|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
hamo: This letter follows up a phone conversation I had had with Mr. Buchanan about a day previously, I think; or a day or two previously.
page 167
Rose: Isn't it true that Mr. Davis, in an affidavit that he filed, indicated that he had authorized his brother to retain you on or about December 20th of '94.
Hamo: That's correct.
Rose: When you wrote this letter, were you exercising independent judgement about whether representaing davis would cause a conflict?
Hamo: Was I exercising independent judgement about what?
Rose: Whether representing Mr. Davis as a new client would cause a conflict of interest? |
|
|
Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:44 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Hamo: This letter is nothing more than han what the words on it contain that---
Rose: Do you know if the Ombudsman had completed his report, at this point, on the day of his complaint?
Hamo: Did i know as f 12-23-94, I was not privy to anything in the Ombudsman' office regarding Davis, so the answer would ne no.
Rose:Had you talked to Steverson Davis at that point?
Hamo: No, I had spoken to his brother, actually,
Rose: Had the police reports relating to this incident been made available to you at this point.?
Hamo: My private investigator obtained some things from the Genesee Township Police Department, and I, you know, truthfully, I can't recall what-- everything that he obtained from them at that point in time. |
|
|
|
Tue Dec 27, 2016 3:03 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
page 168
Rose: Had the City of Flint Police Reports, which are contained in exhibit3, been provided to you at this point?
Hamo: Well, Can I see those?
Rose, Sure, we were reviewing Mr. Duncan's memo, the reports are attached.
Hamo: The reports are attached to Exhibit 3, Counsel?
Rose: Yes, These are the run-time reports made by Patrick Brady and Shawn Murphy immediately--
Hamo: Looks like the reports are dated, the ones that you have handed me as part of exhibit 3, are dated !-19-95, and 1-19-95 for the other officer; and since my letter was dated 12-23-94, I --course I was not-- I believe it is impossible for me o have been received those-- |
|
|
|
Tue Dec 27, 2016 3:17 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Rose: Is it?
Hamo: --because they weren't done , apparently.
Rose: Is it fair to say that the Ombudsman, also had not completed his investigation at this point ?
Hamo: Well, you mean as far as my knowledge on 12-23-94?
Rose: Yes.
Hamo: Well, on 12-23-94? I had no knowledge about what the Ombudsman was doing with the Davis complain. |
|
|
|
Tue Dec 27, 2016 3:34 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
page 169
Rose: Could you tell us how, then, you could decide what type of conflict of internet there might be between the interests of the Ombudsman's Office and--and your were of its attorney at that time?
Hamo: I didn't say there was a conflict.
Rose: and --should I finish the question?
Hamo: sure, go ahead.
Rose: Can you tell us what type--how could you decide in December 23rd, what type of conflict of interest there might be for you , as attorney for the Ombudsman's Office. In representing as a new client, Steverson Davis? |
|
|
|
Tue Dec 27, 2016 4:18 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Hamo: Didn't say there was a conflict. I said there was a possibility of a conflict.
Rose: I asked you a question of how you thought you could decide, without a completed report. Without talking to Davis, without the police reports available without the Ombudsman completing his investigation; whether there would be a conflict of interest.
Hamo: Because as I mentioned earlier, when I had a conversation with the Mr. Buchanan and mentioned to him about this crazy case that I had just received on--against some police officers; he said, "I'm aware of that complaint. There's one in my office". And I stopped him, at that point, and I decided that it would be most appropriate for me to write the letter that I did, withdrawing as counsel, which letter was written within a day or two after that conversation with Mr. Buchanan. |
|
|
|
Tue Dec 27, 2016 4:39 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
page 170
Rose: Were you aware before July of --June of 1995, that there was a memorandum issued by Darryl Buchanan regarding polygraph tests he wanted them to take?
Hamo: Well, you know, I doubt it; but you have understand I went through the preliminary stuff to the City Council removal hearings, the City Council removal hearings. the City Council removal hearings themselves--
Rose: Is your answer you can't?
Hamo: --All the Circuit Court proceedings, and to exactly say when I became that he had sent some memo regarding a polygraph test; it was before the thing started up in the mid to late June, but I don't know. |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 6:45 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Rose: You're now aware, of course, that the memorandums were issued by Mr. Buchanan to his--
Hamo: Sure
Rose: --employees, and he's admitted issuing the memorandum; Is that correct?
page 171
Rose: Well, isn't it your duty to the office of the Ombudsman, if you became
aware of such memorandums, to indicate that they violate the Polygraph Protection Act of the State of Michigan?
Hamo: When was the memo dated by him to his employees, Counsel? |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 6:54 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Cote': I'm going to object to the question, Your Honor. I don't see what relevance; and I think given the time here, I'm going --I hate to object any more than I have, but I'm concerned about the relevance, not just from an evidentiary standpoint; but I'm now concerned about the time constraints that are going to be imposed not only on this Court, but upon all parties. There are two distinguished gentlemen sitting in the audience, here, going to be called as experts. I'm not certain that we're going to get to them. And I--
Judge proposes lunch and possibly taking witnesses out of order.
Rose: I need for Mr. Durbin to hear the hear the testify of Mr. Joliat, but I believe we can be fairly short with Mr. Joliat. I would sy at least a third of the time we've taken here, if not even less than that. |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 7:08 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
page 172
Rose: I'm getting very close to wrapping up with Mr Hamo, but if I could address Mr. Cotes' question.
Court: All right.
Rose: We're into one other other of the nine conflicts of interest. And the question here is in June of '95, when Mr. Hamo was proposing to represent the individual in addition to the office, the question of whether he could defend the interests of the individual and still defend the interest of his office. And what we're trying to establish is what Mr. Hamo's understanding was at that time with respect to that conflict of interest. And if I can't ask him the question, I can't get the ruling and I think Mr. Cote would understand that as to the conflict, these are relevant questions. |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 7:18 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
page 173
Cote': Well, I don't see what the polygraph has to do with the issue before this Court?
Rose: The argument, your Honor, is very simple. If this individual committed a crime, and you defend the individual, the interests of the individual are at war with and in conflict with the interests of the office. Clearly, if Ombudsman has supoena power as a law enforcement officer, his office's interests are threatened by allowing him to be held by official who is being defended for criminal acts.
The question for Mr. Hamo is--
Court: What is the question, come back to the question?
Rose: The question is, when he undertook the representation in June of 1995, was he aware of the polygraph memo which Mr. Buchanan, at the hearings admitted he drafted. |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 7:28 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Court: He may answer that question. Were you aware of the memo, "yes" or "no".
Hamo: And my request, your Honor, to Counsel was what was the date of that memo? it would help me---
Court: I thought he just gave it to us, didn't he?
Hamo: No, he did not.
Rose: It was-- I think it's February 20th of--It was February 20th or the middle of March; and I'd have to go through the exhibits and this to find it, but I would if you want, I'm sure.
Hamo: I'd like you to show me a copy of the memo , please. |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:26 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
page 174
Rose: I'm just going to come back to that question, with the Court's indulgence.
Rose: If it comes to your attention, at any point, that the Ombudsman had committed a crime, would you have a duty to withdraw from representing the office and solely represent the individual in the context of the removal actions?
Hamo: I can't answer Counsel, cuz it's very vague and unspecific. What crime? When? Under what circumstances? You know, very difficult a question that a question posed in that fashion can be answered. |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:40 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Rose: Is it consistent in representing the individual against the charge of a criminal act, if there is evidence to support it to also, simultaneously represent the office in your opinion.
Cote': I object to the form of the question. I think it's unduly vague. Again it calls for an answer to a hypothethical--
Rose: I'll rephrase your honor.
Court: It is too general, if you please.
Rose: if you became convinced that the Ombudsman had violated that Polygraph Protection Act which is a misdemeanor in Michigan, would that create a conflict of interest in your ability to represent him personally in the removal action while also representing his office? |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:54 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
page 175
Cote': I'm gonna further object, because it calls, I believe, for a legal conclusion on the part of ounsel without some opportunity to reflect upon all of the factors that could go into a consideration of what advice he would or would not give.
Court: Well, why don't we let the Witness tell us.
Hamo: Well, that's true. I mean, I have to consider everything in the entire background. If you're taking your question assumes the background of the City Council hearings, you know, that, in and of itself; that charge by City Council of the polygraph memo --or whatever it was--I don't think had a play at all in my representation of Mr. Buchanan.
As far as I know, and from what I understand from the evidence, the memo was issued and it was retracted almost immediately thereafter, and no polygraph tests were ever given. So, I don't think it causes for me to not be able to represent Mr. Buchanan and the Ombudsman who were my clients. |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 9:18 am |
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
