Can’t argue with that.

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.

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.

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.

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!