People v. State

fairly undermining public confidence in the administration of justice
Subscribe

An Open Email to Norm Pattis

June 07, 2011 By: John Kindley Category: Gerry Spence, Norm Pattis

What follows is an email I sent today to Norm Pattis, with links to pertinent posts on various blogs added:

Norm,

I am completely disgusted by Greenfield’s hit piece on you. The guy’s a raging hypocrite. Look at his very first blog post at Simple Justice. It clearly had in mind as an audience and was directed to potential clients.

I may be completely wrong about this, but it seemed your falling out with the part of the blawgosphere led by Greenfield coincided with your limited defense of me when most of the rest of the blawgosphere mocked me over my position on the topic of justice, and with Greenfield’s ridiculous banning of me from his stupid blog. (I’ve never quite understood the vehemence of the reaction to my posts on justice relative to the role of the criminal defense attorney. Locking a person up in a cage like an animal is presumptively unjust. That’s what a criminal defense attorney fights against. And locking a person up in a cage like an animal is even more unjust if that person is innocent.)

My understanding of your posts about Rakofsky is reflected in the email above [see below], in the comment I tried to post on your blog. You instinctively took the part of, and gave the benefit of the doubt to, an individual who was being attacked en masse by those in the blawgosphere possessed of a group mentality. His version of events in his complaint, if true, made the whole thing pretty interesting. Subsequently, it turned out that his version of events doesn’t really appear to match up with reality, and your second post acknowledged that. But those spouting off about Rakofsky earlier had no more information than you did.

My opinion of Gerry Spence just went up a notch, in light of his willingness to write an intro to your book despite the critical words you’ve had to say about him and the TLC in the past.

I wish I had the opportunity to learn the law from someone like you. My independent spirit, along with fate’s determination that I stumbled in law school upon the issue that obsessed me for several years out of law school, have left me in a position where I’ve had to try to figure things out on my own. It’s not easy. I do have a mentor I’m able to run things by, but I wished I could have really learned from a master.

I look forward to reading your book.

John A. Kindley

*****

What follows is the earlier email I sent (before I got this news) to Norm referenced in the email above:

Norm,

I tried to comment several times on your most recent post, but each time after submitting the comment I got a message saying all fields must be entered and to try again. Here’s the comment I tried to submit:

I too refrained from commenting on Rakofsky, but for reasons different than yours. I too a couple years ago took on an attempted murder case without having previously tried a case before a jury. I too thought that I could compensate for my inexperience by engaging experienced co-counsel (and telling the client I wouldn’t take the case without doing so). I too was ineffective at trial (although Rakofsky in his complaint denies his ineffectiveness, and unlike the rest of the blawgosphere I assume his denials are true without convincing proof to the contrary). I too worked very hard on my former client’s case, and recognized my client had grounds for a motion to dismiss which hadn’t occurred to my client’s previous experienced attorneys (a motion which the court of appeals ruled should have been granted but which is now before the supreme court on transfer). I too, while recognizing my own ineffectiveness at trial, also had to contend with prosecutorial misconduct and erroneous rulings by the judge which uniformly favored the prosecution. I too see in my ineffectiveness a silver lining, and an additional hope for my former client’s eventual freedom should his direct appeal unjustly fail.

John A. Kindley

8 Comments to “An Open Email to Norm Pattis”


  1. At Norm’s suggestion, I forward the following to you, John Kindley, atty.:
    _____________________________________________________________

    My comment on A Book Unreviewed: Norm Pattis, by Scott H. Greenfield on June 7, 2011, at blog.simplejustice.us, submitted at approx. 10:30 a.m.
    ————————————————————————————-

    I read the Foreword, the Intro and the first chapter first thing this morning. You’re right as rain: There really is nothing new here that we have not already heard or read on Pattis’s blogsite, so far…

    And you write a powerful essay and critique of the man and his writings. However, I’m not quite prepared to subscribe to your apparently definitive conclusions. Dare I say “indictments”

    And here’s why: As a CT native, educated veteran with a doctor’s degree, I have personally experienced the vindictiveness, the viciousness, the maliciousness , the blatant injustices and sheer incompetencies of the CT judicial system–if that is what you want to call it. I have named names and will continue to do so. That’s how mad I am. Does anyone for a minute dare believe that I am the only one complaining of being so abused? I just happen to be slightly more literate and vocal than most of the others.

    I call myself an unabashed apologist for Norm ever since discovering his blog, despite any (human?) weaknesses. I do not always agree with him myself. For those not familiar with me, IAMNAL, but not stew-pid either. I disagreed with Norm about cameras in the courtroom, and let him know. I disagreed strongly with him on “individualized sequestered voir dire,” based on my own real-life experience sitting at the defense table in New Haven Superior Court, where the State committed demonstrable CRIMES against me, which they have failed to acknowledge or correct to this day. I fear I am not the only one. Norm Pattis, to my knowledge, is the only attorney in CT who is offended by these un-Amerkan practices, has gone public (occasionally profanely) and to all appearances appears to want to correct these abysmal and abominable practices.

    Of course, what he has to say has wider implications outside the jurisdiction of CT, and greater implications for the practice of law in the 21st century. That should be obvious, and why should anybody have to point it out to you or anyone else?

    I’ve been following your spat–your catfight–with Norm for a year now. As an outsider, I find it amusing. Sometimes I’m laughing my a$$0ff. I like you both, really. I see you both at opposite ends of a spectrum, both circling in on some of the same issues. I believe the two of you are in essential agreement over real issues in the law, despite having personal disagreements with one another. It’s a question of style and perspective.

    Before I go, I want to say I do not know Norm personally, although have met him. The first words I heard out of his mouth were: “We attorneys work hard [for out clients], we’ve got to get paid!” I’ll never forgive him for that one. P.S.: The State of CT put me, WHD, out of my own legal and lawfully registered business, causing me to get evicted, lose almost all possessions and rendering me homeless as a senior citizen unable to pay his bills. Those are the facts, maam. ALL RISE!?! Not you, Mr. Greenfield; you may remain seated. Please remove your hat!

    1
  2. I completely fail to understand how my writing an article about Rakofsky has anything to do with “group mentality.” Apparently, you didn’t really read what I wrote.

    More importantly, though, I am at an utter loss in trying to understand why you’ve included a link to my post in a discussion about a fight involving my friend, Norm Pattis, in which I have no part.

    2
    • John Kindley says:

      The email was written first, and rather quickly, the links added later. Greenfield has derided Norm as a conspiracy nut for believing that any pressure to conform exists in the so-called “practical blawgosphere.” In light of that dispute, I thought the first two paragraphs of your post were interesting and link-worthy:

      “I’ve never been a fan of the draft. I’m a big fan of friends, though. And apparently some of my friends are calling me out for not having blogged about the latest poster-child for…what? I don’t know what I really think Rakofsky is a poster-child for.

      Nevertheless, I submit to the draft, if for no other reason than to assure my friends that I do, actually, stand with them on Rakofsky.”

      I didn’t include the link to your post to be critical of you, or to drag you into a fight which I assume is already over. I just found it interesting and link-worthy.

      3
  3. Norm Pattis says:

    Don’t be disgusted. The Internet is a library. I don’t read romance novels or bloggers interested in romancing one another. I’m told that some regard this as a form of “self exile.” I regard it as critical judgment. I prefer the road less traveled; so do you. Good.

    4
    • John Kindley says:

      It’s ironic that you’ve been accused of aspiring to be the leader of the “Happysphere” by blawgers offended by (wait for it . . .) your criticism of them. SHG laments that a “tough” and “nasty” lawyer has given way to a “kinder” and “gentler” Norm. So which is it? The complaint of SHG et al. appears to be that you’ve been the opposite of “kind” and “gentle” to them.

      SHG banned me from his blog (twice) because I dared to be critical in his comments section of things he wrote.

      SHG says that you “will send love notes to foolish young lawyers,” in which category I assume he includes me. Yet you were sharply critical (along with pretty much everyone else) of my posts on “justice” relative to the role of the criminal defense attorney. And for my part, I still think you were all wrong.

      But your ultimate point is well-taken. It’s time I took at least a couple of blogs out of my Google Reader.

      5
  4. Norm Pattis says:

    He know’s but two modes: kissing ass, or trying to kick it. It’s Simply Boring.

    6
  5. You’ll be all right. No one needs to send love letters to anyone. Everyone (including you and Norm) should just get over yourselves.

    7


Leave a Reply

*

  • "[T]here is just nothing wrong with telling the American people the truth." - Allen v. United States

  • Lysander Spooner

    Henry George

    Harriet Tubman

    Sitting Bull

    Angelus Silesius

    Smedley Butler

    Rose Wilder Lane

    Albert Jay Nock

    Dora Marsden

    Leo Tolstoy

    Henry David Thoreau

    John Brown

    Karl Hess

    Levi Coffin

    Max Stirner

    Dorothy Day

    Ernst Jünger

    Thomas Paine