|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
page 176
Rose: So your answer is, if you thought the polygraph showed that he committed a crime, you would have no conflict in representing him in as an officer of the Office of Ombudsman.
Hamo: Well, you're putting words under my--
Rose: I'm asking if your answer is "yes" or "no" to that question??
Hamo: Well the way you phrase your question, that's how my--I answered the question to the best of my ability, Counsel. It was the same question, I answered it, and you're trying to infer something more into it.
Rose: And your answer was you--
Hamo: Can I finish? If you don't mind. |
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 9:34 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Rose: Please.
Hamo: And you're trying to infer something more into it than what is there.
Cote':If it pleases the Court, I think when you have an answer from the Witness; it doesn't need to be recharacterized or recast in Counsel's own words.
Court: I think there is something to what you say. I don't think it's necessary for an attorney to try to interpret a question. You can go on to the next question.
page 177
Rose: When you returned to represent the Ombudsman in June of 1995, did you provide Steverson Davis with a letter similar to the December 23rd letter that you gave Darryl Buchanan, which is exhibit 5? |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 9:48 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Hamo: Well, I don't particularly think that I'm obligated to inform you of what I told Mr. Davis under the attorney/client work product privilege, Counsel, back in June of 1995. If you're going on a fishing expedition, here, you're way off base, or communications--
Court: He's claiming--Wait, he's claiming of course, the privilege goes to the client rather than to him.
Rose: I understand.
Rose: Do you believe that if you had a conflict between representing Mr. davis and beginning to represent the Ombudsman again. That you have a duty to tell Mr. Davis about the conflict?
Hamo: I don't believe there was a conflict. |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:03 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
page 178
Rose: I didn't ask you if you thought there was a conflict. I said if there was a conflict in your mind, would you have a duty to tell Mr. Davis?
Hamo: Well, there wasn't a conflict, Counsel, so, I didn't have to tell Mr. Davis.
Rose: Did you--
Hamo: I'm sorry.
Court: the next question, please.
Rose: All right started to represent the Office of Ombudsman again in June, was that on or about June 18th of 1995? |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:22 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Hamo: Roughly mid to late June was my previous answer.
Rose: Was that during the week before the Council actually suspended Mr. Buchanan.
Hamo: I can't recall the date that they suspended Mr. Buchanan. I had numerous conversations with Mr. Joliat about that time. You know, around the mid to late June, so.
Rose: How did it come to be that you were retained to represent Darryl Buchanan in June of 1995. |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 12:51 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Hamo:There was a Professional Services Agreement
Well, let me see how this came about. I returned from a vacation with my family, as I recall. And Mr. Buchanan called me and informed me that there was something going on with the City Council, the Mayor's administration; things that I had no knowledge of, that , had been apparently, ongoing, some depositions were taken by the City Attorney's office, and by the Assistant city Attorney. All of which was new information, new--I had no prior knowledge of. And we discussed what City Council was attempting to do or not do, and the Mayor's administration was trying to do or not do. I talked to Mr. Joliat during that period of time, a number of occasions, and it was agreed that I would represent Mr. Buchanan for whatever the heck City Council was trying to do.
Rose: Did you ask Mr. Joliat for his consent to allow you to represent the Office of the Ombudsman? |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 1:05 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Hamo: Didn't have to. In fact, when I talked to him about this and i asked him for the prior transcripts that were taken of the depositions and he said he would; and, in fat, he did. And throughout our numerous conversations, he never once raised any objection to me representing Mr. Buchanan; and, in fact, still hasn't until you got involved, and then not till late March of '96.
Rose: Did you inform Mr. Joliat that you were filing a complaint on behalf of the Office of Ombudsman seeking an injunction--
Hamo: Mr. Joliat knew that I represented Mr. Buchanan, that's the crux of the matter. What I did or was going to do or whatever, didn't matter. It was the fact that he knew I was representing Mr. Buchanan at that point.
Rose: Did you inform Mr. Joliat that you intended to file a complaint seeking an injunction to restore Mr. Buchanan to office? |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 1:20 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
page 180
Hamo: Had numerous conversation, not only with him, but with Charlie Forrest who became the official for City Council, the charging official; Assistant City Attorney, Karen Folks; at some point Mr. Figura got involved. I mean see Counsel, you're the eighth lawyer for City Council at this point. So, there's been-- I've had numerous conversations with the other seven lawyers repeatedly about this Buchanan matter and my representation of Mr. Buchanan and not a one has raised an aura of a problem with any conflict until you get involved in late March.
Rose: Did you inform Mr. Joliat that you intended to file a complaint seeking an injunction to return Mr.Buchanan to office? |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 1:47 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Hamo: Well, the suspension occurred so much in the middle-of -the-night type thing; where there was quick wham-bam, thank you, ma'am, hearing; and the locks got changed; the very next dy or two we were in court. And, at some point, he was serve or his office was served with pleadings. So you know within a day or -- the same day they were filed he knew about it.
page 181
Rose: Did you inform Mr. Joliat that you intended to file a complaint seeking an injunction to return Mr. Buchanan to office?
Hamo: The day that it was filed he knew bout it. In fact, we had some conversations about what course of action I might take. I mean I'm sure during our course of our multiple conversations, what if's were discussed.
Rose: Did you inform-- |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:02 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Hamo: What if they do this? Then I would have to do this. And if they did this, I would have to do that. And there were some conversations about trying to resolve this entire matter around the first part of July of '95,which I sent Mike a letter . So we were trying find a way to keep this out of the public, keep this mess internally, handle it inter-departmentally. You know, all that was discussed between between Mr. Joliat and myself.
Rose: I'm going to ask for the fifth time, Did you inform Mr. Joliat in writing or orally, prior to filing a complaint seeking an injunction, that you would represent Darryl Buchanan as the Ombudsman? |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:16 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Hamo: Counsel, I'm not trying to be evasive. I'm giving you an honest answer to a fair question. My honest answer is I had multiple conversations with Mr. Joliat. W discussed a lot of what if's in tying to resolve this entire matter. And what would happen if City Council went ahead and did what everyone sort of thought they might do. And, needless to say , when they did that erroneous act, the very same day or that next day, the lawsuit was filed and they received a copy of it. So--
Rose: You're not answering the question.
Your Honor, Could you--
Hamo: I'm answering it to the best of my ability, That's my answer. |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:34 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Rose: Could you instruct the witness to answer the question of whether he or not he informed Mr. Joliat, prior to filing the complaint for an injunction, that he intended to represent Mr. Buchanan and file the complaint.
Court: yes
Rose: It's a yes or no--
Court: Please answer the question.
Rose:--and he danced it five times.
Court: I think you're right. Answer the question, please.
Hamo: With the conditions and honestly, Judge and Mr. Rose, I can't recall whether i told Mr. Joliat I was going to have file suitor not, before the suit was filed. But, irregardless, within a day or two after the suit was filed, he knew about it. |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:57 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Rose: Did you obtain consent from Mr. Joliat, and you may have already answered this--
Hamo: I did
Rose--but I'm going to ask the question, and I want an answer.
Hamo: I answered it before, but but I'll be happy to do it again.
Rose: Did mr. Joliat provide you with conent in writing or orally to authorize you to represent the Office of the Ombudsman.
Hamo: He did not have-- |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:05 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Rose: --prior to filing the complaint?
Hamo: He did not have to, nor did he object when I did it.
Rose: Do you have anything in writing to indicate that Mr. Joliat authorized the legal services that you rendered to Darryl Buchanan at any time after you were retained by Mr. Buchanan from June of '95 to the present?
Hamo: I know there was a memo written by Mike in November of '95 to Ramona Sain that said if the Circuit Court was to reinstate Mr. Buchanan, then most likely, I would be entitled to attorney fees. I don't know if that answers your question, but that's one thing that came to mind that he wrote.
Rose: Did you consult with anyone whether you could represent Darryl when one of the issues at the hearing would be yor conduct? |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:21 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Hamo: None of my issues--my conduct was not in question in that hearing. No one put it into question, Counsel.
Rose: Did Charles Forrest seek to speak with you regarding issues about your conduct in relation to the Steverson Davis matter, either at a breakfast meeting or on August 7th or when the charges were issued by the Council on August 9th.
Hamo: No, all--he did not seek at any--First of all, I never had any breakfast meeting with Mr. Forrest. Second of all, any alleged conflict that he was talking about that he was talking about, and as City Council ended up talking about, and as City Council ended up talking about, was on behalf of mr. Buchanan, and not me. |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 5:16 pm |
|
|
|
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
