Thursday, December 29, 2011

Thoughts from a Guest Poster

I got the following comments from a previous poster who goes by the street name of "Spunk."  The points in the comment are excellent, so I decided to make it a post on its own rather than put it in the comments section.  This is the comment in its entirety:


Before we get too far away from that matter of Rachel Palmer taking the 5th, I would like to address Rachel directly regarding her commentary, behavior and specifically her appearance with her attorneys on Channel 11 after having taken the 5th. Let us review and reflect upon the following:
1.  Rachel Palmer, this is not "about" you! In your testimony and selective interview with channel 11 you continually reference yourself, how long you have endured attacks from people on the blogs and Murray Newman himself and how tired you are of it, and blah blah blah-- it's all about you, you, you.  Do not flatter yourself, Rachel, the only reason anyone pays attention to you is because you have continued to inject yourself in controversy in your ongoing attempt to ingratiate yourself to Pat Lykos and to cover up your criminal conduct contributing to the official oppression of Amanda Culbertson, and because your husband seems hellbent on showing his backside every time he gets a chance.      
2.  Dear Media, please stop calling Rachel Palmer a "top prosecutor."  That's like calling a substitute kindergarten teacher among a bunch of college professors a 'top educator.'  In the last 3 years since Lykos took over the office Rachel has not tried a single felony, and the few she did try before then did not go very well. She is a marginal trial lawyer at best.  She has now found a comfortable place making more money than she is worth and all she does is supervise MISDEMEANORS.  She probably wouldn't have a job at all at the office if Lykos had lost.  As a victim of a violent crime, trust me, you wouldn't want Rachel Palmer advocating on your behalf.
3.  Rachel testified  that she was "scared" of Judge Susan Brown because of the way she treats her, and her only specific example was because of the way Judge Brown says "Hi, Rachel." Are you kidding me?? It has been a well known fact for a long time that from the standpoint of the prosecutor, Judge S. Brown's court is one of the best assignments in the trial bureau. She is fair, she knows the law, she is pleasant, and she is willing to go to trial on any type of case.  Clearly Rachel Palmer was not around to try cases in front of notorious hard-assed judges such as Jimmy James, Joe Keagans, and ironically, PAT LYKOS who couldn't keep a consistent staff in her court from the district clerk's office because she was so damned mean.  If all it takes to scare Rachel Palmer is the tone of one's voice when saying hello to her, she wouldn't have lasted 10 minutes in Judge Pat Lykos' court. I am embarrassed to have ever been in the same occupational class with someone so soft and weak as Rachel Palmer.
4. What is Rachel Palmer (or anyone else) really saying when she asserts the 5th Amendment? Rachel is saying this: I am refusing to answer the questions because if I do, either I will have to admit I that have already committed a crime, OR the truthful answer I am required to give will itself contitute a crime (Aggravated Perjury).  Whether there is a vast conspiracy or not to unseat Pat Lykos, the fact remains that Rachel Palmer is telling the world that either she has committed a crime for which she may yet be indicted or she has already committed or will commit perjury if she answers the questions.  DOESN'T THAT BOTHER ANYONE IN THE LYKOS ADMINISTRATION AND WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT THEM IF IT DOESN'T?   What has Rachel said or done that constitutes a crime, and who is she covering for besides herself?  I hope the media and the public understands this about Rachel and Lykos.
5. What's in those emails, Rachel?  I hope everyone noticed that during the interview with channel 11, Rachel's attorney Clay Rawlins had a stack of some "2000" emails of Rachel's subpoenaed by the grand jury, and he said something to the effect that with so many emails it is understandable that she might have made a mistake in them.  WHAT MISTAKE??  Why didn't you read it to us?   And Clay, maybe you ought to ask Chuck Rosenthal how well the 'mistake' defense works when emails are subpoenaed and used against you.    
6.  Under ANY other previous administration, Rachel, a prosecutor like you taking the 5th amendment would have been swiftly and unceremoniously FIRED.  It was a policy of Mr. Holmes that, even if you are factually 'innocent'/or not guilty or not culpable or whatever, you as an employee of the Harris County  District Attorney's Office could expect to be fired for failing to cooperate in any way with a law enforcement investigation of any kind, constitutional rights be damned! Before Lykos, prosecutors were very aware, up front, that they are not mere citizens who possess those basic constitutional rights like everyone else.  We were held to a higher standard of conduct.  For example, if an Asst. DA got stopped for suspicion of DWI but was in fact not intoxicated, that Asst. DA would still be fired if the investigating officer asked him/her to take a breath test and he/she refused, despite the fact that any other ordinary citizen has a right to refuse a breath test.  Why?  Because prosecutors are an arm of law enforcement and as such, seekers of the truth, not hiders of it. Surely the public does not want a DA's Office with prosecutors who strutinize ordinary citizens everyday who are hiding facts which will incriminate them while simultaneously those same prosecutors are taking the 5th amendment any time they themselves want to avoid answering incriminating questions.
7.  More to the point, Rachel, if you have nothing to hide, then why can't you answer the questions?  Jim Leitner said to the media that he would be "hard pressed" to discipline an employee for exercising a constitutional right.  Despite whatever experience he may have, it is clear that Mr. Leitner is first and foremost still a criminal defense attorney at heart and in practice.  Rachel Palmer does have a right to take the 5th, but she doesn't have a constitutional right to do so and remain employed at the DA's Office. She remains employed at the will and pleasure of Pat Lykos.  Keeping her so employed has rendered the Harris County DA's Office the Harris County Hypocritical DA's Office.  Rachel, why don't you and your constitutional rights take a hike?
The level of hypocrisy is ridiculous.  Wasn't Jim Leitner one of the same set of prosecutors who decided to get a copy of the transcript of witness testimony in grand jury despite his knowledge that Judge Brown and a court of appeals had ruled that grand jury may proceed without a member of the District Attorney's Office present, and despite his knowledge and understanding that Judge Brown did not grant him permission to get that transcript and in fact had told him not to do so?  Yet a couple weeks later, apparently with Jim Leitner and the DA's Offices blessings, when Rachel Palmer gets herself cornered by incriminating questions, she refuses to answer media's questions and attempts to school Ted Oberg by stating, "You know that's not an appropriate question...grand jury proceedings are secret."  Nauseating.
There is no vast conspiracy to unseat Pat Lykos (she brought this all on herself) but boy there ought to be because she has no respect for the law or anyone besides herself.  There was a rumor that on the day Rachel spoke to Channel 11 with her attorneys and Leitner spoke to Ted Oberg that Pat Lykos told certain staff members that there was 'going to be a press conference,' and she was 'going to make everything right.' When are you going to speak to the media yourself, Pat? You can't hide forever.  And putting Rachel and Leitner out there sure didn't make anything 'right.'  
-Spunk

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bravo!! Very well stated Your comments deserve a standing ovation - cheers :)

Anonymous said...

Spunk: In paragraph 4 of your post, you show that you don't understand the Fifth Amendment and the right against self incrimination. Maybe your thinking is stuck in the McCarthy era of "Fifth Amendment Communists."
The Fifth Amendment exists to protect both the innocent and the guilty. Invoking your right against self incrimination simply means that a truthful answer to a question posed may tend to incriminate you, not that it would. Suppose you are being interrogated in a murder investigation. You are asked for an alibi and you don't have one or by pure chance you were near the scene of the crime. Even if you are pure D innocent, you have the right to invoke your constitutional right against self incrimination and you would be a fool not to.
A better rule is that if someone ever reads you your rights, simply say, "I want a lawyer."

Anonymous said...

To: Anonymous 9:32 Et Al

YOU obviously don't understand the 5th Amendment as being used by the Lykos Administration. IF Ms. Palmer WAS charged with Murder NOT just felony PERJURY:

1) She would STILL have a J.o.b. whether she testifies before a G.J. or not;

2) Assume she DID commit this hypothetical Murder. She has a lifetime alibi - she was reading the Bible and sipping Jack and Coke in P.L.'s smoke filled home;

3) McCarthy Era is a bad one. Neither McCarthy OR Coen testified thus neither had the chance to assert the 5th. Like it or not Holmes set the standard high and any prosecutor taking the 5th should be fired because prosecutors SHOULD be held to a higher standard;

4) This Post (to me anyway) is about Honor, Integrity, and Character - All of which is lacking in the current administration. It ebbs and flows according to whomever the 'leadership" feels should be protected or harshly punished.

Anonymous said...

To: Anon 9 32

Your about as knowledgeable as a box of cat litter.

Anonymous said...

9:32, I'm with you in general, but that's not what they were talking about. And he's right--prosecutors should be held to a higher standard. But they generally aren't, and fight being held to that standard as hard as they can. Anecdotal Holmes stories aside, they don't want to be held to any standard, they love their immunity too much.

Rage

Anonymous said...

9:32. So, she refused to answer because she's innocent? That's interesting.

Anonymous said...

Invocation of the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self- incrimination gives rise to no presumption of guilt. All that is required that the answer might tend to incriminate the person. So I agree with the others that you you are a bit off.

But I agree with your other points. It is unseemly that having invoked the Fifth, Rachel remains ina position of power. I think at a minimum she should be suspended with pay. Her activities have cast a shadow over not just her own integrity but the integrity of the entire office.

I am a defense lawyer in solo practice. If I had a boss who I learned was without integrity, I would quit. I believe the vast majority of the DA's Office has integrity. I also believe they have no delusions about Lykos. What I dont understand is how people with integrity can continue to work for someone who has none.

The claims that someone must prosecute fall on deaf ears. If 90% of the office quit, Lykos would be forced to resign or would loose and you would all
Get your jobs back with a DA with honor.

Robb


get your jobs back with a DA who did have integrity.

Robb Fickman

Anonymous said...

Well stated. Big Jolly ought to read this and learn from it. Thanks for sharing, Murray.

Anonymous said...

VERY well stated! Mr. Jennings could gain some valuable knowledge from this. Thanks for sharing, Murray.

Anonymous said...

Sure, rob, let's all quit and (assuming, ad arguendo) that will force lykos to (eventually) quit, are you actually suggesting NO ONE prosecute crime in the interim?!?! Because we fuckin' KNOW lykos ain't prosecutin' shit. See? That's what I hate about this "if you would all just quit" shit. Not a single one of you kamikaze motherfuckers has a plan for the victims. Let's go so far as to "assume" you kindly detractors (A.K.A. defense attorneys) would pay the salaries of the 200 prosecutors who have to quit to appease your sense of integrity. Yeah, right. What happens to the victims? Who stands for them? Not that y'all care. Because all y'all say is the victims are always lying. Until y'all are the victims, of course.

My sense of integrity tells me that even though lykos, leitner bridgwater and especially palmer are crooked as shit, I gotta keep doing my job with integrity and honesty or something much bigger than my honor is lost...and definitely bigger than the honor of defense who say, "abandon the county, A.D.A.s just to prove to us you have integrity!"

IMO, there would be no more cowardly act than to abandon victims when the elected D.A. and her inner circle are failing them.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:36,

NEWS ALERT: the DAs office has already abandoned integrity and victims' rights. That dog ain't gonna hunt. Chikenhit is what chickenshit does and you don't give a rat's ass about nothing but yourself.

Anonymous said...

anon 9:32
The point being: A person in a position such as RP should set the standard a little higher than pleading the 5th. One way or the other she is guilty of something. Stands to reason that she would not take the 5th if she was wasn't lying then or earlier. And that my friend does not take a rocket scientist to figure out. I feel that the office will be tainted beyond repair if Lycos and the tribe are not removed. I am a citizen of Harris County, I am appalled that RP was not fired when she pled the 5th. PL is showing her true colors for all of the public to see. You go girl.

Sue

Anonymous said...

To Anon 9:18 am,

[Anon 9:18 am said:
"Your about as knowledgeable as a box of cat litter."]

Anon 9:18,
Perhaps you should work on your lack of knowledge of the difference between "your" and "you're" before you insult other people's lack of knowledge. You would have a lot more credibility. It would also help if you expressed yourself in adult talk instead of kindergarten putdowns. You probably had a good point, but it was lost in your poor communication skills.

Faithful Reader

Anonymous said...

9:32 - she has the constitutional right to take the 5th, but not to work at the HCDAO. She has humuliated the HCDAO, and made our office look like hypocrites to the citizens. There is no justification for her to remain employed, and Lykos and Jim are too cowardly to fire her.

Anonymous said...

It is clearly not in the public's best interest that all of the rank and file prosecutors quit. Hopefully, the DA's office is somewhat functional, despite the deficits in leadership. Life as a public servant is not always easy. You do your best to serve regardless of your leaders. Keep up the good work and try not to take attacks on leadership deficits as attacks on the people who knowledgeably and competently serve Harris County every day. Those who are neither knowledgeable or competent may continue to feel attacked, but you usually don't know who you are.....

Anonymous said...

If a law enforcement officer refused to give a statement in cooperation with an investigation, he would be subject to termination.

Lawyers, judges, and other legal pimps twist the law and game the system to protect themselves.
How about tell the truth, or go to prison. It's the federal standard.

Anonymous said...

@anon 5:57:

wow. personal attacks. because *that's* not chickenshit (sorry to harsh your buzz, but i spelled chickenshit correctly - deal with it).

as to your argument, i am not the d.a.'s office. i work as an a.d.a. but i am not responsible for office policies and i still do my job to the best of my abilities and ethics. how the fuck do or would you know what i do or do not "give a rat's ass" about in the first place? let me answer that for you, since i've already stated the obvious: you wouldn't.

i (and most of the a.d.a.s) could do anything other than this job that pays shit, has us dealing with defense attorneys who act like augustus gloop in the candy aisle (and veruca salt when they don't get what they want), and then has random, uneducated troglodytes telling me i've no integrity because i won't quit a job that serves an integral function within society. i *choose* to do this work because i have a passion for it - all of it: victims, defendants, society. i, unlike a defense attorney, am not bound by a zealous advocacy for one person. i serve many masters (not just - or even - lykos) and balance many needs and responsibilities.

i have the utmost respect for those attorneys (defense or otherwise) who conduct themselves as i do. at the same time, i can totally name the defense attorneys who tamper with witnesses, the ones who fabricate evidence to try to get a case dismissed, the ones who take state's files to the back and copy d.a. work product taken directly out of the sealed work product folder, the ones who steal unredacted ORs from the file, the ones who lie to CWs and tell them they'll be arrested if they testify to keep them from testifying...i can go on but even you can see my point. i don't hold all defense attorneys out as unethical, lying, felonious idiots lacking integrity. because, oh yes, let's use the "your boss has no integrity, ergo you have none because you continue to work for said boss." many defense attorneys are their own bosses. let's follow *that* to its logical conclusion...OR let's all act like adults and admit that the entire corps of a.d.a.s quitting is a stupid idea that has no basis in reality.

i'm open to suggestions, but please, folks, let's have some planning in those ideas...otherwise your management skills are no better than lykos's. your ideas would further run this office in the same direction she's got it going, which would make some folks undoubtedly happy because they can't separate what they do from who they are. stop tying your identity up in being an attorney. it's really not that big of a deal.

Anonymous said...

Alllow me to comment on the other femme fatale within the DA office ....the wanna bee busy bee lana shadwick ...how come we hear no buzz about that busy b? The word is she is racking up some great endorsements: Gary Polland for starters ... and a host of others. Maybe that's why she is never in the office. Heaven help us all if that incompetent woman becomes judge. Truth be told, Shadwick knows Lykos is going down and she is covering her own behind. Maybe Lykos will endorse Shadwick who will in turn hire her as her court co-ordinator.

Anonymous said...

11:20:

Is that you Seaton? It's hard to tell, but the cross you bear and the crown of thorns look familiar.

Rage

Anonymous said...

No Rage, it's not me. I never whined about anything in general, only specifically about what a prick you are.

Happy Hannukah,
Seaton

Anonymous said...

Dearest Pretentious Anon 11:20,

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much"

Don't get your hypocritical panties in a wad sweet pea. People that truly give of themselves to help others don't whine or pat themselves on the back for it.

Believe it or not you're not all that crucial to Harris County's very survival. If all the ADAs grew a pair and "called in sick", quit, or simply protested en masse the problem would be quickly resolved. Regardless the State of Texas and Harris County would survive your precious absence in the interim. The USA has survived greater losses than a group of petty prosecutors. It is time to grow the fuck up. The city garbage collectors are more vital to our city's welfare we can't have bubonic plague and all to worry about now can we drama mama?

Tom said...

Anon 9:19
When you say that a law enforcement officer (make that any public employee) refuses to answer questions in an investigation, he can be fired.
Well, that's true if reporting to his employer is a condition of employment. But if it is, he has use immunity. He could admit anything and it could not be used against him. See Murphy v. Waterfront Commission.
Tom

Jigmeister said...

Not sure that anyone would have to quit to exert power. How about a petition or in house vote of confidence, even anonymously, say on the issue of Palmer staying employed to start? Yep, it would take some courage, but I would say most of you have been courageous most of your adult lives. Getting through college, law school, trying difficult cases, confronting the contentious witness, foregoing the big paycheck, to say nothing of some of the risky personal decisions you have all made.

Think about how it looks to the general public. They have no idea how bad it's gotten for you and crime victims. I think about the North Korean population all suffering from Stockholm syndrome, afraid of their own shadows. All of you are highly educated, motivated decision makers, that shouldnt have to live under that shadow. Sometimes we make our our own destiny.

I always said I would quit when it was no longer fun or I became unhappy. I did that during Rosenthal's reign. I concede that it was after I qualified for a pension, but I loved the job until then. If you rationalize that your sole motive in failing to do anything is victim welfare, your lying to yourself. Victim welfare and efficiency of the office is the reason to take some action.

I have always felt that people in the office were family and we deeply cared for each other. It is traumatic to watch that family destroyed from within by those I don't consider worthy of family membership.

Ow

Spunk said...

To Anon 9:32 a.m.,
You were the second earliest commentor and very careful to correct the precision of the stated law pertaining to the 5th Amendment because I left out "that a truthful answer may tend to incriminate you." Given your very early response coupled with your determined effort to somehow make it seem less than shameful that tonight a prosecutor named Rachel Palmer has plead the 5th amendment to a grand jury and still has a job as a prosecutor, I'm going to guess that you are probably Jim Leitner or at least someone close to Lykos who has been assigned holiday blog-watch patrol.

To you I say tend-schmend! This isn't law school or voir diring a group of people off the street at random. We are discussing this mostly among criminal lawyers on both sides of the table, current and former. And despite your best efforts, there really is no way anyone can defend the elected DA Pat Lykos for keeping a prosecutor employed after invoking the 5th amendment. The truth is the truth, if Rachel really did nothing wrong how is the truth going to hurt her. I doubt the general law abiding public would be any better reassured by the distinction that prosecutors in Harris County are only tolerated when they only tend to incriminate themselves.
Besides, noone really thinks Rachel Palmer made the unprecedented shameful decision to plead the 5th amendment to a grand jury, more shamefully with the DA's Office's backing, unless her conduct amounts to more than a "tendency" to commit a crime. The fact that she is backed by Lykos screams the obvious, not only is Rachel worried about incriminating herself; she is also hiding something even more damaging to her protector Pat Lykos than having a prosecutor who is taking the 5th and NOT being fired.

Remember what Lykos did to Mark Donnelly and Rifi Newaz? What has happened to that itchy trigger finger, and that promised transparency (I think any politician who utters that word is bound to be hiding something). Why is the DA's office holding on to this political liability??? To Do: Add to Operations Manual: If you are a prosecutor, you should not be entitled to keep your job for any reason if you assert the 5th amendment in front of a grand jury. PERIOD.

Pat Lykos is harboring a fugitive (Rachel), she is hindering apprehension (Rachel). Someday Pat Lykos is going to have to face a camera. Today or two months from now even channel 11 is bound to ask her the questions I am asking.

Spunk

Anonymous said...

My dearest troglodyte 9:54:

ha! same stupid idea. no planning, no logistics, no creativity. and no, this isn't seaton. and i'm no martyr. i'm not whining about my job, rage, i'm simply saying if the elected d.a. is falling down on the job (whether from incompetence or intoxication), the rest of the office doesn't have to fall with her. we can all just keep on doing what we do as well as we are able. but, yes, i am severely frustrated by the the taint palmer has cast on all of us, which is fed by folks like troggie.

and *of course* my presence isn't required here, troggie. like i said, i choose to do this. at least i *have* choices and my ego isn't tied up in my occupation. and i never said i gave anything of myself to this job - it's not a charity. it's a job. i get more out of this than i give. ftr, i am an incredibly selfish person - and nothing i do is free. everything costs, son.

troggie, i'm glad you don't see the need for prosecutors. let's see how you feel after you're a victim.

i like jigmeister's idea better. a vote of no confidence, made public, would have an effect and give the office a voice. there's no lack of services to the taxpayers and the victims aren't left twisting.

i agree with jigmeister's statement about leaving when it's not fun anymore, and i will. but, jigmeister, i stay here because i enjoy what i do (though not the circumstances under which i do it), and that encompasses being a voice for victims (i've been one myself, though voiceless at the time). i would love to have a voice here and welcome suggestions as i said. sometimes it's easier for someone standing outside to see the way out of the maze for those inside. couple that with the already overwhelming workload the average a.d.a. has and you've got folks who are so busy trying to do the job they haven't the time to coordinate a revolution. but that doesn't equate to an implicit approval of this 5th amendment bullshit move by palmer or her backing by lykos.

Anonymous said...

I'm betting that Rachel's got so much shit on Lykos that Rachel KNOWS Lykos doesn't have the balls to get rid of her. That and the fact that that crazy unemployed eff-up of a husband, Don Hooper, would turn his sights on Lykos and the gang has Rachel sitting pretty. (well, you know what I mean...without that hook nose and all). And considering Leitner's balls are in a jar on Lykos' desk already, who in that office is going to ever man up and make a suggestion to do what's right? The cards are falling. Just sit back and enjoy the ride. Just ask the Repubs who used to back her but now avoid her like the plague. She's toast. And then Jimmy's going to have to go back to face his wife.... life is good.

Jigmeister said...

Someone who is about to quit or has recently quit ought to start the vote of confidence by walking it around the office and collecting the votes, even from the management staff and then the results can be posted and supplied to the media. I'm afraid an online ballot would be subject to multiple voting in order to bias the results.

As an aside, I had a long conversation with Mike Anderson while I was in town over Christmas. Amongst other things he told me was what he was giving up to run. He told me that he had been making more money than he had ever made on the bench and visiting with his pension. He would lose that, at least while in office as DA. He said that he really felt for the new ADA's that had never experienced the respect that we had throughout the state and country as one of the most admired offices in the country. He said that Johnny had been on him for months to run because of his anguish and self guilt. Perhaps if you understand the depth of their feeling, you might see where your duty lies. I think you can count on them do do their part.

Anonymous said...

Jigmeister,

Let's be honest shall we. If Mike was truly making all that money why the hell was his wife Devon trying so hard to make money as a criminal defense laywer? Does Devon really enjoy doing that kind of work? Really? I'll bet dollars to donuts if Mike pulls this off Devon will be prancing around being Miss DA and not hustling defendants. Care to wager? As for JBH he never should have supported Chucky Fucky and this mess wouldn't be what it is.

Anonymous said...

If Mike wins, Devon will have to give up her practice, whether she wants to or not, or only take cases from other counties.

Anonymous said...

6:11pm. If Holmes hadn't supported Rosenthal Lykos would have won in 2000 so your logic fails. All Holmes' support of Rosenthal did was delay the plague.

LOGIC 101 said...

Anon 12:04,

Mr. Concrete thought let's think outside the box for a second:

When JBH decided he was going to retire instead of saying fuck it--sera sera as he did, he could and should have actively pursued a qualified relacement and paved the way for a smooth transition. That would have precluded the Chuckster from ever being a viable candidate and Lykos would have been a non-issue then and today. Instead, JBH chose to be passive aggressive forcing him to reluctantly endorse Chuck at the 11th hour to avoid someone even worse--Pat Lykos.

Consequences are a bitch.

Mark W. Stephens said...

Jigmeister,

Well stated and an excellent idea. Having to face a decision to quit a job you love is something I would not wish on anyone.

Sacrificing your career for the sake of truth and justice is something I am intimately familiar with. And while it was the right decision for me at that time, because then Chief Bradford was someone I considered unfit to wear a badge much less lead the police department and the retaliation for my attempt to have him investigated/idicted for corruption became too much for my family and I to continue enduring, the decision to actually leave was the hardest decision of my life. My last day at HPD, I cried like a baby.

Sacrificing my career for what I deemed to be a noble cause, and for what was a noble cause, actually did nothing for truth and justice at the time. (Though it has had a longer term positive effect, and will likely have a future positive effect if Bradford runs for Mayor or any other higher office). And though I never entered law enforcement to "get rich," leaving when I did was financially devastating to my family and I.

So, I have to disagree with anyone who suggests the ADAs quit their job to make a point. Like I said, I wouldn't wish that decision on anyone.

Been there. Done that.

Your idea of having them stay and fight together would accomplish much more.

-Mark