Posts archived in Plain Old Snarkiness

16 comments

More AMG “reporting.”

Continuing the proud AMG tradition of failures in accuracy, correct attribution, and understanding the internet, AMGer “Reaganite” lambasts Maine Senator Dill over an insensitive tweet that he believes originated from her but, in reality, was someone else’s tweet.

If you were wondering whether clear inaccuracies would be removed or challenged on AMG, well, this claim has been up for two weeks and there is nary a peep from other posters nor the resident “reporter.”

Of course, Reporter Naran famously claimed someone on the internet was me, and posted a giant headshot of said someone with print announcing she had finally found the AMGLOLZ culprit and further offering her “sleuthing” services for hire, when in reality that person was not me nor anyone having anything to do with me.

How could such a terrible error occur? Well, Naran construed someone quoting and linking to my website as proof that the quoter/linker was me because the text quoted and linked was identical to the text on my blog! How is that for smart logic? Who would think quotes would be identical? If trying to figure that one out makes your brain hurt, join the club.

Reporting falsehoods not being problematic on AMG, there was never any retraction or correction. Visitors to AMG to this day will still be presented with Naran’s completely unsupported statement that a poor random soul is this blogger.

But I digress: the point here is that most AMGers never question anything posted on AMG. The editors make zero effort to correct anything UNLESS it is in their political interest.

Suggest LePage’s budget math isn’t quite accurate? Please correct your post. Attribute a blog you hate to a random third party on flimsy evidence? Yawn. Say Bill Clinton murdered someone or a Maine Senator said something they clearly did not? Double yawn.

Former Maine libertarian party head-honcho Mark T. Cenci (L – never got more than 200 votes) posted recently on AMG that he would be willing to donate to the good cause of paying back the Federal government for the controversial labor mural in Augusta so that people like himself would be free and clear to burn it.

The thought of Mark T. Cenci donating money for this cause gave me flashback to when he was threatening to sue me. At one point, he asked via email about my net worth because he wanted to know if he could use his hypothetical lawsuit winnings to fund a new jacuzzi at his home.

Well, I don’t know if Mark has that jacuzzi yet, but if he hasn’t then we must conclude that, financially, he prioritizes the burning of art over bubbly soothing relaxing hot tubs.

This might explain why he is so angry all the time.

Everyone has blind spots, but some are stranger than others. I have always thought it somewhat obvious why we give criminals lawyers to assist in their defense even if they are probably guilty. It is, after all, one of those founding principles of our Constitution and something that separated us from most of the known world at the time.

But to “The Watcher” in this thread, the answer is anything but obvious:

I asked him if, as a defense attorney, is he obligated to get a guilty client off (found not guilty) or to see that justice is done? They are not the same. His replies..or more accurately, his non reply was that his job was to defend the client (whom he knows is guilty) from unjust prosecution. If he gets a murder acquitted because he is a better attorney than the prosecutor, that is not his fault. Needless to say, the discussion went nowhere and I still don’t have an answer. Anyone?

Now, the answer he describes as given by his lawyer friend is a bit on the short and quick side. Luckily, others chimed in:

You got an answer, but you don’t like it. It isn’t called the “adversary system” for nothing. Moreover, I’d bet there are some prosecutors who have convicted people whom they didn’t think “did it”.

PS: There is only one way for the attorney to “know” his client did it. That’s to be a witness. Y’can’t take a case if you’re a witness.

“The Watcher” failed to see the answer in the answer.

Your lawyerly dancing around the very simple question didn’t help The answer should be a simple yes or no.

Does this response bug you as much as it bugs me? Here is my translation:

I failed to think about your answer and am not bothered enough to do so, and because I don’t understand it immediately your answer must be “lawyerly dancing.” And by using the phrase “lawyerly dancing” I am purposefully dissing your career, much as if I had said your answer was pretty good “for a janitor” or some other such nonsense. Please be aware that I require simple binary yes or no answers because otherwise life is not simple enough for me. You must bend the world to fit this requirement and try again.

The attempts to explain the concept of an adversarial justice system to “The Watcher” continued on with little luck, until Dan Billings repeated what everyone else had said in Billings-ese and “The Watcher” instantly understood. Just more evidence that Dan Billings is AMG’s Jesus.

Sometimes it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. But if you are lawyer and former York County probate judge Robert Nadeau, your motto is closer to, “Sometimes it is best to wake up the sleeping dog at 2 am to triple post a long angry rant because my mom found some less than flattering comments about me on your website, and while I’m at it let me cast accusations upon my firm’s former clients in a very public and unprofessional way.” Yep, that’s what this guy did. Here’s the post.

None of us are perfect; we all make mistakes, sometimes terrible mistakes. But Mr. Nadeau has decided to magnify his mistakes with the screed copied in it’s entirety below.

For those interested, here is a disciplinary proceeding regarding Mr. Nadeau and here is the decision on appeal regarding his divorce.

The early morning triple posted rant:

Some 3 to 6 years after all of the turmoil, humiliation and struggles to right wrongs while suffering immensely in every conceivable personal, professional and financial way, I have come across this blogged article and all of the comments from some really rather snakelike characters who in each instance similarly need to look real hard into their life’s mirrors. But they apparently lack the capacity to meaningfully do so and, therefore, simply lower themselves to the levels they perceive and decry in others such as me, or worse.

First, let’s get some things straight about myself. I made a big mistake. I actually fell deeply in love with someone, “L”, 19 years younger than me, while representing her very well (by her own often stated admission) in her divorce case until I realized what was happening to me emotionally. It shocked the hell out of me–a no-no for professionals, and something that had never happened in what had been by then a 22-year career as a successful lawyer and elected judge and a previously, unerringly faithful husband and father. I then immediately told L that I was required to cease being her lawyer, before anything physical between us occurred. She immediately agreed to and did immediately hire replacement counsel without missing a beat in the continuing, effective handling of her divorce case via her new attorney. I also then immediately informed and left my wife. L and i eventually lived together and did so very happily for the next two months. However, feeling great guilt about the effects on my children that my new, unexpected relationship (NOT a mere “affair”) was having, I struggled and initially decided to attempt marriage counseling with my then wife to show my children that I was paying attention to their constantly stated, as well as visible, emotional needs and was giving reconciliation a try that I privately had extreme doubts about in view of how I felt about L. But that reconciliation decision devastated L (and, in private, me), so L, out of great hurt and confusion, went against what she knew about what had really happened and followed the advice of others by claiming that I must have been unethical. So, what would have been an inevitable, permanent return to L became tremendously complicated by two years of adverse publicity instigated by two young, catty, underperforming attorneys employed by me who didn’t hesitate to publicize my “affair” for their own economic advantage as an unsuccessful strategy to extract a financial settlement from me while they proceeded to complete their already, previously held plans to leave my law firm anyway to establish their own partnership elsewhere. The voracious media and a highly media-conscious legal system spearheaded by those former associates and their attorney, and eventually by the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar and certain unelected judges always concerned about public perceptions concerning their alleged unwillingness to go after one of their “own”, went after me to the nth degree and more in a succession of court proceedings involving the former associates fighting over accounts, board proceedings, a distorted judicial conduct finding pursued by a political opponent that with all due respect was simply wrong, and an entirely one-sided, abusive divorce judgment.

The succession of these events exacted tremendous strain on the relationship L and I found a way to resume over a period of more than two years, that was intended to lead to marriage. We were engaged and, I thought, very excited and happy about our future. There was nothing false about that commitment, or my “ethics” that preceded it. When our long engagement, which was frustrated horribly by my eventual, clearly punitive divorce results, ended, it was the biggest devastation of all for me. Many things I learned from others after the fact relating to what had allegedly, really been going on in my relationship with L despite our engagement only deepened the devastation and caused me to leave my beloved Maine at the end of 2008. Stupid me, for ever having the type of huge ego that caused me to think that anyone 19 years younger than me and so seemingly attractive could ever really be serious about a long-term relationship with someone like me! But know this–what you read in papers or on blogs, or hear in the media, is but 1/10th of the story, and is often based on sound bytes, slants and lack or space or interest for telling the full story. Sensationalism sells. Anything more is boring.

Second, for the person who suggested that attorneys employed by me were mistreated by me and that court personnel and employees were similarly mistreated, stop surmising and start knowing the facts. As with any employment situation anywhere, there were some underperforming employees (attorneys) over the course of a 12-year law firm who left because they simply didn’t carry their weight or had simply used their entry-leve positions as an opportunity to gain experience and a stepping stone to more promising positions elsewhere. Most left on amicable terms and were welcome to stay, and all left as much better, more skilled lawyers by far than when they started their jobs. In the final year of my practice in Maine, financial difficulties caused by the seemingly endless adverse media attention, public misinformation and the draconian divorce judgment I received which was later, in part, successfully appealed, simply necessitated a reduction in force and the eventual relocation of my practice to a different state. Those still working with me, both in my law firm and in the probate court, hoped for and wanted me to be able to continue to employ and work with them, and I wanted to reciprocate, but it had simply become too financially, professionally and emotionally difficult for me to do so.

Third, my discovery on your blog that “Naran” has been participating in it comes as a huge shock to me and to my family. My mother, Nancy Auclair, who unquestionably served York County as its elected Treasurer in 2008 with tremendous distinction and faithfulness, had considered Naran Roe Spaulding to have been a close personal friend until she discovered by surprise Naran’s cowardly writings just two days ago. Not once has Naran ever discussed any of her alleged concerns and apparent perceptions regarding me with either my mother or me during the past 6 years, despite her prolific comments we have just discovered. And, I dare say that Naran could not and would dare not bear the scrutiny that public officials such as I have had to endure, and that she need not worry about doing so anyway. She is hardly popular among the majority of the electorate in her town of Kennebunk, due to her endlessly critical, often myopic attacks on public servants and educators trying to do good, faithful work. She is not a person with many real solutions other than to constantly bellyache about “taxes” in the usual, over-simplistic, nearsighted Republican tradition, and in my opinion could not be elected as dog catcher if she mustered the courage to take the heat of public office to begin with. Thanks for your “courageous” opinions, Naran–now, try telling it to my face, in person!

Then there’s commentator Charlie Neville. Wow! What a hypocrite! Hell, he even criticized my former associate, Amy McGarry, in his comments. Although I have no use or respect for a variety of other reasons, the fact insofar as Neville is concerned is that McGarry, while employed by me, was Neville’s trial attorney who actually did a very good job saving Neville’s skin in connection with his criminal prosecution for a stalking-related charge initiated by his former girlfriend. Despite that result, and despite the most ill-advised (and, as I recall, rather racy and hardly becoming) communications that had occurred between Neville and that former girlfriend that were a part of his prosecution, Neville mentions nothing about that. Instead, he bellyaches about his legal bill McGarry charged him for a great result, and then goes so far as to distort that the bill was somehow my doing when I wasn’t even his lawyer. The hypocrisy of his comments brings to mind his estimate for producing a sign at my former law firm years ago, that was so extremely exorbitant that we chose to hire a different sign vendor instead at a price that was, as I recall, less than 25% of what Neville wanted to stick us for.

As for the writer named McGee, I only know of one couple named McGee whom I’ve represented. They are wonderful people and recent, repeat clients following my reopening of a satellite office in Sanford in June, 2010. There, as well as in my New Hampshire office, I still have many clients who strongly believe in and rely on my abilities and my ethics.

I am far from perfect. Evidently, Naran, Neville and the other commentators on your blog are far superior persons who have no embarrassing dark secrets. I’ve been through hell and, in the end most importantly, extreme heartaches that may indeed have been poetic justice meted to me. I’ve learned a lot. I also know and am most confident in my abilities, my extremely, endlessly hard work for clients, my resilience and perseverence, and my redoubled ethical standards despite everything. I, unlike those who have commented about me, have not only learned from my mistakes in ways my critics can never benefit from, but also will always have the courage to take them head on, not in the anonymous comfort of blogs few except those similarly prone to feast on the struggles and misfortunes of others that people like them resort to. Go ahead folks–come visit me and tell me what you think in person, not on cowardly websites and blogs, if you really think you know the whole story, and if you truly have anywhere near the courage of your convictions that I know I possess!

As Kenny Rogers & the First Edition once sang, “Have you ever kicked a good man when he was down, just to make yourself feel strong? Tell it all, brother!” And, sister.

Robert M.A. Nadeau

Top Login to post comments

Thu, 11/04/2010 – 1:28am #20

2 comments

Where the @&$& is Tom C?

I was really enjoying seeing the snot kicked out of Tom C in this thread, where he accuses a police officer of murder based on a blog post and his belief that police officers are all out to kill the public, but recently Tom stopped responding.

At first I thought he just knew he had lost the argument so it was time to bail. But now it is a few days later and Tom hasn’t posted anything on any thread. This is very unobsessive and not like Tom.

Did Tom get banned? Or is he on vacation? Maybe subject to a restraining order? Enquiring minds want to know.

0 comments

LOL!

Tom C has long felt that homosexual “culture” is bad, while heterosexual “culture” is good. This utterly unsupportable view of the world leads to some pretty funny statements by him. Like this one, found in a longer discussion about a gay bar in Ogunquit where the bartenders were serving drinks while shirtless:

There is plenty of sleaze in hetro culture – but it’s the fringe.

This type of blatant sexual behavior tends to be mainstream for gay culture.

Hetero sleaze is just a few fringe weirdos! And by sleaze, he means men doing stuff without their shirts on.  You can’t get more sleazy than that. Luckily for the rest of us, heterosexuals would never stoop to such lows as serving drinks while shirtless.

In case you’ve ever wondered when you drive by PT’s Showclub on Riverside Street (formerly “Platinum Plus), those hundreds of cars filling the parking lot at all hours of the day are NOT sleazy heteros. They are, in fact, concerned hetero citizens like Tom C stopping by to inform the operator of the establishment that his incredibly successful business model is deleterious to the hetero culture. These concerned hetero citizens then surely approach the young women inside and offer them money to please put their clothes back on. Yes, I am sure that is how it works.

Oh, and hetero movies, books, tv, car advertisements, beer advertisements, advertisements in general, clothing, bars, and everything else are absolutely NOT sleazy, save a few fringe wackos who insist on putting breasts on everything. And once we heteros find out who those people are, we will surely confront them and put a stop to it once and for all.

Michael Beardsley wrote about this article here on AMG. It’s about a Federal court accepting a plan from a municipality to increase minority representation by giving each voter six votes. Mike thinks they gave only Hispanics six votes. On his blog he more fully explained:

Yet another example of a judicial overstep to social engineer the desired results.  Never-mind the fact a seemly reasonable alternative was on the table, not good enough for this judge thought it better that non-Hispanic voters be disenfranchised.   Sorry non-Hispanics, you’re only worth 1/6 of a vote.  Does this mean they will now only have to pay a 1/6 share of the tax burden?  Meet the newest threat to the Republic, feel free to shred that copy of the Constitution you have – it no longer appears valid. Someone please challenge this one, and start impeachment proceedings against this judge. – MAB

Hey, shithead, why don’t you impeach yourself from your blog? The Judge did not give Hispanics six votes for every one non-Hispanic vote. I don’t know which is worse: that you apparently think a real live Judge would do such a thing or that you think we liberals would support it.

Everyone gets six votes. Equally.

WARNING: RANT MODE ON

Goddamn it Mike, how much smarter than a Federal judge do you think you are? Guess what, you’re not smarter. You’re dumber. Dumb dumb dumb. Reading comments like yours makes me want to puke, because you’re so enveloped in your self-righteous superiority complex that you FORGET TO ACTUALLY THINK CRITICALLY ABOUT WHAT YOU’RE READING. If you were a high schooler taking the goddamn SAT reading comprehension section and they gave you that article to read, and you came to the conclusion that you did, guess what? YOU WOULD NEVER GO TO COLLEGE. Your scores would come back and you’d say, “WTF? I thought I aced that exam, but my score is so low I’m going to be the janitor at the offices for Janitors, Inc., and they won’t even let me clean the bathrooms because they don’t trust me with such a important task. No, my job will be to clean the mop buckets for the guy whose job it is to clean the bathroom. What did I do to deserve this?” And you will never figure it out because you’ll go your whole life without stopping and thinking about facts right in front of your face.

Seriously, Mike, we liberals understand what “one vote, one man” means. We invented it. That’s right, one-man one-vote is a concept invented by a court and not literally in the Constitution. Yes, Mike, there was once a time where votes did have different worths. If you were black, they put you in a district with 500,000 people. If you were white, your district was ten times smaller so it was like you got ten votes for every one a black man got. This was normal in many states and if you take an originalist view of the Constitution there’s nothing you could ever do about it.

But then some uppity activist LIBERAL judge said hey, wait a minute, even if it doesn’t literally say one-man, one-vote in the Constitution, isn’t that just sort of necessary to make the rest of it work well? Even if the Constitution has never stopped states from doing those sorts of shenanigans in the past, and it wasn’t something the Framers talked about in Federalist number whatever, does that mean I should let this wrong continue now?

So a court made a stand and was attacked as being activist. Now look, it’s 50 years later and you’re using those very activist philosophies to attack present-day judges trying to do the best they can to implement fair representation for all.

This guy has probably worked very hard to become a Federal judge and frankly I would suggest he learns more in a day than you learn in a year, but you sit back and blog about how he should be “impeached” based on some interpretation of his actions that has no basis in reality whatsoever. None.

Congratulation Mike, you are a total hoser.

RANT MODE OFF

Sorry. Some things just bug me.

This guy doesn’t have a clue how repulsive he is.

Listen here. Taken from two nearby posts in this thread.

Gays are not “gay” at all, just angry. And mentally unstable. Sorry, no link for that fact.

….

Not to stray too far from the thread, I’ve yet to meet a homosexual I would want in the foxhole, humvee, or tank alongside me. And I’m not talking just for prurient self-protection. I find them to be completely nice people, but emotionally unstable each one. War is no environment for an emotionally unstable platoon in pink. War protests, nowthere is a much more suitable environment for your average sufferer of gender perception disorder.

I find absolutely nothing wrong with “discriminating” against homosexuals in the military. I am somewhat contented hearing that they might still.

- The Distributist, 2007