes that look easy.  But seriously, the guy is playing some ridiculous soccer.  Anyway, on to player ratings.

Player Ratings (1-10):

William Hesmer -- 8

After the Crew bunkered in, Hesmer stepped up, made some good saves, and commanded his area.

Frankie Hejduk -- 6

Put in his usual workmanlike effort.  Nothing spectacular this game, but generally good work all around.

Chad Marshall -- 8

This guy's a stud.  Great header on the first goal, and he was everywhere he needed to be otherwise.

Danny O'Rourke -- 6

What's with the beard?  Should we even punish him for another yellow?  Yes, we should.  Come on, Danny!

Gino Padula -- 7

He didn't figure in any of the goals directly, but his passing from the left back position is such a step up from O'Rourke or Ezra that "step up" doesn't truly capture the difference.

Eddie Gaven -- 7

Best game of the season so far (that I've watched) for Eddie.  The announcers kept harping on it, but it's true -- he was present for the whole game in a way he isn't always.  Great assist, too.

Brian Carroll -- 7

Another solid game from old reliable.  Glad to see that his goal last week didn't inspire him to unleash any more long shots.

Brad Evans -- 7

The guy has a wicked shot from distance and can put his head on the ball.  I still don't believe that he has the other skills to be an everyday player in MLS, but he's making the best case he can as of late.

Robbie Rogers -- 6

The rare game when Gaven outshines Rogers.  He needs to add a couple of moves to his repertoire as I think the entire league knows that he loves to cut inside and shoot with his right foot.

Guillermo Barros Schelotto -- 9

How do you play 60ish minutes a get a nine?  You score one goal and dish out two assists.  Plus, you run hard, play some good defense, and get pissed when you get subbed out.

Alejandro Moreno -- 6

He's still not getting on the end of any crosses, which he needs to do to be fully productive, but he continues to do what he does well.

Substitutes:

Pat Noonan (62) -- 5

Was he on the field?  I noticed that GBS got subbed out, but I didn't really notice Noonan come on.  Part of that, of course, is that we had gone into a shell by that point, but hopefully Noonan can make an impact after he adjusts to a new team.

Stefani Miglioranzi (83) -- NR

Not much impact from Miglioranzi, who I wouldn't mind seeing get more minutes once Evans cools off (as he inevitably will).

Jason Garey (90) -- NR

Another sign of the depth of the team.  Garey definitely could start, and he'll hopefully get some minutes while Moreno is off representing his country.

Trois-Rivières s’en vient gros, pis la population de riders aussi, un blog c’est donc la suite logique. Certains petites cliques on déjà des Skyrock pour poster leur shit, mais ce que je propose avec le blog, c’est de tout unir les petites cliques, faire quelque chose de gros avec ca. Des gros, gros meets, j’en ai pas encore vu icitte a TR, c’est le genre d’affaire que le blog peut aider a organiser.

SI T’A DU CONTENU A ME PREPOSER, GO! Email moi a l’adresse max302@gmail.com ou add moi sur MSN (même adresse) pis shoot moi des liens vers tes vidéos de sessions avec tes chums, des photo du nouveau bike a untel, n'importe quoi vraiment. Pis si t’a déjà un Skyrock, donne moi l’adresse, on va s’arranger pour se partager du trafic : tu va avoir un lien sur ma page! Je me cherche des collaborateurs aussi… si tu sait ou si tu veut apprendre comment un blog ca marche pis si ta beaucoup de chum qui font du bike, parle moi en, je vais te faire un compte, tu va pouvoir m’aider a publier du stock.

Passe le mot au autres riders que tu connait. Qui soit de PDL, du BDC, ou en plein Centreville, on s’en criss : si il vie a Trois-Rivieres pis qui fait du bicycle, donne lui le site, dit y de m’envoyer du stock!

Plane crashes in Kyrgyz capital

A passenger plane has crashed shortly after take-off from Kyrgyzstan's capital, Bishkek, killing 68 out of the 90 passengers and crew, officials say.

There were many foreigners on board, including Iranians and Canadians.

The Itek Air Boeing 737 took off bound for Iran, but turned round about 10 minutes later.

An airport spokeswoman said the crew had reported a technical problem, and the plane crashed not far from the airport and caught fire.

Ambulances and fire-fighting equipment from the nearby US air base at Manas, 30km (20 miles) from Bishkek, were dispatched to help with the rescue effort.

All six Kyrgyz crew members and an Iranian aviation official were among the survivors, the press office of Kyrgyzstan's government said.

Uncertainty

PASSENGER LIST 52 Iranians 24 Kyrgyz Three Kazakhs Two Canadians One Chinese One Turk Seven crew

Initial reports said the plane was flying to Mashhad in north-eastern Iran, but later officials said it had been due to fly to the capital, Tehran.

Prime Minister Igor Chudinov said 51 of the passengers were foreigners, including people from China, Turkey, Iran and Canada.

There were also 17 members of a school sport team from Bishkek on board, seven of whom survived.

The prime minister said that the crew had reported a sudden depressurization on board the plane.

"The plane took off and then it lost pressure," said Mr Chudinov.

It crashed at 2040 (1440 GMT).

Airport employees said the fuselage of the plane was destroyed by flames and only the tail remained intact.

Yelena Bayalinova, spokeswoman for the Kyrgyz health ministry, told the Interfax news agency that many victims of the crash had suffered burns, and that some were in critical condition.

The plane belonged to Itek Air, a Kyrgyz company, but there were reports that it was being operated by Iran Aseman Airlines.

However, Iranian and Kyrgyz official said the plane was both owned and operated by Itek Air.

Itek Air is on a list of airlines banned from EU airspace because of fears over safety standards.

Prime Minister Chudinov said the plane had been made in 1979 and was "in good condition and had an extended warranty".

Esta pensando em trabalhar em navios. Conheci esta agencia que treina os profissionais para trabalhar nas companias de cruzeiros.

A Open -Crew Training Brazil e uma agencia que tem como maior OBJETIVO, TREINAR profissionais do ramo hoteleiro/turismo para terem mais chances de entrar no mercado de cruzeiros. E, posteriormente, encaminhar os alunos para as empresa maritimas que disponibilizam das vagas.

O contato da empresa:

http://www.openseasbrazil.com e open-seas@hotmail.com.

Como uma crewzete e respeito, claro, vou primeiro falar da Crew, festa mensal que rola no clube Gloria e no D-Edge e é comandado por uma trupe gigante de DJ's. Nesta festa o que não vale é preconceito! Vai fashionista, newraver, surfista, moderno, perdido, bichas novas, bichas velhas, enfim, todo mundo vai lá pra se acabar na pixxxta. E pra se acabar mesmo! Queridos amigos como o Fabrizio Martinelli, que eu vejo tocar desde a gloriosa época do Hype My Ass e que agora arrasa nas pick-ups da Crew e outras festinhas. Gosto dele pois foi ele que me incentivou a escutar eletrônico, me explicou melhor sobre Maximal e afins, e de vez em quando solta pérolas como "Megadeth" e "Faith No More", ao mesmo tempo que toca "Edu K" pra todo mundo requebrar.

Já os meninos do Database, Lucio Morais e Yuri Chix, que eu sou super suspeita pra falar, são duas figuras que me fizeram parar e aceitar o eletrônico na minha vida. Acabaram de lançar um álbum de reedits de graça (leia mais e baixe aqui) que eu não consigo parar de escutar! Em época de olimpíada, vale dizer que essa dupla é de ouro e representa totally o Brasil lá fora.

Killer On The Dancefloor, a duplinha arrojadinha da season do Fatuzera (AKA Flávio Romão) e Phillip A. vai tocar no Skol Beats junto ao Justice, então eu não preciso falar mais nada néam?

O Roots Rock Revolution também revolucionou meu mundo musical. Sinceramente, baixe o último live set deles (quando tocaram na Funhouse para um monte de maluco na pista, nós), genial e que não vai deixar nem sua vovózinha parada. SUPERFREAK baixe aqui! (Mexicano pra presidente!)

Rebel Dj's, queridíssimos Lalai e Fabilipo, que btw farão uma nova festa amanhã no Gloria batizada de FCKU, junto ao clã indie-moderno da Funhell. Estes que também são óóóóótemos e tem sua personal festa na minha quase segunda casa da vida, a Funhouse. Vale a pena fazer uma visitnha nas quartas-feiras animadas da Bela Cintra. Fabricio Miranda, Pomada, Brunão e Fubah, que tira as fotos do povo se jogando na pista! Ah e claro, ainda tem a presença do famoso Ricky Levy na porta! Pega um pirulitoooooooooo!

Tem também a montação master, onde você pode ir vestido de Tim Maia que ninguém vai te notar, a VAI!, que acontece todo mês também no Gloria. A dupla de fashionistas Gil e Paula, do B.Luxo (brechó incrível que vale a visita!) e do fervidíssimo blog Freakstyle, organizam uma noite de muito brilho, luxo e a trilha que vai fazer você e sua amiga bee se esquecerem de onde vieram. Vá bem bonito, quem sabe você não sai na coluna deles da Revista Serafina?

Se você tá meio cansada do eletrônico, "cola" no Milo Garage de sexta-feira para o Chaka Hotnights. Dub, Hip Hop e afins do mais alto nível, num lugar BEM cheio (chegue cedo pois a fila é de matar!). O lado bom é que tem 5 homens (heteros okay?) pra cada mulher e a cerveja custa 3 reais. Got it?

Pois é gente, a dica ficou por aqui tá? Arrasem na produção pois provavelmente a charmosa Renata Chebel do sp00 estara lá para fotografar todo mundo que é bonito e estiloso. Misshapes quem?!??!!?!

Não esquece, amanhã FCKU no Gloria!

Eu na VAI - com fôlego!

posted by Rob at 3:38 pm local time, via mobile (cleveland, usa)

comments @ nin.com

Hopefully that'll include a couple of beers.
With the hoped for effects you might just ask them if you're really that wankable.
To which they will answer
-Yep.. Ips.. ya are.. Ips
You might find yourself posing 4for them.
If you're part of the crew:
TAKE THAT CHANCE!!
I know I would.
Drunk.
Sober.
ANY TIMES

I might even invite her 2
'come poop with me', you know, after the Weird Al Yankovic song.
With a bit of constipation timing, I might find myself unconscience if I also go w*nk with her.
Should that be 2 her?

I had it over Hazel earlier, but Sonali's on IIII now.
I bet quiet a few were curious how I would go about that.
Her included.
Now.. is he gonna go V or IIII.. ??

Get another one quickly, please Sonali.
The suspence is killing me!
Oh, what a relieve.
I thought it was the bag over your head.
Famous last words phrase.
ooooh, Sonali.. Sonali, oooooh...
1983 - 2008
Rest in her pees..

..and I was shocked, when I found you like that.
So you were a w*nker after all!

..disgusted really!
And to think that you might have knocked one out over me..
Or even more!
Yeeekks!
I had 4 showers, and I still felt dirty!

So, unlike the other 2 people present.. Well, you never had many friends, had you!?
I don't feel that bad about you wanking, 'though the plastic bag wasn't such a good idea was it!?
Anyway.. You were knocking one out over Sonali, So you died a happy man.
And doesn't it also show us that you had great taste!?

Thank you all for.. ermm.. coming.

I thought @ V.. @ five that I'd gone too soon, and should've waited for when she came trought the turnstiles or when she sat on her ankle..
Anyway, thanks.

Now that the O_lympics are nearly o^ver:
I think I'll leave the ranks post.
Shall I leave the 2008 wank rank as well?
V^ote

Examination of the wreckage began the morning after the crash

Accident investigators have begun examining the wreckage of a plane that crashed at Madrid's Barajas airport, leaving 153 passengers dead.

They will also start to analyze the flight data and voice recorders, which have both been recovered.

Three days of official mourning have been declared in Madrid, as relatives arrive at a makeshift mortuary in the capital to identify bodies.

Nineteen people survived the crash and several are critically hurt.

Of the 19 survivors of Spanair flight JK 5022, four are listed as being in a "very serious" condition, with another six only slightly better, Spain's El Pais newspaper reported on Thursday. Eight remain under observation with one only slightly injured, the newspaper said.

The worst is the identification of the bodies. It is the end of all hope Jesus Lopez Santana Spanish Red Cross

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero is expected to visit the injured in Madrid's hospitals, while King Juan Carlos will visit Barajas airport.

The king is also likely to visit anxious families waiting for the grim confirmation that their loved-ones are among the dead.

Experts at a temporary mortuary near the airport say work to identify the dead is likely to be slow and painstaking, as many of the bodies were badly burned in Wednesday's inferno.

"The worst is the identification of the bodies," Red Cross spokesman Jesus Lopes Santana told the El Mundo newspaper.

"It is the end of all hope and when we see the worst scenes, because the majority of the relatives break down when they hear the news."

The Spanair flight, bound for Las Palmas in the Canary Islands, took off on Wednesday lunchtime with 172 people on board, among them 10 crew.

Initial reports suggested that a fire had broken out in one of the MD82 plane's engines during or shortly after take-off, and the plane ended up in a field.

Spanish Transport Minister Magdalena Alvarez said the plane had earlier begun taxiing to the runway, before turning back because of a technical problem, which had caused an hour's delay in the take-off.

Spanish media said the pilot had reported a fault with a temperature gauge, but it was thought to have been fixed.

Speaking on Thursday, Ms Alvarez said a thorough investigation would be carried out, with a full examination of the flight recorders and available pictures, but that it was very early to draw conclusions about the crash.

A special independent commission has been established to probe the cause of the crash, Spanish media reported.

Anger

Spanair has released the official passenger manifest, confirming reports that 20 children and two babies were on board the plane.

Among those who survived were three children, aged six, eight and 11, reports said. At least one of the 19 survivors has yet to be identified.

Overnight a long convoy of black hearses rolled out of the airport grounds to carry bodies to the makeshift mortuary, where the victims' relatives had gathered, some of whom had traveled from the Canary Islands.

The convention center on the outskirts of the capital was also used as a mortuary after the Madrid train bombings four years ago.

Many of the relatives have expressed anger and disgust at Spanair, blaming it for the accident.

He says the injured include a young brother and sister, who immediately asked rescue workers about their parents.

Spanish ministers said foul play had been ruled out and the crash was considered to be an accident.

The 15-year-old plane had passed a safety inspection in January, said Sergio Allard, a spokesman for Spanair, which is owned by Scandinavian firm SAS.

Spanish media said some German, Swedish, Chilean and Colombian nationals had been among the passengers.

'All destruction'

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero cut short his holiday in the south of the country to visit the scene of the crash.

A convoy of hearses removed bodies from the scene of the crash

Speaking at the airport, he said that "the government is overwhelmed, very affected, as are all Spanish citizens, by this tragedy".

Television images on Wednesday showed plumes of smoke rising over the field in which the remains of the plane were resting.

Emergency services chief Ervigio Corral said that rescue workers had been faced with "a desolate scene".

"You couldn't distinguish that there was an aircraft there apart from the remains of the tail," he said. "There was nothing of fuselage."

Another rescue worker, Pablo Albella, told AP news agency: "The fuselage is destroyed. The plane burned. I have seen a kilometer of charred land and few whole pieces of the fuselage. It is all destruction."

Messages of sympathy have been sent to Spain by leaders around the world.

The presidents of Russia, France and Italy, Germany's chancellor and Britain's queen joined with Latin American leaders in sending their condolences.

It was the deadliest air accident in Spain since a Colombian airline's Boeing 747 crashed in Madrid in 1983 killing 181 people.

People concerned for relatives or friends who might have been on board the plane can call Spanair's helpline on +34 800 400 200 (calls possible from inside Spain only).

MD82 AIRCRAFT Passengers 150-170 Cruise speed 504mph (811km/h) Length 45.1m (148ft) Height 9m (29.5ft) Wing-span 32.8m (107.6ft) Maximum range 2,052 nautical miles (3,798km)

Personal Information:

• Name: Michael J. Elston, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP
• Washington Square, 1050 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Suite 1200
  Washington, District of Columbia 20036-5317
• Telephone: 202-857-1700, Fax: 202-857-1737
• Email: melston@mcguirewoods.com

Bar Information: Illinois

• ID No.: N/A
• Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court: November 10, 1994
• Registered Business Address: Mcguirewoods LLP
  1750 Tysons Blvd, Suite 1800
  McLean, VA 22102-4231
• Registered Business Phone: (703) 712-5366
• Illinois Registration Status: Active and authorized to practice law
• Last Registered Year: 2008
• Malpractice Insurance: (Current as of date of registration; consult attorney for further information) In annual registration, attorney reported that he/she has malpractice coverage.
• Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings: None

Grievance Information: Illinois

• Bar Home Page: Illinois State Bar Association
• Main Grievance Page: Attorney registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois
• Ethics Rules: Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct
  Illinois Rules on Admission & Discipline of Attorneys
• Complaint Form: Request for Investigation of a Lawyer Form
• Attorney Search: Illinois Lawyer Search

Bar Information: Kansas

• ID No.: N/A
• Status: Unknown
• On July 2, 2008, Amanda Provorse, Attorney Registration, responded to my e-mail request for Mr. Elston's status with the Kansas Bar that "Mr. Elston is currently active and in good standing. He was admitted 9/29/1998."

Grievance Information: Kansas

• Bar Home Page: Kansas Bar Association
• Main Grievance Page: Office of Kansas Disciplinary Administrator
• Ethics Rules: Rules Adopted by the Kansas Supreme Court
• Complaint Form: Office of the Disciplinary Administrator Complaint Form
• Attorney Search: To check the status of a Kansas attorney, call or e-mail the Attorney Registration Office: Kansas Attorney Registration, Kansas Judicial Center, 301 SW. 10th Avenue, Room 374, Topeka, KS 66612, phone: (785) 296-8409, fax: (785) 296-1028 or e-mail: registration@kscourts.org

Bar Information: Missouri

• ID No.: N/A
• Status: Unknown.
• Mr. Elston claims to be a member of the Missouri Bar. However, he does not appear in the Official Directory of Missouri Lawyers . I have e-mailed Linda M. Oligschlaeger, Membership Services Dir., Missouri Bar Association, with a copy to the Missouri Bar "Contact Us" e-mail address , requesting clarification of this discrepancy. I will update this page upon receipt of any information.

Grievance Information: Missouri

• Bar Home Page: The Missouri Bar
• Grievance Authority Page: Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of Missouri
• Main Grievance Page: How to File a Complaint Against an Attorney in Missouri
• Ethics Rules: Rule 4 - Rule of Professional Conduct - of the Missouri Court Rules
  Rule 5 - Complaints and Proceedings Thereon - of the Missouri Court Rules
• Complaint Form: Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel Complaint Form (.HTML format)
  Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel Complaint Form (.pdf)
• Attorney Search: Official Missouri Directory of Lawyers

Bar Information: Virginia

• ID No.: N/A
• Status: Active
• Registered Address: 1750 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 1800, McLean, VA 22102-4215
• Registered Phone: 703-712-5366 and Fax: 703-712-5215
• Member class: Active

Grievance Information: Virginia

• Bar Home Page: Virginia Bar Association
• Grievance Authority Page: Virginia State Bar
• Main Grievance Page: How to File a Misconduct Inquiry About a Lawyer
• Grievance Information: Guide to Lawyer Discipline
• Ethics Rules: Virginia State Bar 2006-2007 Professional Guidelines
• Complaint Form: Virginia State Bar Lawyer Inquiry Form
  Virginia State Bar Lawyer Inquiry (.pdf)
• Attorney Search: On July 3, 2008, Lily M. Norman, Assistant Clerk, Virginia State Bar, responds to my e-mail request for Mr. Elston's status with the Virginia Bar that "[a] record check for the above attorney has revealed no public discipline!" Interestingly, the footer on Ms. Norman's reply e-mail states that "[t]he Virginia State Bar is a state agency that protects the public by educating and assisting lawyers to practice ethically and competently, and by disciplining those who violate the Supreme Court's Rules of Professional Conduct, all at no cost to Virginia taxpayers."
  Virginia State Bar (Voluntary) Member Directory Not currently available (last checked June 24, 2008)
  Virginia Attorneys Without Malpractice
  Virginia State Bar Disciplined Attorneys

While reviewing this matter, it is important to keep in mind that the privilege to practice law imposes duties and responsibilities on each attorney who accepts a license to practice law. These obligations are described in the Preamble to the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct :

The practice of law is a public trust. Lawyers are the trustees of the system by which citizens resolve disputes among themselves, punish and deter crime, and determine their relative rights and responsibilities toward each other and their government. Lawyers therefore are responsible for the character, competence and integrity of the persons whom they assist in joining their profession; for assuring access to that system through the availability of competent legal counsel; for maintaining public confidence in the system of justice by acting competently and with loyalty to the best interests of their clients; by working to improve that system to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing society; and by defending the integrity of the judicial system against those who would corrupt, abuse or defraud it.

To achieve these ends the practice of law is regulated by the following rules. Violation of these rules is grounds for discipline.

* * *

The quality of the legal profession can be no better than that of its members. Lawyers must exercise good judgment and candor in supporting applicants for membership in the bar.

Lawyers also must assist in the policing of lawyer misconduct. The vigilance of the bar in preventing and, where required, reporting misconduct can be a formidable deterrent to such misconduct, and a key to maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the profession as a whole in the face of the egregious misconduct of a few.

These obligations are also expressly stated in the Preamble to the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, the Preamble to the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct and the Preamble to the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct, which provide, in part, that

A lawyer’s conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer’s business and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges,
other lawyers and public officials. While it is a lawyer’s duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action, it is also a lawyer’s duty to uphold legal process.

* * *

The legal profession’s relative autonomy carries with it special responsibilities of self-government. The profession has a responsibility to assure that its regulations are conceived in the public interest and not in furtherance of parochial or selfinterested concerns of the bar. Every lawyer is responsible for observance of the Rules of Professional Conduct. A lawyer should also aid in securing their observance by other lawyers. Neglect of these responsibilities compromises the independence of the profession and the public interest which it serves.

It is also important to bear in mind that although Mr. Elston denies improper motives or conduct, his denials and protestation must be evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances. As noted in the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, for Mr. Elston to believe that his conduct was proper, he must have "actually supposed the fact in question to be true" (which belief "may be inferred from circumstances") and for that belief to be reasonable requires "that the circumstances are such that the belief is reasonable." Additionally, because "a lawyer of reasonable prudence and competence would ascertain the matter in question" to be improper, Mr. Elston reasonably should have known that his conduct was improper.

As detailed more specifically below, Mr. Elston's conduct violated the following the following rules of professional conduct:

Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rule 1.2. Scope of Representation
• Rule 1.16. Declining or Terminating Representation
• Rule 2.1. Advisor
• Rule 4.1. Truthfulness in Statements to Others
• Rule 4.4. Respect for Rights of Third Persons
• Rule 5.2. Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer
• Rule 8.2. Judicial and Legal Officials
• Rule 8.4. Misconduct

Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct

• Rule 1.2. Scope of Representation
• Rule 1.16. Declining or Terminating Representation
• Rule 2.1. Advisor
• Rule 4.1. Truthfulness in Statements to Others
• Rule 4.4. Respect for Rights of Third Persons
• Rule 5.2. Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer
• Rule 8.2. Judicial and Legal Officials
• Rule 8.4. Misconduct

Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct

• Rule 1.2. Scope of Representation
• Rule 1.16. Declining or Terminating Representation
• Rule 2.1. Advisor
• Rule 4.1. Truthfulness in Statements to Others
• Rule 4.4. Respect for Rights of Third Persons
• Rule 5.2. Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer
• Rule 8.2. Judicial and Legal Officials
• Rule 8.4. Misconduct

Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct

• Rule 1.2. Scope of Representation
• Rule 1.16. Declining or Terminating Representation
• Rule 2.1. Advisor
• Rule 4.1. Truthfulness in Statements to Others
• Rule 4.4. Respect for Rights of Third Persons
• Rule 8.2. Judicial and Legal Officials
• Rule 8.4. Misconduct

File a grievance against Mr. Elston

1. Print, complete and sign the official Complaint Form for Illinois, Kansas, Missouri (or .pdf) and/or Virginia (or .pdf );
2. Print and attach this page to the Complaint Form; and
3. Mail the complaint to the address noted on the Complaint Form.

Allegation: Michael J. Elston engaged in conduct that was a violation of federal laws that prohibit the obstruction of justice when he threatened four (4) recently-resigned United States Attorneys.

Michael J. Elston's participation in the scheme to fire multiple United States Attorneys is at least unethical, if not actually criminal. As set out in greater detail below, Mr. Elston's role in the firing of numerous United States Attorneys included placing telephone calls to several of these U.S. Attorneys in which he conveyed the threat that the Department of Justice would publicly attack the U.S. Attorneys if they chose to testify to the United States House and Senate. As reported by Paul Kiel at TPMMuckraker on May 2, 2007,

U.S. Attorney for Arizona Paul Charlton told Congress that Michael Elston, the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, called him and warned him to remain silent. "I believe that Elston was offering me a quid pro quo agreement: my silence in exchange for the Attorney General's," Charlton wrote in answer to questions from the House Judiciary Committee.

Charlton did not expound on the conversation in his answer, only saying that the call occurred after the firing on December 7th, but before the attorney general testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 18th of this year.

It's not the first time that Elston has been accused by one of the fired U.S. attorneys of trying to intimidate them into silence. Two others have said the same thing.

U.S. Attorney for Little Rock Bud Cummins testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Elston had made a similar call to him in mid-February. Cummins produced an email written the day of the call that clearly laid out the threatening undercurrent to Elston's message.

And U.S. Attorney for Seattle John McKay has said that he got a call from Elston in December. Newsweek reported that McKay says "he also got a phone call from a 'clearly nervous' Elston asking if he intended to go public: 'He was offering me a deal: you stay silent and the attorney general won't say anything bad about you.'" (Emphasis supplied.)

Prior to this article, Mr. Kiel had reported on the contents of Mr. Cummins' e-mail on March 7, 2007:

In a February 19th article in The Washington Post, Cummins was quoted on the firings:

"They're [the Justice Department] entitled to make these changes for any reason or no reason or even for an idiotic reason,... But if they are trying to suggest that people have inferior performance to hide whatever their true agenda is, that is wrong. They should retract those statements."

The next day, Cummins got a call from Elston. And very unfortunately for the Justice Department, Cummins sent out an email no more than an hour after the call to the other fired prosecutors (you can see it here):

The essence of his message was that they feel like they are taking unnecessary flak to avoid trashing each of us specifically or further, but if they feel like any of us intend to continue to offer quotes to the press, or organize behind the scenes congressional pressure, then they would feel forced to somehow pull their gloves off and offer public criticisms to defend their actions more fully.... I was tempted to challenge him and say something movie-like such as "are you threatening ME???", but instead I kind of shrugged it off...

Cummins, a lifelong Republican, continues in the email to refer to Elston's "threat of retaliation" and the "threatening undercurrent in the call." So it was abundantly clear to him that he was being threatened.

The most inflammatory part of the email is Cummins' description of Elston's reaction to the idea of the fired prosecutors testifying before Congress:

"He reacted quite a bit to the idea of anyone voluntarily testifying and it seemed clear that they would see that as a major escalation of the conflict meriting some kind of unspecified form of retaliation."

Mr. Kiel also reported on these comments from fired U.S. Attorney John McKay:

Now another prosecutor, Seattle's John McKay, says he got a similar call much earlier, before the firings had even been reported. From Newsweek:

After McKay was fired in December, he says he also got a phone call from a "clearly nervous" Elston asking if he intended to go public: "He was offering me a deal: you stay silent and the attorney general won't say anything bad about you."

Murray Waas of the National Journal reported on May 3, 2007 these details regarding Mr. Elston's conduct:

The U.S. attorneys have said that Elston, in effect, told them that if they kept quiet about their dismissals, the Justice Department would not suggest that they had been forced to resign because of poor performance.

* * *

McKay, who was the first of the prosecutors whom Elston called, described Elston's message to him: "The attorney general was not going to disclose that I or the other U.S. attorneys were fired or forced to resign.… 'We have no intention of naming people.'"

McKay said that Elston never specifically suggested an explicit quid pro quo whereby Justice officials would not say that McKay had been fired for cause or poor performance if McKay did not talk to the media or Congress about his firing. However, McKay said, "a reasonable person would have felt both offended and threatened" by Elston's call.

McKay said that the message he took away from the conversation was, "If you remain silent, we will not out you as someone who was forced to resign."

McKay said that he made contemporaneous notes of his conversation with Elston, and dated them -- something, he said, that was not his ordinary practice. He did so because of his concerns about what Elston was telling him, according to McKay.

Charlton said he got a similar phone call from Elston on the same day. In formal response to written questions posed to him by the House Judiciary Committee, Charlton said, "I believe that Elston was offering me a quid pro quo agreement: my silence in exchange for the attorney general's."

Cummins testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 6, at which time a contemporaneous e-mail he wrote within an hour of his phone call with Elston was released. In the e-mail, which he sent to five of his fellow prosecutors, Cummins said that the "essence of [Elston's] message" was that if any of the fired U.S. attorneys had pressed their case in the media or before Congress, senior aides to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales might "feel forced to somehow pull their gloves off" and accuse the prosecutors of ineptitude or poor management.

Cummins also wrote in his e-mail that Elston had called him because he was upset about comments Cummins had made in the press about his firing. "[Justice officials] feel like they are taking unnecessary flak to avoid trashing each of us," Cummins said in the e-mail to his fellow prosecutors. "I also made it a point to tell him that all of us have turned down multiple invitations to testify. He reacted quite a bit to the idea of anyone voluntarily testifying, and it seemed clear that they would see this as a major escalation of the conflict meriting some kind of unspecified form of retaliation."

McKay, one of the prosecutors who got the e-mail, said: "[Cummins] wanted to send a message to all of us. We got that message, loud and clear: If you talk to the press or go to Congress, the Department of Justice will not consider you a friend. I considered it an act of intimidation."

* * *

At the March 6 Senate Judiciary hearing, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., asked Cummins and three others U.S. attorneys what they would have done in their capacity as federal prosecutors had they learned that an interested party in one of their investigations had tried to discourage a witness from providing information or testifying. All four said that they would have investigated the matter to determine a possible obstruction of justice.

"Mr. Cummins, let me ask you first. I'd like to ask you to put your U.S. attorney hat back on," Whitehouse said. "You're still in office, and think of a significant grand jury investigation that you led as United States attorney in your district. And consider that a significant witness in that grand jury investigation has just come into your office to relate to you that prior to his grand jury testimony he was approached about his testimony and [told]... essentially exactly the words that Mr. Elston approached you. What would your next step be as United States attorney?"

Cummins responded: "We take intimidation of witnesses very seriously in the Department of Justice and the U.S. attorney's office, so we would be very proactive in that situation."

Attempting to moderate his statement, he added: "I would qualify that by saying that at the time this discussion was had, we weren't under a subpoena; the idea of testifying was just kind of a theoretical idea out there. And I would say … to the extent we talked about testimony at all, it was the idea that running out and volunteering to be part of this would not be viewed charitably by the people that it would affect."

Whitehouse pressed Cummins: "But if that sort of approach had been made to a witness in an active proceeding that you were leading, and you were extremely proactive about it, that would lead you where?"

"Well, we'd certainly investigate it and see if a crime had occurred."

"And the crime would be?"

Cummins responded: "Obstruction of justice. I think there are several statutes that might be implicated -- but obstruction of justice."

Whitehouse posed the same question to John McKay, the fired U.S. attorney from Washington state.

McKay responded: "I would be discussing it with the assigned prosecutor and federal agents."

"With regard to?"

"With regard to possible obstruction of justice."

Whitehouse next put the question to David Iglesias, the fired U.S. attorney from New Mexico:

Iglesias replied: "Same answer, sir. I would contact the career [assistant U.S. attorney] and probably the FBI and talk about what's the evidence we have to maybe move forward on an obstruction investigation.

Finally, Whitehouse looked toward Carol Lam, the fired U.S. attorney from San Diego.

She answered without hesitation: "Fundamentally the same answer: witness intimidation." (Emphasis supplied.)

Lara Jakes Jordan adds in this article on June 16, 2007:

"I believe that Elston was offering me a quid pro quo agreement: my silence in exchange for the attorney general's," wrote Paul Charlton, the former U.S. attorney in Nevada.

John McKay, former top prosecutor in Seattle, said he perceived a threat from Elston during his call. And Carol Lam, who was U.S. attorney in San Diego, said that "during one phone call, Michael Elston erroneously accused me of 'leaking' my dismissal to the press, and criticized me for talking to other dismissed U.S. attorneys."

A fourth former U.S. attorney, Bud Cummins in Little Rock, Ark., had made a similar accusation in an e-mail released in March. At the time, Elston said he was "shocked and baffled" that his Feb. 20 conversation with Cummins could be interpreted as threatening.

Finally, Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein report in the Washington Post on June 16, 2007:

Former U.S. attorney John McKay of Seattle told Congress that on Jan. 17 -- before McKay stepped down -- he received a call from Elston that he "greatly resented." He said Elston attempted to "buy my silence by promising that the attorney general would not demean me in his Senate testimony."

"My handwritten and dated notes of this call," McKay told Congress, "reflect that I believed Mr. Elston's tone was sinister and that he was prepared to threaten me further if he concluded I did not intend to continue to remain silent about my dismissal."

Paul K. Charlton, who was the U.S. attorney in Phoenix, said that he, too, received a call that day in which Elston offered "a quid pro quo agreement: my silence in exchange for the attorney general's." Another former prosecutor, Carol C. Lam of San Diego, said Elston accused her of "leaking" word of her dismissal to the press "and criticized me for talking to other dismissed U.S. attorneys."

Former U.S. attorney Bud Cummins of Little Rock also recounted a Feb. 20 conversation with Elston that Cummins said contained a "threatening undercurrent" warning that Justice Department officials would retaliate if he or his colleagues spoke to journalists or volunteered to testify in Congress.

As described by fired United States Attorneys John McKay, Bud Cummins, Paul Charlton and Carol Lam and as reported in the public record as noted above, the conduct of Mr. Elston clearly establishes that he committed criminal or deliberately wrongful acts that reflects adversely on the his honesty, trustworthiness and fitness to practice law. Additionally, Mr. Elston clearly engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

Allegation 2:

Michael J. Elston engaged in conduct that was a violation of federal laws that prohibit politicization of hiring within the Department of Justice when he selected candidates for employment based on political criteria.

As described in thisletter to Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, and The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives from A Group of Concerned Department of Justice Employees, dated April 9, 2007, Mr. Elston engaged in conduct that was a violation of federal hiring laws:

Needless to say, many people were upset and confused. Why had so many potential interviewees been removed from the list? [Italics in original] Top supervisors requested answers, and on December 5 a meeting was held with Michael Ellston [sic], Chief of Staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty. Many division attorneys and staff were present, and Mr. Ellston [sic] was offensive to the point of insulting. Claiming that the entire group had not "done their jobs" in reviewing applicants, he said that he had a "screening panel" go over the list and research these candidates on the Internet; he refused to give the names of those on his "panel." Mr. Ellston [sic] said that people were struck from the list for three reasons:grades, spelling errors on applications, and inappropriate information about them on the Internet, When the meeting attendees protested that these interviewees had excellent grades, Mr. Ellston [sic]replied that a Harvard graduate in the bottom half of the class was more desirable than the top students at a second-tier law schools. Although Mr. Ellston [sic] stated that he would entertain appeals to his decisions, few of these appeals were granted.

When division personnel staff later compared the remaining interviewees with the candidates struck from the list, one common denominator appeared repeatedly: most of those struck from the list had interned for a Hill Democrat, clerked for a Democratic judge, worked for a "liberal" cause, or otherwise appeared to have "liberal" leanings. Summa cum laude graduates of both Yale and Harvard were rejected for interviews. There are also reports that officials at Harvard's Career Placement Office called DOJ personnel to ask why their students were not getting interviews and also to ask why decisions had not yet been made about the Summer Law Intern Program.

These allegations were confirmed by the United States Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility and Office of the Inspector Generals in their report,An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring in the Department of Justice Honors Program and Summer Law Intern Program, which provided the following details regarding Mr. Elston's conduct:

.... However, we believe the most significant misconduct was committed by ELSTON, the head of the Screening Committee. ELSTON failed to take appropriate action when he learned that McDonald was routinely deselecting candidates on the basis of what she perceived to be the candidates' liberal affiliations. We also concluded that ELSTON deselected some candidates - and allowed the deselection of others - based on impermissible considerations.

* * *

As explained below, we concluded that ELSTON violated federal law and Department policy by deselecting candidates based on their liberal affiliations. First, the data analysis indicates that highly qualified candidates with liberal or Democratic Party affiliations were deselected at a much higher rate than highly qualified candidates with conservative or Republican Party affiliations. Second, ELSTON admitted that he may have deselected candidates in a few instances due to their affiliations with certain liberal causes. ELSTON also was unable in specific cases to give a credible reason as to why highly qualified candidates with liberal or Democratic Party affiliations were deselected.

While ELSTON generally denied that he considered political or ideological affiliations in evaluating candidates, he admitted when questioned about certain candidates that he considered aspects of those candidates' ideological affiliations in his evaluation. ....

In addition, ELSTON consistently was unable to provide credible explanations as to why he denied the appeals of the highly qualified candidates who had liberal or Democratic Party affiliations. His proffered reasons were also inconsistent with other statements he made or actions he took. ....

Similarly, we did not find credible ELSTON's explanation that he may have denied the appeal of a highly qualified candidate who had worked for the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military because he concluded the candidate would not "stand up for the law with respect to sentencing and Department policy" due to the statement in her essay that she would be able to exercise prosecutorial discretion as a federal prosecutor. We also did not credit ELSTON's other explanation for denying this candidate - that she was not academically qualified because she was in the top third rather than the top quarter of her class at Stanford Law - since it was inconsistent with his actions in approving other candidates from lower-tier law schools with lower grades. During his interview, ELSTON also frequently pointed to lines in candidates' essays that may have been a basis for deselecting candidates because he said these statements could be indications that the candidates would improperly follow their own consciences rather than the Department's policies. These included statements such as the candidate wanting to work for the Department because the job would allow the candidate "to consider what is best for my country."

In addition to ELSTON's failure to provide credible explanations for his actions during his interview, we concluded that ELSTON was not candid with others in the Department who questioned him during the hiring process about why candidates were being deselected. ....

Moreover, ELSTON tried to minimize his role in selecting candidates when he was questioned by others about the Committee's decisions. ELSTON frequently explained that other Committee members had been responsible for the decisions and described his role as a conduit. However, the evidence demonstrated that he was casting the deciding vote on a significant number of candidates that Fridman had approved and McDonald had rejected.

In sum, we found that ELSTON was aware that McDonald was rejecting candidates based on her perception of the candidates' political or ideological affiliations and that he failed to intervene, discuss it with her, or stop her from doing so. We also concluded that ELSTON committed misconduct, and violated federal law and Department policy, when he deselected candidates and denied appeals based on his perception of the political or ideological affiliations of the candidates.

* * *

IV. Conclusions and Recommendations

* * *

The documentary evidence and witness interviews also support the conclusion that two members of the 2006 Screening Committee, Esther Slater McDonald and Michael ELSTON, took political or ideological affiliations into account in deselecting candidates in violation of Department policy and federal law. For example, the evidence showed that McDonald wrote disparaging statements about candidates' liberal and Democratic Party affiliations on the applications she reviewed and that she voted to deselect candidates on that basis.

We also found that ELSTON, the head of the 2006 Screening Committee, failed to take appropriate action when he learned that McDonald was routinely deselecting candidates on the basis of what she perceived to be the candidates' liberal affiliations. The evidence also showed that ELSTON himself deselected some candidates - and allowed the deselection of others - based on impermissible considerations. Despite his initial denial in our interview that he did not consider such inappropriate factors, he later admitted in the interview that he may have deselected candidates in a few instances due to their affiliation with certain causes. In addition, ELSTON was unable to give a credible reason as to why specific highly qualified candidates with liberal or Democratic credentials were deselected.

We concluded that, as a result of the actions of McDonald and ELSTON, many qualified candidates were deselected by the Screening Committee because of their perceived political or ideological affiliations. We believe that McDonald's and ELSTON's conduct constituted misconduct and also violated the Department's policies and civil service law that prohibit discrimination in hiring based on political or ideological affiliations.

However, because both McDonald and ELSTON have resigned from the Department, they are no longer subject to discipline by the Department for their actions. Nevertheless, we recommend that the Department consider the findings in this report should either McDonald or ELSTON apply in the future for another position with the Department.

[Footnote] 59 However, we found evidence that McDonald knew that using political and ideological affiliation was inappropriate, but did it anyway. As noted above, in an e-mail dated October 25, 2006, unrelated to the Honors Program and SLIP, McDonald advised a friend applying for a career position with the Department "there's not much I can do apart from recommending you because there are legal constraints on career hiring to ensure that it's not political."

[Footnote] 60 Although ELSTON stated that he did not know whether McDonald's no votes were actually based upon the negative comments she was making about the candidates' liberal affiliations, we found that statement disingenuous. Fridman told ELSTON that McDonald was doing this, and the notations on the applications, which ELSTON recognized as McDonald's handwriting, showed that McDonald was circling and commenting on these groups. Moreover, many of these candidates had stellar credentials, and there was no other apparent reason for McDonald recommending their deselection.

[Footnote] 61 OPR Counsel H. Marshall Jarrett recused himself from the evaluation of DeFalaise's conduct.

(Emphasis supplied.)

Tags: Amy Goldstein, Bud Cummins, Carol Lam, CREW, Dan Eggen, Department of Justice, Grievance, Illinois, John Conyers, John McKay, Kansas, Lara Jakes Jordan, Michael J. Elston, McGuire Woods LLP, Missouri, Murray Waas, National Journal, Newsweek, Office of Professional Responsibility, Office of the Inspector General, Patrick Leahy, Paul Charlton, Paul Kiel, Paul McNulty, Professional Misconduct, Rules of Professional Conduct, TPMMuckraker, Virginia, Washington Post

ILLINOIS RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

The definitions of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct :

"Belief" or "believes" denotes that the person involved actually supposed the fact in question to be true. A person's belief may be inferred from circumstances.

* * *

"Fraud" or "fraudulent" denotes conduct having a purpose to deceive and not merely negligent misrepresentation or failure to apprise another of relevant information.

"Knowingly," "known" or "knows" denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person's knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.

* * *

"Reasonable" or "reasonably" when used in relation to conduct by a lawyer denotes the conduct of a reasonably prudent and competent lawyer.

"Reasonable belief" or "reasonably believes" when used in reference to a lawyer denotes that the lawyer believes the matter in question and that the circumstances are such that the belief is reasonable.

"Reasonably should know" when used in reference to a lawyer denotes that a lawyer of reasonable prudence and competence would ascertain the matter in question.

* * *

"Substantial" when used in reference to degree or extent denotes a material matter of clear and weighty importance.

Rule 1.2. Scope of Representation of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct:

* * *

(d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good-faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.

* * *

Rule 1.16. Declining or Terminating Representation of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct:

(a) A lawyer representing a client before a tribunal shall withdraw from employment (with permission of the tribunal if such permission is required), and a lawyer representing a client in other matters shall withdraw from employment, if:

(1) the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the client is bringing the legal action, conducting the defense, or asserting a position in the litigation, or is otherwise having steps taken, merely for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person;

(2) the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that such continued employment will result in violation of these Rules;

(3) the lawyer's mental or physical condition renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the employment effectively; or

(4) the lawyer is discharged by the client.

* * *

Rule 2.1. Advisor of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct:

In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice. In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations, such as moral, economic, social and political factors that may be relevant to the client's situation.

Rule 4.1. Truthfulness in Statements to Others of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct:

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not:

(a) make a statement of material fact or law to a third person which statement the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is false; or

(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.

Rule 4.4. Respect for Rights of Third Persons of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct:

In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.

Rule 5.2. Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct:

(a) A lawyer is bound by these Rules notwithstanding that the lawyer acted at the direction of another person.

(b) A subordinate lawyer does not violate these Rules if that lawyer acts in accordance with a supervisory lawyer's reasonable resolution of an arguable question of professional duty.

Rule 8.2. Judicial and Legal Officials of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct:

(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicative officer, public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.

* * *

Rule 8.4. Misconduct of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct:

(a) A lawyer shall not:

(1) violate or attempt to violate these Rules;

(2) induce another to engage in conduct, or give assistance to another’s conduct, when the lawyer knows that conduct will violate these Rules;

(3) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(4) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

* * *

KANSAS RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

Rule 1.0 Terminology of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct:

(a) "Belief" or "Believes" denotes that the person involved actually supposed the fact in question to be true. A person's belief may be inferred from circumstances.

* * *

(e) "Fraud" or "Fraudulent" denotes conduct that is fraudulent under the substantive or procedural law of the applicable jurisdiction and has a purpose to deceive.

* * *

(g) "Knowingly," "Known," or "Knows" denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person's knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.

* * *

(i) "Reasonable" or "Reasonably" when used in relation to conduct by a lawyer denotes the conduct of a reasonably prudent and competent lawyer.

(j) "Reasonable belief" or "Reasonably believes" when used in reference to a lawyer denotes that the lawyer believes the matter in question and that the circumstances are such that the belief is reasonable.

(k) "Reasonably should know" when used in reference to a lawyer denotes that a lawyer of reasonable prudence and competence would ascertain the matter in question.

* * *

(m) "Substantial" when used in reference to degree or extent denotes a material matter of clear and weighty importance.

Rule 1.2. Scope of Representation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct:

* * *

(d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.

(e) When a lawyer knows that a client expects assistance not permitted by the rules of professional conduct or other law, the lawyer shall consult with the client regarding the relevant limitations on the lawyer's conduct.

Rule 1.16. Declining or Terminating Representation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct:

(a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:

(1) the representation will result in violation of the rules of professional conduct or other law;

(2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client;

(3) the lawyer is discharged; or

(4) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent.

* * *

Rule 2.1. Advisor of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct:

In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice. In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors, that may be relevant to the client's situation.

Rule 4.1. Truthfulness in Statements to Others of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct:

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or

(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by or made discretionary under Rule 1.6.

Rule 4.4. Respect for Rights of Third Persons of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct:

(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.

(b) A lawyer who receives a document relating to the representation of the lawyer's client and knows or reasonably should know that the document was inadvertently sent shall promptly notify the sender.

Rule 5.2. Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct:

(a) A lawyer is bound by the rules of professional conduct notwithstanding that the lawyer acted at the direction of another person.

(b) A subordinate lawyer does not violate the rules of professional conduct if that lawyer acts in accordance with a supervisory lawyer's reasonable resolution of an arguable question of professional duty.

Rule 8.2. Judicial and Legal Officials of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct:

(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.

* * *

Rule 8.4. Misconduct of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct:

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) Violate or attempt to violate the rules of professional conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official;

* * *

(g) engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.

MISSOURI RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

4-1.0 -- Client-Lawyer Relationship -- Terminology of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct:

(a) "Belief" or "believes" denotes that the person involved actually supposed the fact in question to be true. A person's belief may be inferred from circumstances.

* * *

(d) "Fraud" or "fraudulent" denotes conduct that is fraudulent under the substantive or procedural law of the applicable jurisdiction and has a purpose to deceive.

* * *

(f) "Knowingly," "known," or "knows" denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person's knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.

* * *

(h) "Reasonable" or "reasonably" when used in relation to conduct by a lawyer denotes the conduct of a reasonably prudent and competent lawyer.

(i) "Reasonable belief" or "reasonably believes" when used in reference to a lawyer denotes that the lawyer believes the matter in question and that the circumstances are such that the belief is reasonable.

(j) "Reasonably should know" when used in reference to a lawyer denotes that a lawyer of reasonable prudence and competence would ascertain the matter in question.

* * *

(l) "Substantial" when used in reference to degree or extent denotes a material matter of clear and weighty importance.

4-1.2 -- Client-Lawyer Relationship -- Scope of Representation of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct:

* * *

(f) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.

(g) When a lawyer knows that a client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law, the lawyer shall consult with the client regarding the relevant limitations on the lawyer's conduct.

4-1.16 -- Client-Lawyer Relationship -- Declining or Terminating Representation of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct:

(a) Except as stated in Rule 4-1.16(c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:

(1) the representation will result in violation of the rules of professional conduct or other law;

(2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client; or

(3) the lawyer is discharged.

* * *

4-2.1 -- Counselor -- Advisor of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct:

In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice. In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social, and political factors that may be relevant to the client's situation.

4-4.1 -- Transactions with Persons Other than Clients -- Truthfulness in Statements to Others of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct:

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or

(b) fail to disclose a material fact when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 4-1.6.

4-4.4 -- Transactions with Persons Other than Clients -- Respect for Rights of Third Persons of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct:

(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.

(b) A lawyer who receives a document relating to the representation of the lawyer's client and knows or reasonably should know that the document was inadvertently sent shall promptly notify the sender.

4-5.2 -- Law Firms and Associations -- Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct:

(a) A lawyer is bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct notwithstanding that the lawyer acted at the direction of another person.

(b) A subordinate lawyer does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct if that lawyer acts in accordance with a supervisory lawyer's reasonable resolution of an arguable question of professional duty.

4-8.2 -- Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession -- Judicial and Legal Officials of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct:

(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.

* * *

4-8.4 -- Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession -- Misconduct of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct:

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;

* * *

VIRGINIA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

Terminology of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct:

“Belief ” or “believes” denotes that the person involved actually supposed the fact in question to be true. A person’s belief may be inferred from circumstances.

* * *

“Fraud” or “fraudulent” denotes conduct having a purpose to deceive and not merely negligent misrepresentation or failure to apprise another of relevant information.

“Knowingly,” “known,” or “knows” denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person’s knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.

* * *

“Reasonable” or “reasonably” when used in relation to conduct by a lawyer denotes the conduct of a reasonably prudent and competent lawyer.

“Reasonable belief ” or “reasonably believes” when used in reference to a lawyer denotes that the lawyer believes the matter in question and that the circumstances are such that the belief is reasonable.

“Reasonably should know” when used in reference to a lawyer denotes that a lawyer of reasonable prudence and competence would ascertain the matter in question.

* * *

“Substantial” when used in reference to degree or extent denotes a material matter of clear and weighty importance.

Rule 1.2. Scope of Representation of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct:

* * *

(c) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal
or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client
and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or
application of the law.

* * *

(e) When a lawyer knows that a client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or
other law, the lawyer shall consult with the client regarding the relevant limitations on the lawyer’s conduct.

Rule 1.16. Declining or Terminating Representation of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct:

(a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:

(1) the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;

(2) the lawyer’s physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client; or

(3) the lawyer is discharged.

* * *

Rule 2.1. Advisor of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct:

In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice. In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors, that may be relevant to the client’s situation.

Rule 4.1. Truthfulness in Statements to Others of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct:

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

(a) make a false statement of fact or law; or

(b) fail to disclose a fact when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client.

Rule 4.4. Respect for Rights of Third Persons of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct:

In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.

Rule 8.2. Judicial and Legal Officials of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct:

A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge or other judicial officer.

Rule 8.4. Misconduct of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct:

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal or deliberately wrongful act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice law;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation which reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law;

(d) state or imply an ability to influence improperly or upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal, legislative body, or public official; or

(e) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.

Alan Horn olha pelo lado positivo: a lacuna entre o sexto e o sétimo ficou menor

Ainda que faça todo o sentido do mundo, a mudança de data de estréia de Harry Potter e o Enigma do Príncipe (Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince) deixou os fãs inquietos. O próprio presidente da Warner Bros., Alan Horn, solta um comunicado para explicar o adiamento. Confira:

"Muitos de vocês têm mandado mensagens para expressar o desapontamento com a mudança de data para o verão de 2009. Por favor, tenha certeza de que dividimos o mesmo amor por Harry Potter e não faríamos nada para prejudicar os filmes. Ao longo destes dez anos, nutrimos e protegemos cada um deles e a integridade dos livros em que se baseiam, de acordo com nossas melhores habilidades.

A decisão de adiar Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince não foi tomada com facilidade, e a intenção nunca foi aborrecer os fãs. Nós sabemos que vocês construiram o que esta série é, e agradecemos seu contínuo entusiasmo e apoio.

Se eu posso oferecer uma compensação, digo que haveria uma lacuna de dois anos entre Half-Blood Prince e a primeira parte de Deathly Hallows, que estréia em novembro de 2010. Embora precisemos esperar um pouco mais pelo sexto filme, a espera pelo próximo diminuiu. Desculpe tê-los desapontado agora, mas se vocês esperarem um pouco mais, acho que vai valer a pena."

Além de fechar o buraco entre o sexto e o sétimo filme, há os motivos que não "emocionam" os fãs: a WB não tinha nenhum blockbuster engatilhado para os concorridos meses de junho/julho de 2009, o que poderia afetar a balança do próximo ano fiscal do estúdio. E como o ano fiscal corrente, que termina em março do ano que vem, já fechou mais do que no azul graças ao Batman...

Com direção de David Yates, Enigma do Prícipe chegará às telonas só em 17 de julho de 2009. Yates é também o responsável pelo quinto longa, Harry Potter e a Ordem da Fênix, e começa a rodar os dois últimos em janeiro.

.

.

Veja mais em:

Criança 44

Novo "Asterix" tem participação especial de Zidane.