The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Mr. Burkett's Lawyer

9.21.04 @ 12:01AM

SCOUT'S HONOR
Re: David Van Os' letter in Reader Mail's The Plain Truth:

Mr. Van Os can't have it both ways here: Either he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about because he hasn't discussed it with his client, or he's in fact reporting what Mr. Burkett's told him and hence has waived attorney-client privilege (despite his careful language attempting to preserve it). From what I know of Mr. Van Os, his practice specialty has been in labor relations law, with perhaps some dabbling in civil personal injury work (as, for example, in his prior representation of Mr. Burkett in his claims to have suffered injuries while on a Guard assignment in Panama). Mr. Van Os and his client would be well advised, if they have not already, to associate counsel whose specialty is criminal law, even if they genuinely believe that Mr. Burkett has committed no crime.
-- William J. Dyer, a/k/a Beldar of BeldarBlog
Texas Bar No. 06321100
Houston, Texas

Mr. Van Os is, of course, an attorney with integrity. His statement of what he claims to have actually said can be summarized: "The forgery does not change the truth of the facts." While this is true (a lie never changes the actual truth, even if it prevents the truth from being discovered), his implication is that the forgeries do not misstate the facts. However, he must know that a forged document is not admissible evidence of a crime and that the 86-year-old former secretary is not a credible witness. While he may be "honest," he certainly cannot be trusted to impartially adjudicate the law as a Texas Supreme Court justice.
-- Jasper Gillis

Mr. Van Os: Your proof that you are honest and ethical is based upon an award given by your peers? A bunch of lawyers? Oh please! That's like Al Capone being nominated for the best little mobster from his peers! You're not even a very good lawyer. In your last paragraph, you use the supposition of Ms. Knox to argue that there is proof of poor George's truancy. I'm not even a lawyer and I can see through that. As for your statement, "the tax paying citizens have a right to know," I'm a tax-paying citizen and I want to know why John Kerry has missed so many votes through out his career … on taxpayers' expense. I want to know why both John Kerry and John Edwards are still getting paid for jobs as senators that they are not able serve in, and getting paid from my tax dollars. Keep being a Democrat, Mr. Van Os, it's the only place you'll be able to find people (some, not all) dumb enough to believe you.
-- Peter Amato
Palm Harbor, Florida

In his response to George Neumayr's "Working Kinkos," Bill Burkitt's lawyer, David Van Os, says:

"I am an ethical citizen and an ethical lawyer and never would condone forgery or falsification."

He goes on argue that "...Mrs. Knox has publicly stated that although she did not type the 'CBS Documents," they may be attempted re-creations of documents that may have existed." Necessary, Van Os implies, in order to "reflect what was actually going on."

Perhaps Mr. Van Os feels that rationalizing forgery is more "ethical" that condoning it.
-- Robin Boult
Murfreesboro, Tennessee

Having waded through Lawyer Van Os's blather about Rather and all of that other clap trap, after exhaling a heavy sigh as Al Gore might have done in 2000 had he been forced to listen to a recitation of Van Os's credentials and proclamations of how "ethical" he is, permit me to sum it all up with a diplomatic reference to what Vice President Dick Cheney said to Senator Patrick "Leaky" Leahy not too long ago …

You're not fooling anyone.
-- John Weathers
Washington, D.C., former El Paso resident.

It's a good thing that David van Os wrote what he did in his email. I don't think it is possible for a human to speak those words out loud without either a tall glass of water or a stiff drink to clear the blockages that would accumulate in the larynx. There are two exceptions: a man of the cloth or a man of law. Since he seems to lack the eloquence of the Rt. Rev. Jackson, I must retreat to understanding that he is David van Os, Esquire.

It interesting to note that polls on the believability of lawyers as individuals or as a profession have always been low. Even when a famous Arkansas lawyer was called "an unusually good liar" and later disbarred, it did not lower their already poor rating. Ever the good sports, M. Rather and CBS, M. Raines and the New York Times, and others in the mainstream media have been trying to lift the lawyers' rating by aiming even lower, but lawyers have tenaciously held their low ranking tightly in their ice-cold fingers.

It is interesting to note that it was and is very hard to prove that criminal leaders, from Al Capone through today, are actually mobsters. Very good lawyers help them claim that they are "honest businessmen." Does this fool anyone? Was John Gotti really a mobster? His lawyer patently denied it. Legally, Al Capone was simply bad with numbers and went to prison for tax evasion. In reality, he and his syphilitic brain masterminded a record of terror that like Babe Ruth's stood for decades.

I am open minded, and willing to believe what M. van Os tells us, that his lawyer peers hold him in high esteem. In fact, I am sure that M. Van Os, M. Kerry, and M. Edwards are all shining examples of their profession. Perhaps they aspire to equal M. Clinton's unimpeachable ethics and honesty. After a brilliant career in the legal profession and politics, it was only late in Clinton's career that he was actually caught uttering a partial truth while under oath and disbarred. Since M. Van Os was not under oath while he wrote the email, there are no actionable statements.

I for one am relieved that M. Van Os has promised that his client is innocent and he is also spotless and pure. I can sleep easier tonight knowing that nothing happened, and nobody is guilty of fraud or slander.
-- Newt Love
Annapolis, Maryland

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Mainstream Media, Business, Sports, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, United Nations, NATO, Energy, Oil