|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Rose: In the Exhibit 5 letter, 12-23-rd of '94, your letterhead, very interestingly states at the bottom that your practice is limited to death and serious personal injury only. Did you make an exception to that to represent the Ombudsman?
Hamo: Yes, I did; and it was one of the,I think probably one of the only cases that was outside of my personal injury field, and--but yes, I've answered the question. Uh-huh.
page 185
Rose: Did you indicate in your December 23,23rd letter to Mr. Buchanan that, quote "As you know, my practice consists of representing people who have been injured. Because of that, this letter is regrettably being sent."indicating you have to withdraw. Could that be because, as a result of your representation of the Ombudsman's Office, you had found n injured client who you could now represent?
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:56 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 5:38 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Hamo: No, sir. Not at all. If you want to assume that assumption, you have to then assume that people in the community for over 15 years do not- don't recognize that I do serious personal injury work
Court: Why don't we just -- Why don't we just get on to the answer please.
Hamo: I advertise that kind of work. I'm known in the community for doing that kind of work. This is what I do: so, no. That-- what your answer is-- the answer to your question is absolutely no.
Rose: Would you make an exception to your limits to death and serious personal injury cases if Lt. Shuker were to let you practice temporarily by overseeing complaints as they come in, regarding police misconduct, if you could get reports of all allegations of police brutality or jailhouse suicides. |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 5:59 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
page 186
Hamo: You better say that again, because you were talking --the record's clear, You ran that question so fast, that, really, Mr. Rose, I didn't understand at all. Please slow it down and ask it again.
Cote': And i further object, You from what I could understand I believe it to be hypothetical in nature. I don't believe it's a fact-type question. It's a --
Court: I could not, frankly, hear everything. Your voice went off at the end.
Cote': I thought it was just me.
Rose: I wanted to know whether he would make an exception to what he tells everyone who gets a letter that his practice is limited to death and serious personal injury cases only, if he had an opportunity to work at the Department of Internal Affairs at the City and get access to reports about police brutality or jailhouse suicides. |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 6:15 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Hamo: Well the answer to that, sir, is that I never had any conversations with Lt. Shuker about any such item.
Rose: No. I'm asking whether you would expend your practice to include--
Hamo: Like you're expanding your appellate practice to trial work?
Rose: Exactly, maybe a different question would work better?
Hamo: Probably.
Rose: Would you make an exception and expand your practice to include representing the Board of Hospital Managers if you could get a list of all the car accident victims who are brought eah day to the City Hospital emergency rooms? |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 6:33 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Hamo: That's a complete hypothetical, and obviously something that I'm not prepared to answer at this point.
Court: All right, Is that the end of your examination?
Rose: I have one other question.
Court: Okay.
Rose: We were in court when this issue first arose; and I was on the record and the cameras were rolling; and I raised, with Judge Freeman, orally, on the record, for the first time, the possibility that you might have a conflict of interest.
Hamo: You mean back in late March of '96. |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 6:41 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Rose: Did you draft a letter to me threatening me with a libel suit if I were to continue to make allegations of ethical misconduct on your part?
page 188
Hamo: You mischarcterized the premise of your question. On the record, what you did was accuse me of a cover-up and the destruction of the Davis files. That sir, was not only inappropriate; it was false, it was malicious. And, yes I do believe it was defamatory; and, yes, as a result of that, I did send you a demand for retraction.
Rose: And isn't true that when you came to the second time to represent the Ombudsman's Office, you were representing Darryl Buchanan with regard to the charges against him, that the City Council levied?
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Wed Dec 28, 2016 7:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 6:58 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Hamo: My client is Darryl Buchanan, who I believed then and I believe now was the--and still is the Ombudsman.
Rose: And at the time that you represented the Ombudsman the second time, wasn't it one of the issues whether or not Darryl Buchanan had allowed a conflict of interest to result as a result of your failure to properly withdraw or properly advise him?
Hamo: No, in fact the allegation as to conflict went to him, not to me. And they haven't been raised until-- by you even though seven other previous City Council lawyers have looked at this matter. |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 7:45 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
page 189
Rose: Isn;t it true that Mr. Buchanan could have defended that charge by suggesting that his attorney didn't give adequate advise.
Hamo: Oh, I don't know. I doubt it, because the charge was frivolous,
anyways.
Rose: Isn't it true that as his attorney in the first instance, representing him in the second instance, you could have a personal interest in preventing him from raising that defense.
Hamo: Absolutely not. The only interest I have, sir, is to sustain the integrity in defense of the Ombudsman's Office; and Mr. Buchanan is the only guy that I've seen in the City Hall that's willing to preserve that Charter mandated obligation . |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:05 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Rose: Isn't it true that if you raised--if you had a personal interest which was in conflict--
Hamo: I did not., so the premise--
Court: Just wait for the question, please.
Hamo: I'm sorry.
Court: And then limit your answer just specifically to the question. If you will.
Rose: --which was in conflict with a potential defense that Mr. Buchanan had to the removal proceedings, that even if you didn't let your personal interest affect your judgement, a neutral observer could see an appearance of impropriety in your conduct? |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:20 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
page 190
Hamo: There was not a--The premise to your question is wrong. There was not a conflict. There is nothing he did wrong. In fact, the only people did anything wrong was City Council.
Rose: Isn't it true that one of the reasons why you made a threat regarding the allegations of the conflict of interest, was to prevent the City from filing a motion to disqualify you with the leverage against the City that you could inflict on them a litigation bill against their attorney, by dragging them through a libel suit if he were to file the motion?
Hamo: You mean the threat I made against you?
Rose: Yes.
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Thu Dec 29, 2016 4:59 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Thu Dec 29, 2016 4:40 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
page 191
Hamo: Oh no, sir. Listen, I don't operate that way, I really don't. I have been up front and forthright and honest throughout these proceedings and throughout City Council removal proceedings. I have not sid anything to the Court of Appeals hat wasn't true. I haven't told them that this hearing ws going to go on until January 1 of'97. I haven't misrepresented what the Judge's prior experience in cases have been.I have not said that there was a -- that I agreed to a de nova standard of review and turned around two months later,after having admitted that in five pleadings and says, Well, wait, I didn't say that. No, I'm the one's been forthright, sir, and you haven't.
And when you made the accusation against me; when you stood up in Court on your own, in your way of continuing to talk endlessly, and went too far, and accused me of a cover-up and a destruction of the Davis file in the Ombudsman's Office, you're the one who made the error, sir, not me.
Rose: Well, you're characterizing the testimony by--
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Thu Dec 29, 2016 5:07 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Thu Dec 29, 2016 4:57 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Court: Counsel, I wonder, Could we get--away from the personalities, and I'm--
Rose: We're almost done, your Honor.
Court: --and unkindly things that are being said about each other.
Rose: We're almost done, your Honor.
Court: all right.
Rose: Isn't it true that you do not have a basis for finding libel or slander as to statements that were made in the course of proceedings that are absolutely privileged? |
|
|
|
Thu Dec 29, 2016 5:06 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Court: Counsel, shall we talk about that, some other time? I don't know that it has anything to do with the issue.
page 192
Rose: I want to know if he believes he had a legal basis for threatening a libel suit.
Court: Well, does that have anything to do with who his client is?
Rose: Absolutely.
Court: It may be that there --as I--I think I reasonably may surmise a certain amount of personal animosity, but that' got nothing to do with me and I don't want to be part of it |
|
|
|
Thu Dec 29, 2016 5:17 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Rose: That's a fair concern, your Honor, and the relevance of it is this--
Court: Personal animosity has nothing to do with this issue.
Rose: As of this morning, I discovered that one of the grounds on which he's defending, is that there was somehow a delay in the filing.
Court: I'm sorry, didn't hear everything you said.
Rose: That, somehow there was a delay in the filing of the motion to disqualify. What I'm trying to discover is whether he believes that it would be a reasonable response,and a cautious response, to delay the filing of the motion in the face of a threat of libel. until you had prepared and obtained all of the evidence in support of it; and whether or not in equity, the delay in filing an be accounted for in part by the fact that he threatened the City economically by inflicting upon them a litigation bill. And that is a response to the argument made here, that somehow the City-- |
|
|
|
Thu Dec 29, 2016 5:33 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
page 193
Court: Counsel, I think that is not relevant to my issue, and any personal bitterness that parties may have is something I try to rise above. No I think we'll just go on.
Cote': And i further--
Court: Anything else? No. let's just go on.
Cote'; I further object for the record. It's convoluted, it's compound, it's unintelligible, incapable of being meaningfully answered.
...
Rose My final question is--
My final question is, Do you believe that your decision to continue representing Steverson Davis in June of 1995 was inconsistent with the opinion you formed in December of '94 that you had a conflict with the Ombudsman that precluded you from representing him further. |
|
|
|
Thu Dec 29, 2016 5:50 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
