The jury has decided. Plus much more including the future of the Ryder Cup and of the United Nations.
p>
SCOUT'S HONOR
br>
Re: David Van Os' letter in Reader Mail's
The Plain
Truth
:
/p>
p>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.
br>
--
William J. Dyer
, a/k/a Beldar of
BeldarBlog
br>
Texas Bar No. 06321100
br>
Houston, Texas
/p>
p>
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.