New Obama Scandal: Top Obama Adviser Could Face Legal Disbarment

Greg Craig

HA!

I love it when demo’s fight with each other!

Rush! You magnificent bastard!

Hahahaha!!!

Gregory Craig Should Be Disbarred and Clinton Investigated By Congress over Elian Misrepresentations

Government Opinion Keywords: CONFLICT OF INTERESTS, RULES OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES, ATTORNEYS, VIOLATIONS, CRAIG, CLINTON

Published: March 11, 2000 Author: Self

Posted on 04/11/2000 11:28:51 PDT by Bronco Buster

Every attorney who takes on a new client must first check to make sure that a new case does not conflict with any previous representation that he may have represented. For attorneys these rules are very specific and spelled out in the Rules of Professional Responsibilities and the Canons, and most state jurisdiction require that attorneys must stay current on these ethical responsibilities.

Gregory Craig, in his current representation of Juan Miguel, appears to not only have gone over this bright line, but he appears bent on deceiving not only the American public, but his legal adversaries, the INS, and the courts. As everybody knows, Mr. Craig was the attorney of President Clinton during the impeachment trial. Whether Craig classifies himself as Mr. Clinton’s personal attorney or the attorney of the President of the United States is irrelevant since in this case they were one and the same.

According to the Rules, an attorney cannot turn around and represent a person with an adverse claim to the President without disclosing his interests to all the parties involved. This is most often the case such as when an attorney will represent both sides of a claim in an undisputed divorce. However, should the divorce turn nasty, then many an attorney had to drop out of the representation and the two parties had to each secure new, independent counsel so that this conflict of interests could be litigated.

However the method by which Craig has taken on the representation of Juan Miguel Gonzalez gives the impression of duplicity and deceit which are other grievous and punishable offenses against the rules of conduct for an attorney.

By his own account, Mr. Craig represents Juan Miguel under the auspices of the Society of United Methodist Churches, but Juan Miguel neither speaks for his own case (Castro does) nor is he paying the attorney fees which are probably well in excess of $500+ an hour. Juan Miguel at his tourist hotel job of opening doors, getting towels, fetching drinks, sweeping floors, mopping, and other custodial work at a resort in Cuba made at the most, $38 per month prior to becoming famous as the father of the boy who outwitted the sharks in the Florida Straits.

Detailed news accounts of Craig meeting’s with Castro when he flew down there to convince the brutal tyrant to let Juan Miguel come to America also belie Craig’s claim that his client is Juan Miguel. Juan Miguel has no decision making capability over this case nor finances his own case.

According to published reports, Craig apparently had to spent over 3 hours trying to convince the aging despot to let Juan Miguel come to America. When Juan Miguel got to America the first thing he did was read a Castro prepared statement of a cheap, predictable, tiresome anti-American tirade which Craig has admitted on TV news talk shows was written by Castro government flunkies, but which he insisted is what Juan Miguel truly believes.

Then there is the deceptive charade of the financing of the fees by the Society of United Methodist Churches. Craig maintains that the financing of his client is being done by the Society of United Methodist Church, a crude propaganda arm of the National Council of of Churches. However, this attorney financing relationship is shrouded in deceit and duplicity. According to reports from both Craig and the Society of United Methodist Church the people who are actually funding this legal slush fund are strictly secret and confidential.

Hence, nobody knows who is financing Craig! Is it Castro funnelling his serial-killing blood money and slave labor dollars through this pro-communistic church group? It could be. Is it contributors to Clinton’s legal defense fund diverting some of their money to fund this world class attorney? Maybe. Are Methodists funding Craig? Who knows.

Since Gregory Craig has chosen to be duplicitous and deceitful in disclosing this crucial relationship, we at present don’t know.

Did Craig initiate and seek out this pro-Castro client relationship and then devise this byzantine labyrinth of lies and duplicity to hide the truth about who he is actually representing and how his legal fees are to be paid, as some reports have suggested, then he is no more than a common “ambulance chaser” which in itself is a violation of attorney Rules which prohibit this type of gross and crass self promotion at the expense of the client.

Now, is there a favorable light in which Attorney Craig’s action could be viewed? No, not since on the face of his representation of Castro’s mannequin, Juan Miguel and his former representation of the President of the United States, there is an obvious and patent conflict of interest. The Rules of Professional Responsibility are quite specific, not only can a attorney not engage in surreptitious conflict of interest of current and past clients, but he cannot even give the appearance of doing so.

And in those cases where he is allowed to represent adverse parties to an action, (divorce, some corporate litigation, etc.) the attorney has an affirmative responsibility to disclose these interests openly and usually in writing to all parties in the action.

Craig has disclosed nothing except a tissue of concealment or lies about who are the actual contributors to this action, who he is actually representing, and what are the specifics of the extend of his conflict of interest communications with all the parties involved in this case. Has he, any member of his firm, or any indirect party given or received advice or instructions from Bill Clinton on this current representation which under the full disclosure of conflict of interests Rules would have to be made known to the attorneys for Elian’s family and to the courts?

Has Craig disclosed to anybody what has been the extend of his conversations or communications in this matter with Bill Clinton or any representative of the President or the U.S. government which ommission would not only be a violation of his requirement of affirmative full disclosure to all parties to the action under the conflict of interest rules, but would be perpetuating outright lies and deceits and possibly even fraud, which are all against the Rules of Professional conduct for attorneys?

If Bill Clinton aided and assisted in these deceptive efforts, and since he, too, is bound by these same attorney Rules, then he, too, would be liable for perpetuating this fraud and deceit upon the American people, but specifically against the attorneys for Elian and the courts.

Craig may argue that since his client is being confidentally funded by the Society of United Methodist Churches he has fulfilled his responsibility to disclose his conflicting interests in the matter. This is not sufficient since on the face of his representation of Juan Miguel, Craig appears to be representing the interests of Castro (the decision maker regarding Juan Miguel’s action), and also the interests of his former client, Bill Clinton, President, who wants Elian returned to Castro as soon as possible.

If Gregory Craig is actively perpetuating a fraud and deceit upon the attorneys of Lazaro Gonzalez, the legal custodian of Elian, and upon the federal courts and the INS; and Bill Clinton, the President, is helping him to perpetuate this deception to all of the interested parties, then either the attorneys for Elian, Larry Klayman, members of the Bar, Representatives of Congress, the judges of the federal court, and the judges of the state court should demand a full accounting of who are the specific contributors to the secret legal hush fund for Craig, and what has been the extend and nature of the communications between Clinton and Mr. Craig since it appears that Clinton as President of the United States, in collusion with Craig, may be involved in another patent violation of the Rules conducting the behavior of all attorneys.

There needs to be full and honest disclosure of these vital “conflict of interest” communications by Craig and President Clinton, at once, and Elian’s family attorneys should petition the federal courts for a stay on all matters regarding Elian on the basis of this possible fraud and deception by attorney Gregory Craig.

Since disclosure of this conflict of interest charges can and does materially effect the INS and federal court defenses of Elian by his attorneys, the attorneys for Elian should petition the federal courts to enjoin Janet Reno from proceeding with transferring the “parole custody” to Juan Miguel on an emergency basis or to rescind it if it has already been done.

Neither the federal courts not the INS were established to perpetuate fraud and the violation of any of parties’ full legal rights (the right of Elian’s family attorneys to receive full disclosure of all material facts of the conflict of interest violations of attorney Craig) which is what would occur if the court does not grant an emergency stay of Janet Reno discretionary power to “transfer parole custody” of Elian to his father.

If, as a result of forcing attorney Craig to fully disclose the names of the contributors to the legal slush fund and his communications with the President based upon his patent conflict of interest representation, it is disclosed and learned that the President has made the transfer of Elian to Castro a priority of the administration for the sole purpose of some lame duck legacy of the President, then this would materially affect the defense of Elian’s attorney against the INS, and in federal and state court.

The attorneys for Elian would be able to argue successfully in federal court that Elian is being denied his full legal rights to appeal on the basis of Presidential arbritariness and capriciousness which the Attorney General Janet Reno is seeking to enforce prejudicially and in a draconian manner under guise of discretionary decision making.

This would fundamentally change the nature of the legal arguments in defense of Elian since out of all the millions of non-documented aliens in America, he was being singled out for specific adverse action solely to advance the political ambitions of the President contrary to the rule of laws of the Congress.

Then this would become not only a new line of defense for Elian’s family attorneys who have the Constitutionally mandated duty to provide the best, most knowledgeable, most zealous legal defense of their little client, but it would become a matter for Congress to investigate since there would be new proof regarding a lame duck President trying to evade and misrepresent the rules of laws of Congress and the requirements of an attorney for full disclosure in conflict of interests cases to all effected parties, through gross misrepresentation and the heinous concealment of Clinton’s interests with Attorney Craig in this case to the detriment and illegal abridgement of Elian’s full legal rights.

I must be having a senior moment.

I can find nothing SPECIFIC above or in the original article that indicates any attorney-client privilege was breached.

Even the headline uses the weak English construct “could.”

He knows Hillary is a person of values and integrity, even as he smears her.

This is a joke, right? right?

GREG CRAIG IS A MANGO TREE LAWYER.

My wife tells me that it is now acceptable to use “they” in a case like the above. I’m afraid it’s one of those things that will peeve me until my dying day.
Yesterday I was at a meeting and one of the speakers used the word “irregardless” at least 3 or 4 times. I wonder how visible my cringe was to others in the room.
But I held my tongue.

It gets worse.

English will be watered down to txt msg. only.

My wife tells me that it is now acceptable to use “they” in a case like the above.

Most crappy language use is acceptable because most people speak so unacceptably. It's still incorrect and should be avoided even if the occasional feminist lesbian gets offended. One thing I really hate is the way the British have pretty much trashed the use of the subjunctive, as in "It is imperative that he is quiet."

I can’t believe I have turned into this much of a language snob because I really hated English classes in high school and college. But I have always been a student of the language as were my parents, dad especially, and as is my wife. Both my wife and my daughter have worked as proofreaders. If you think I’m anal about spelling, grammar and structure, you ain’t seen nothin’!
It particularly bugs me when barely literate people post on discussion forums (fora?) and neither know nor care that they are making life difficult for those of us who have to read and try to figure out what they “write”. I understand it doesn’t come easily to everyone but when people are just plain lazy and uncaring, that is what gets my goat.

I can’t believe I have turned into this much of a language snob because I really hated English classes in high school and college.

People who write without clarity do so because they think without clarity. There's a good Richard Mitchell quote about this. Let me look for it. Well, I can't find it at the moment, but here's another good one:

"Words never fail. We hear them, we read them; they enter into the mind and become part of us for as long as we shall live. Who speaks reason to his fellow men bestows it upon them. Who mouths inanity disorders thought for all who listen. There must be some minimum allowable dose of inanity beyond which the mind cannot remain reasonable. Irrationality, like buried chemical waste, sooner or later must seep into all the tissues of thought."

I loathe all of these scumbags, but Larry Johnson gives not a single credible instance of an ethical or bar assn. issue in this case. If Craig does show use of any confidential info that should be under attorney/client then of course the matter would be serious. However, without any specific example(s) Larry Johnson is just blowing smoke and trying to intimidate. Typical Clintonista hypocrite.