Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Well, Well. Look Who Reads Whallah!

McIlheran has a couple of posts up today in which he still struggles with the dilemna that the Catholic Church is facing.

This post contains this paragraph (emphasis mine):
You’re not supposed mention money, by the way, at least if you’re not the guy arguing for the church to be supine before the plaintiffs’ attorneys. To do so is to “put money before people's very lives,” as some blogger or other put it in when I had the temerity to say it’s a shame the church may well be bankrupted.

Now where did we see this before? Oh yeah, in this post (again emphasis mine, if one can empasize oneself):
And being just as egregious, McIlheran focuses on the cost to the Church, indicating that the Church shouldn't be made to pay for something that happened decades ago. Leave it to him to put money before people's very lives. He should be ashamed of himself for even writing this post. And I feel safe to say, that I bet that the victims would have been glad to forego any money they might receive in order to have never been abused in the first place.

My ego isn't so fragile that I will make a big deal about McIlheran not linking or even mentioning who that "some blogger or other" is. After all, I don't always link to him, although I always make it clear who gets credit for the stuff he writes. (Lord knows I don't want it.)

But I can't help but notice that he is always trying to paint the victims, or at least their attorneys, as the bad guys. He makes claims to the effect of "Well, the Church doesn't do that anymore, so they should just drop it." He further points out, accurately this time, that the actual perpetrators are either dead or don't have any money in the first place.

Unfortunately, the question that McIlheran never answers is why he thinks that the victims should get nothing but a "We're sorry." It could very well be that he just doesn't understand what this kind of victimization can do to a person's psyche, and to their lives, for the rest of their lives. I hope that is the reason he fails to answer the question.

For the only other reasons would be that he does indeed consider money to be more important, or he just doesn't care about what happened to the victims in the first place. And as much as we may disagree with McIlheran's issues and points of view, it would be truly sad if he were that deplorable.


  1. Hiring prisoner lands lawyer in trouble
    Posted: Feb. 6, 2008

    Daniel Bice
    No Quarter

    Prisons are filled with jailhouse lawyers - inmates who hit the law books in hopes of being sprung on appeal.

    For the most part, their work is worth exactly what they get paid for it.

    But there are exceptions.

    One recent Wisconsin inmate had a licensed attorney kicking him legal work, even sending him a case file, while he was behind bars. The inmate all but hung a shingle on his cell.

    The bizarre arrangement eventually landed the lawyer in hot water.


    Buy a link hereLast month, Stephen M. Compton of Delavan was stripped of his law license for, among other things, setting it up so a one-time paralegal doing time at the Dodge Correctional Institute could conduct legal research for him.

    Compton met the former paralegal, according to state records, when he was appointed to represent the guy before the state Supreme Court in 2000. State regulators declined to name the ex-paralegal, simply listing his initials, but records show he has a long rap sheet.

    Not long after, Compton's former client landed behind bars and, while there, let Compton know that he wanted to do legal work for him.

    The attorney took up the inmate's offer.

    In early 2002, Compton sent a case file to the former paralegal - without the knowledge or approval of Compton's client. Regulators found that the lawyer didn't supervise the legal work being done or ensure client confidentiality.

    Compton then hired the guy when he got out of the maximum-security prison in May 2002. For the next couple of months, the ex-paralegal worked on several cases, drafting correspondence and pleadings, doing research and meeting with clients. The cases came from the Office of the State Public Defender.

    Hiring the former inmate wasn't improper, but regulators found that Compton had crossed the line by claiming credit for his new employee's work.

    "In three cases, Attorney Compton falsely certified . . . that he had done all the legal work on the cases, when in fact (the former paralegal) had done much of the work," the high court wrote last month.

    Overall, Compton billed the state $4,800 - 120 hours at $40 an hour - for work that was actually done by the former paralegal. The discrepancy was caught by another attorney who later took over one of the cases.

    As it turned out, all of this was going on while Compton was negotiating a public reprimand on another case. In that matter, he fibbed about the hours for which he billed.

    So what kind of punishment did the lawyer deserve this time?

    State investigators recommended that Compton lose his license for all of 90 days. A referee who reviewed the matter decided to recommend cutting it to just 60 days, in part because - get this - the former inmate did good work.

    "However, while not excusing the ethical violation or the potential harm to clients, the referee did note that J.M., a former paralegal, apparently performed competently and obtained 'good results' for the clients," said the Supreme Court decision.

    In the end, the justices went with the two-month suspension. Compton, who got his law degree in 1992, has informed the court he quit practicing law in August.

    Neither he nor his lawyer returned calls about his case.

  2. I'm sure McIlheran reads Whallah! What else does he do? His columns don't reflect any reporting, unless reading Bradley Foundation white papers counts as reporting. His views are thematically stale and written like a home-schooled eighth grader. His columns don't reflect any particular care-he wields around big words without any art and he frequently mixes metaphors and indulges in cliche. He brings nothing like experience or wisdom to his columns-never really was a reporter-and even his attempts at challenging Angry White Man rage seem hilariously, almost touchingly, forced and out-of-step. That is to say, his sneering posturing isn't even interesting.