Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Friday, June 23, 2006

ABA Announces Carl Glad as Woman President

The American Bar Association has made changes to the American Bar Association, “First Woman ABA President," listing a man Carl Glad, as the first Woman President, and removing the name of the actual first Woman ABA President.

Small problem: The changes have been traced to the American Bar Association staff.

Putting aside the absurdity of naming a man, the issue comes down to one thing: Why is someone inside the ABA making disparaging comments about one of their peers?

This does not reflect well on the particular American Bar Association member who is making these changes to the Wiki.

We discuss at length.

* * *

Here is the wiki update that someone at the American Bar Association has made.

You'll notice on the left hand side, there is an entry listing Carl Glad.

As you can see from this entry, the actual name is Roberta Cooper Ramo.

You'll notice the IP number associated with these incorrect, misleading, false, and disparaging comments traces to the American Bar Association; and it linked with this gateway.

The American Bar Association has made the changes to the website which it knows is incorrect, false, disparaging, and unprofessional.

* * *

Model Rules of Professional Conduct

You can also see that the American Bar Association is a "peer review" organization. This means one thing: That the peers evaluate, and sanction their peers when they stray from the lines of ethics.

What is the public to believe when the American Bar Association personnel, at the ABA are doing this to one of their peers?

It says one thing: That despite the claims of "peer review," and request that the public "bow down" to the "process," that the ABA cannot regulate its own. Rather, when it is clear that someone in the American Bar Association feels as though they are not going to get detected doing something, they'll go ahead and do it anyway.

That is not impressive.

* * *

Notice the common pattern: The changes are made approximately the same time each day.

Sample 1 -- Time: 20:10, 22 June 2006

The correct entry is:
In 1995 Roberta Cooper Ramo became the first woman president of the American Bar Association since its inception in 1878.

The incorrect entry is
In 1995 Carl Glad became the first woman president of the American Bar Association since its inception in 1878.

This incorrect entry was then posted for publication here.

Sample 2 -- Time: 20:07, 14 November 2005

Why is this person inside the ABA changing the name of Tom Cruise's film, "Taps" to "Spat"? [ Click Corrected]

* * *

Want more?

Here's how the ABA staff spends their time: On work clearly unrelated to staff work, and professional conduct. Click

  • Actors

  • Movies

  • Foreign affairs

  • Travel

  • Entertainment

  • Sports

    How dare you lecture Americans about "what the law is or isn't." Clearly, the ABA is spending too much time on non-law-related issues; and not enough time reviewing the legality of the President's signing statements.

    This is an ABA credibility problem: The evidence is clear: Your staff knows enough that they can surf the internet, doing things unrelated to the law, yet they are (apparently) charging their time to a client.

  • Which clients are getting charged for this unrelated activity?

  • How do you explain, despite the clear Presidential signing statements and pressing Constitutional issues, why your staff on the ABA is spending time on matters wholly at odds with pressing legal issues?

    The American public finds itself where it is: A failed legal community, and a government that moves without regard to the law. The NSA warrantless activity is not a creature of God or nature. Lawyers within the ABA-associated DoJ have crafted legal non-sense to justify this illegal activity.

    It is outrageous, especially at a time when this country apparently requires adult supervision, that the very legal experts this nation relies on to formulate policy cannot be trusted to spend time on what they are paid to do: Provide leadership to the legal community.

    The ABA has brought discredit upon the notion of jurisprudence.

    * * *

    Facts, Conclusions:

    1. The changes to this wiki were made by someone inside the American Bar Association;

    2. It is incorrect, false, and reckless to make this change;

    3. These changes were published, and this is a false publication;

    4. These changes are linked to and associated with the American Bar Association;

    5. The person who made these changes knows the information is false, and that the published information is linked with the American Bar Association; and

    6. The ABA-associated person making these changes knows this is wrong; if they do not understand this is wrong, then they must be mentally incompetent, raising questions as to why they have access to the ABA-related computers.

    * * *

    Questions about the ABA-associated person

    A. What is going on inside the head of this person associated with the American Bar Association?

    B. Does this person associated with the American Bar Association have some sort of mental problem; have they forgotten to take their medication; what are the results of their last mental examination with their peers?

    C. What kind of leadership position, staff input, or other standing does this person associated with the ABA have?

    D. Is this the kind of conduct the American Bar Association rewards, recognizes, and enjoys being associated with within the ranks of the leadership in the ABA?

    E. What other kinds of indiscretions do the staff members inside the American Bar Association make on other issues which they believe the "public will never find out"?

    * * *

    Questions for the "self regulating organization":

  • 1. Who is the specific person inside the ABA that had access to the computer, and made these changes to the Wiki, and disparaged Mr. Glad?

  • 2. Why is an American Bar Association member, and person who is assigned to the ABA, and has access to the ABA net, making incorrect public statements, and permitting these to be published?

  • 3. What is the ABA plan to ensure that the personnel who have access to the are properly supervised?

    * * *

    One of the tenets of the American Bar Association is ethics, professionalism, and an ability to self regulate. The ABA also provides inputs to various peer review systems, from the White House to private industry.

    Let's consider the issue of attorney promotion, and independence. When an attorney crafts a work product, one of the ideas of that fee is that the attorney is doing something that is professional, and can be relied upon.

    Also, when we consider personnel for partner, or their ability to supervise other attorneys or given them increased responsibility, we review not only their potential for leadership, but their demonstrated track record of leadership, and ability to enforce industry and professional standards.

    This conduct indicates that there is a problem within the ABA, related to these areas:

  • Whether the ABA has in place appropriate personnel;

  • Whether there is sufficient internal control and management oversight to detect and dissuade this conduct;

  • The suitability of the staff promotions, screening and supervision; and

  • The quality and independence of the staff to do what must be done in more complicated areas.

    Each of these indicators is something which warrants an increase in audit scope, under the Statement of Accounting Standards, or SAS System of the AICPA and the Generally Accepted Government Accounting Standards.

    It is absurd for the public to believe that the DoJ can be adequately overseen, when the staff attorneys in the ABA -- responsibility for peer reviews -- are incapable of self-control, much less imposing sanctions on those inside the DoJ. We can only wonder how many needed-complaints should be filed with the DoJ OPR that have been suppressed, not acted upon, or "explained away" as no big deal.

    Recall the lessons of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. The NCIS explained away the misconduct as "no big deal," because the investigators were overworked and engaged in the misconduct themselves. The same concern lies with the ABA: If you are unwilling to perform at an excellent level, then the public should not have confidence that you will expect excellence when you review your peers inside the Department of Justice; nor that you will aggressively peruse allegations of misconduct filed with the DoJ OPR's office.

    * * *

    It is an issue when someone associated with the ABA publishes false information, and that information is connected with the ABA.

    It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: . . .

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

    This is an issue warranting immediate attention. Look closely at the model rules which relate to communications: Click

    (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information;

    * * *

    The ABA has a responsibility to look into this matter: [Ref ]

    (a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

    * * *

    I expect the American Bar Association to look into this matter, and to provide with the national ABA leadership and board a complete discussion of the facts related to this incident. Also, the Congress needs to have some straight answers as to what is going on inside the minds of the leadership inside the ABA.

    The public needs to have a straight answer: Why should we believe your work products; and why should we believe you are serious about peer reviews.

    It is clear one of your members has accessed your system, associated these changes with the ABA, and has disparaged someone. The issue isn't simply the arrogance that one of your members may show toward Carl Glad, but whether Roberta Cooper Ramo is appropriately being respected for her accomplishments: Leadership.

    It is arrogant for the ABA to tout itself as being some sort of model, yet it is clear that its membership will do things which defy this standard. The public has a reasonable expectation this will be thoroughly reviewed, and that there be a timely explanation given to the Congressional leadership to explain inter alia:

  • A. Whether there is an issue with ABA personnel inappropriately using ABA resources for personal business;

  • B. The effectiveness of the peer review process in identifying conduct and patterns that tend to raise questions as to the suitability of attorneys for placement on the ABA;

  • C. Whether there is or is not an internal control problem inside the ABA;

  • D. What steps will be taken to ensure that the ABA has on its staff personnel who are professional at all times, even when the public is not watching;

  • E. What steps the ABA leadership will take to ensure that this does not happen again;

  • F. A description of the investigation taken to identify this person who is making disparaging comments about Carl Glad and, by inference, denying Roberta Cooper Ramo the respect she is due.

    * * *

    It is outrageous that the American Bar Association touts itself as an organization that can "self manage itself," all the while the public learns that the very staff inside the American Bar Association fails to meet the standards of professionalism the public is being asked to believe exists.

    You may not command high fees, and call yourself a "self regulating organization" so long as there are attorneys on your staff who engage in this absurd conduct, completely at odds with what the public should reasonably expect of someone on the ABA staff. It remains unclear what basis was used to promote this person to the ABA staff; or what other indiscretions they are associated with.


    The American Bar Association has a leadership problem. Personnel associated with ABA clearly believe they can engage in conduct that violates the Model Rules, and publishes information that is false and a misrepresentation.

    It is arrogant for the American legal community to refuse to adequately police their own. It is clear that the ABA has a problem: The Senior leadership in the White House, including Mr. David S. Addington and others inside the DoJ Attorney General's office, face meaningless consequences for their absurd legal arguments.

    The world should not be surprised why America continues to wage illegal war, and spew forth legal non-sense: The ABA has within its staff people who are willing to do things when they think other cannot detect them.

    The American Bar Association and their associated staff and attorneys are wrong. They need to get this right.