Posted on 09/16/2005 11:37:41 AM PDT by SteveBosell
In 2001, LaPlante complained about his safety in prison, and he was placed under extensive lockup. Unhappy with that, he sued state officials in federal court. Among other complaints, he said he wasn't given unfettered access to the prison law library. He said he was mislabeled as a sex offender. He complained that officials intercepted ''sexually explicit" photographs mailed to him. He said a guard stole his shower shoes.
Palmer & Dodge took the case, supposedly pro bono, though please read on. In fact, it didn't just take the case, it seemed to devote itself to it, assigning a partner, a senior associate, a midlevel associate, and a junior associate -- four lawyers in all.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Boston - lawyers - what more do we need to know???
Got a problem with that????
Let the flames begin!!!!
Hey, wait a minute....is this really The Globe?
Times are a-changin'.....
Just damn!!!!
Uh... yeah.
I guess the law firm is VERY pro-"bono."
The Boston Globe has its facts all wrong.
He originally sued to get access to legal materials in a law library, not acess to porn. He reached a written agreement in the original suit. The terms of the agreement stated that if he had to take further legal action to enforce the agreement, his counsel would be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and costs.
Don't get me wrong - I hate inmate suits and am on the side of defending them on an ongoing basis.
The Boston Globe has given this articel an inflammatory title and mis-stated the facts to get people all bent out of shape.
LSM strikes again.
What about the judge that didn't throw this out as frivolous?
Yes, I have a problem with that. It is one thing to censor porn and quite another to make it a right for a prisoner, especially a convicted murderer. You got a problem with that???
Actually, I gave it the inflammatory title on the assumption that the facts, as stated in the article, were true. That's what I get for believing something as written in the Globe. Did pornography have anything to do with this suit or has the writer confused the facts entirely?
That said, what I find particularly outrageous is the fact that these "civil rights advocates" get taxpayer funds for their adventures in litigation. Civil rights are just an means to an end; in this case, money, in other cases, social anarchy.
Members of the American Trial Lawyers gangster group. Devoted members and givers to the socialist democrat party.
Well, I was responding to the comment about porn being an entitlement (as if the word should even exist in our society) and it was rather tongue in cheek.
However, if it keeps the cons happy and not sodomizing the white boys then by all means...
This particular case had nothing to do with porn. It had to do with enforcing the terms of an earlier legal action related to his access to legal materials. Which should be a clear indicator that this inmate spends lotso time suing people. Nothin' better to do and nothin' but time on his hands.
I, too, can't believe any respectible counsel even took this case. Wanna know how much the judgment was in favor of the prisoner? Twenty-one dollars. No joke.
When we deal with these kinds of suits, the inmates always represent themselves because most attorneys have better things to do with their time. Inmates and prisoners do not have a right to have counsel appointed in civil suits, by the way. This one was different because of the earlier case I mentioned and that fact that the terms of the earlier case were being enforced.
I had a suit by an inmate once who claimed we violated his constitutional rights to practice his religion as a Lakota Indian. And then there was the guy who said we beat him up because he mishandled cheese in the kitchen...
To prevent duplication, please do not alter the heading. Thanks.
Ahmmmm. There you go again.
Thanks for the explanation. I thought you were picking a Libertarian-type fight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.