FAQFAQ   SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlistRegisterRegister  ProfileProfile   Log in[ Log in ]  Flint Talk RSSFlint Talk RSS

»Home »Open Chat »Political Talk  Â»Flint Journal »Political Jokes »The Bob Leonard Show  

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums


FlintTalk.com Forum Index > Political Talk

Topic: How to forfeit the office of a Flint official
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29
  Author    Post Post new topic Reply to topic
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

page 558-

Cote':All right: I made earlier reference to rule 3.7 of the "Rules of Professional Conduct", which reads in its relevant part as follows:

Lawyers as witness[es] (a) A lawyer shall not at as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be necessary except when: and then parens 3, "disqualification of the lawyer would work a substantial hardship on him as a client."

My question to you, sir, is, Would disqualification as an attorney for Darryl Buchanan work a substantial hardship on him as a client?
Post Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:55 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Hamo: Not only work a substantial hardship, it would work a horrendous hardship, Counsel.

Cote' For wahat reason?

Hamo: Mr. Buchanan, as the City Counsel, and the members, and Mr. Rose and everyone is well aware, does not have the financial resources to engage counsel, especially of a case of this magnitude and this expense, and this length. To deprive him of a counsel of his choice at this point, would be to leave him standing virtually naked and alone at he Court of Appeals step with experienced appellate counsel Mr. Rose at--and any further Circuit Court proceedings with experienced counsel, Mr. Rose or Mr. Figura and would literally leave him out in the cold. And I truly believe it, it is my opinion, that this is the reason for this motion for disqualification, especially having come at such a late, late stage, when City Council, Mr. Joliat, Mr. Donellen, Mr. Figura, and others, ll eight lawyers that have been associated with the City Council's case on this matter, knew everything that was going on.
Post Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:29 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

And if anyone tries to say they didn't, all they had to do was sit through the City Council removal hearings which were made public and aired. They were on the media every night, and the newspaper everyday. A person would have to be living virtually in isolation no to have known about any conflict of interest regarding the Davis case, or potential conflict of interest. And I do not believe that Mr. Joliat, Mr. Rose, or the eight counsel for City Council that have been involved in this case are living in that fashion. Unless they didn't - never read the paper everyday and didn't attend any of the hearings, and I know that's not the case, because Mr. Figura was there many times, Mr. Donellen presided over the proceedings on behalf of the City Council, Mr. Joliat and one of his assistants, they were in and out all of the time. Mr. Figura was there for many of the days. I mean, you know, these people aren't stupid. They understand English. They knew all about this a long time ago. The only reason why they're raising is it now is to do exactly what I've just said, and that rule prohibits it, which is to leave Mr. Buchanan alone and naked, without counsel, cuz then they know they can try and get him.
Post Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:53 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Cote': And if they can't beat you, then they want to remove you?

Hamo: I guess if you have a bad case, you abuse the lawyer is the other maxim I refer to. And, yes, you are right, if they can't beat you, they will try to remove you......

Cote: Did you discuss with Mr. Joliat at any time he issues involved in the removal case, including the Davis case?

Hamo: Well, I sure did. I talked with Mr. Joliat initially about the Davis case when I attempted to have the process served. During the--our multiple conversations about the- -whether the case was- why City council suspended him and what we could do to resolve the case. We talked about the sexual harassment issues or the alleged sexual harassment issues. Not only did I speak with Mr. Joliat about many of the issues involved in that.
Post Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:24 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

I also spoke with Mr. Forest, who was City Council's lawyer at the time and mr. Figura who was present during this these proceedings . They had lawyers,they had lawyers like bees swarming around. Everywhere you look City Council's got another attorney there. So I spoke about many or all of those issues with-- it was open It was public It was not nothing was hidden

Cote': Let me clarify an issue with you, Mr. Hamo, and that has to do with Mr.Richard Davis?
Hamo: Dicks?.
Cote': Or Mr. Dicks.
Hamo: Yes.

Cote': It's my understanding that he had been employed as a consultant to the Office of the Ombudsman: is that correct?

Hamo: yes.
Post Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:50 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Cote': It is my understanding that he had been employed as a consultant to the Office of Ombudsman; is that correct?
Hamo: Yes.

Cote: And was that a full-time employment by him, or what was your understanding?

Hamo': I don't understand that it was. I understand that it was as a consultant, as an outside consultant, which I guess would be on an s-needed basis, probably.

Cote: What is your present relationship with him? Is he on your payroll? Is he an investigator for you, now?
Post Sat Dec 31, 2016 4:07 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Hamo: No, sir, to both questions "no". Not an investigator, nor on the payroll. He is an expert witness on one case. No different than Mr. Durbin, Mr. Goetz.
Cote': And that being on the Davis case?
Hamo: On the Davis case.
Cote':: Okay. And an expert-
Hamo: And he's not the only expert, well I might add, as well.
Cote: And an expert on the standard of conduct. Nothing more.
Hamo: Standard of care (sic), that's correct; standard of conduct. nothing more.

No further questions, your Honor.
Post Sat Dec 31, 2016 4:22 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

REDIRECT EXAMINATION page 563

Rose: Mr. Hamo, you testified about the Marie Pychon case and you said that you have not filed suit in that case; is that correct?

Hamo: That's what I said. Although Mr. Joliat and I are still, as of March 29,"96, were still hving continuing negotiations on the matter, as we had negotiations and discussions, evaluations since, I don't know, late '94, early '95.

Rose: It says on the October 20th '95 letter you wrote to Mr. Joliat that Mrs. Pychon's loss was in September of '94'

hamo: That's what I said.
Post Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:10 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Rose: That would be in the very first month when you began to represent the Ombudsman's Office isn't that correct?

Hamo: Yees.

Rose: Is it your experience that every claim results in a suit against the City?

Hamo: Most>

Rose: But, this one didn't?

Hamo: Well, it hasn't yet, but it's not over. There's a reason why most of 'em result that way in litigation if you care to know.
Post Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:19 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Rose: You said you had other matters against the City. Can you tell us the names of your other clientele in those other matters.

Hamo: That would be almost impossible for me to remember off the top of my head. One comes to mind, a Patricia Schafer, but I couldn't-- I can't recall.

Rose: What is the nature of Miss Schafer's claim against the City?

Hamo: Defective sidewalk.
Rose: When did Miss Schafer suffer her loss?
Hamo: I don't recall.
Rose: You can't tell us the month or the year? Can you tell us --
Hamo: I know it was resolved around the same time period in late'94, though. I believe that to be the case. Without looking t my file, that's all I can recall anyway.
Post Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:34 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Rose: can you provide us with any documents or any testimony based on documents or any testimony based on documents that would confirm for the Court that you represented Miss Schafer against the City in a matter brought to Mr. Joliat's attention?
Hamo: Well, his assistant city attorney handled it. I don't know why he wouldn't know about it.
Rose: But you don't have any documents related to that case?
Hamo: You mean with me today?
Rose: Right.
Hamo: I don't have documents with me today. but Counsel, if there's a defective sidewalk case against the City,you know., the ounty Corporation Counsel wouldn't be involved. It'd be the City Attorney's Office.
.
Post Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:53 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
  Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29

Last Topic | Next Topic  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums

Website Copyright © 2010 Flint Talk.com
Contact Webmaster - FlintTalk.com >