The American Spectator

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.