conflict of interest
MarilynMann
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details.asp?mscssid=KQ2R57SQ07CW8H2NVDUE9AXV946KEQB8&sitetype=1&did=4&sid=34205&pid=&keyword=conflict+of+interest§ion=cartoons&title=undefined&whichpage=1&sortBy=popular
Dear Marilyn,
Do you not find it is curious how Americans do not see legal
representation as a right when it is spelled out in the Constitution
that they have
"the right to legal representation." ?
Otoh, Americans do see health insurance as a right though many of the
same folks balk at the premiums until they develop a chronic medical
condition which causes them to be uninsurable within their financial
means.
May GOD of Abraham bless you in HIS mighty way making you healthier
(hungrier) than ever:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cardiologist
MarilynMann
> Dear Marilyn,
>
> Do you not find it is curious how Americans do not see legal
> representation as a right when it is spelled out in the Constitution
> that they have
> "the right to legal representation." ?
>
"In all criminal proceedings, the accused shall enjoy the right...to
have the assistance of counsel for his defense." Sixth Amendment
It was not until 1963 that the Supreme Court held that the sixth and
fourteenth amendments required that states must pay for such
representation for those unable to afford it. Gideon v. Wainwright,
372 U.S. 335 (1963).
I am not sure why you are saying Americans do not see this as a right,
however.
Marilyn
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > Dear Marilyn,
> >
> > Do you not find it is curious how Americans do not see legal
> > representation as a right when it is spelled out in the Constitution
> > that they have "the right to legal representation." ?
> >
> I assume you are speaking of criminal proceedings:
>
> "In all criminal proceedings, the accused shall enjoy the right...to
> have the assistance of counsel for his defense." Sixth Amendment
Correct.
> It was not until 1963 that the Supreme Court held that the sixth and
> fourteenth amendments required that states must pay for such
> representation for those unable to afford it. Gideon v. Wainwright,
> 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
>
> I am not sure why you are saying Americans do not see this as a right,
> however.
If they truly saw it as a right (as they do for medical care), they
would be clamouring for national legal insurance so that they would
have the means of hiring whomever they perceive to be the best
available legal representation (i.e. someone like Johnny Cochran) in
the tragic event of facing criminal charges.
May GOD of Abraham and Moses bless you in HIS mighty way making you
MarilynMann
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> friend barrister MarilynMann wrote:
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > > Dear Marilyn,
>
> > > Do you not find it is curious how Americans do not see legal
> > > representation as a right when it is spelled out in the Constitution
> > > that they have "the right to legal representation." ?
>
> > I assume you are speaking of criminal proceedings:
>
> > "In all criminal proceedings, the accused shall enjoy the right...to
> > have the assistance of counsel for his defense." Sixth Amendment
>
> Correct.
>
> > It was not until 1963 that the Supreme Court held that the sixth and
> > fourteenth amendments required that states must pay for such
> > representation for those unable to afford it. Gideon v. Wainwright,
> > 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
>
> > I am not sure why you are saying Americans do not see this as a right,
> > however.
>
> If they truly saw it as a right (as they do for medical care), they
> would be clamouring for national legal insurance so that they would
> have the means of hiring whomever they perceive to be the best
> available legal representation (i.e. someone like Johnny Cochran) in
> the tragic event of facing criminal charges.
>
I'm not sure Johnny Cochran would be the first person I would think of
if I were looking for a criminal lawyer.
Are you proposing that the taxpayers pay for such insurance? Do you
have any idea what kind of hourly rates top criminal lawyers charge?
Not to mention that by definition there is a limited quantity of such
persons.
Better to concentrate on improving representation for indigent
defendants. My impression is that this is one of the many
difficulties with administration of the death penalty -- lawyers
appointed to represent defendants in capital cases do not always do a
very good job. Inadequate representation of counsel is often one of
the grounds raised on appeal (not by the same counsel, of course).
Marilyn
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
He did get OJ Simpson acquitted and this was a high profile case that
enters into public perception.
> Are you proposing that the taxpayers pay for such insurance?
That is the proposal for national health insurance so it would be the
proposal for national legal insurance.
> Do you
> have any idea what kind of hourly rates top criminal lawyers charge?
Yes. It is comparable to the hourly rates that the top physicians
charge.
> Not to mention that by definition there is a limited quantity of such
> persons.
Similarly there is a limited quantity of those whom people perceive to
be the top physicians.
> Better to concentrate on improving representation for indigent
> defendants. My impression is that this is one of the many
> difficulties with administration of the death penalty -- lawyers
> appointed to represent defendants in capital cases do not always do a
> very good job. Inadequate representation of counsel is often one of
> the grounds raised on appeal (not by the same counsel, of course).
There are parallels with the U.S. health care crisis.
Perhaps someone like Michael Moore should do a documentary titled
Prison-O.
Be hungry... be healthy... be blessed:
KC
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> friend barrister MarilynMann wrote:
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > > Dear Marilyn,
>
> > > Do you not find it is curious how Americans do not see legal
> > > representation as a right when it is spelled out in the Constitution
> > > that they have "the right to legal representation." ?
>
> > I assume you are speaking of criminal proceedings:
>
> > "In all criminal proceedings, the accused shall enjoy the right...to
> > have the assistance of counsel for his defense." Sixth Amendment
>
> Correct.
>
> > It was not until 1963 that the Supreme Court held that the sixth and
> > fourteenth amendments required that states must pay for such
> > representation for those unable to afford it. Gideon v. Wainwright,
> > 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
>
> > I am not sure why you are saying Americans do not see this as a right,
> > however.
>
> If they truly saw it as a right (as they do for medical care), they
> would be clamouring for national legal insurance so that they would
> have the means of hiring whomever they perceive to be the best
> available legal representation (i.e. someone like Johnny Cochran) in
> the tragic event of facing criminal charges.
>
Perhaps they are not clamouring for it because there is already a
system in place to guarantee public defenders to people facing
criminal charges who cannot afford an attorney. There is not
currently a system in place to provide medical care to those who can't
afford it.
I guess some people do think that they would get the very best care
from a public health system. I suspect care through a public health
system would be less good (mostly longer waits) than care through the
current system, but if we did it like Australia, people could still
buy private insurance to be able to be cared for at private hospitals
if they wanted, and people who couldn't afford that could still get
good care through a public system, but may have to wait longer for
services.
It is understandable you as a doctor may be against having public
medicine as it could reduce your longterm earning potential.
KC
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Actually, there is.
It is called Medicaid.
Moreover, in the U.S., no one is legally turned away from a hospital
emergency room because of inability to pay.
> I guess some people do think that they would get the very best care
> from a public health system.
Actually, few who use the current public (county) health systems in
the U.S. think they are getting the very best care because the wait is
long and they typically do not get to see a doctor but rather a nurse
practitioner (NP) or physician assistant (PA).
> I suspect care through a public health
> system would be less good (mostly longer waits) than care through the
> current system, but if we did it like Australia, people could still
> buy private insurance to be able to be cared for at private hospitals
> if they wanted, and people who couldn't afford that could still get
> good care through a public system, but may have to wait longer for
> services.
Presently, in the U.S., the poor (Medicaid) and the retired (Medicare)
have free (tax-payer sponsored) private insurance.
It is the self-employed middle class that are electing unwisely to go
without health insurance in the U.S.
> It is understandable you as a doctor may be against having public
> medicine as it could reduce your longterm earning potential.
Actually my view on this is:
GOD's will be done and not my will.
However, it is understandable that corporate America, the self-
employed middle class, and hospitals with ERs are in favor of free
(tax-payer supported) national health insurance.
Be hungry... be healthy... be blessed:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease
Don Kirkman
article <1184545098....@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>friend barrister MarilynMann wrote:
>> I'm not sure Johnny Cochran would be the first person I would think of
>> if I were looking for a criminal lawyer.
>He did get OJ Simpson acquitted and this was a high profile case that
>enters into public perception.
And most who know the case believe a weak prosecution team and a jury
somewhat in awe of both the all-star defense team and the defendant
played as big a part in the verdict as Cochran himself did. Many still
believe the verdict was wrong; it seems clear the jury did not take time
to consider all the evidence but on the basis of defense questions and
insinuations about the integrity of some of the forensic evidence
rejected all the evidence in the case.
--
Don Kirkman
Don Kirkman
<1184543893.1...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jul 15, 7:32 pm, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
><heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
>> friend barrister MarilynMann wrote:
>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> If they truly saw it as a right (as they do for medical care), they
>> would be clamouring for national legal insurance so that they would
>> have the means of hiring whomever they perceive to be the best
>> available legal representation (i.e. someone like Johnny Cochran) in
>> the tragic event of facing criminal charges.
Actually Americans seem to be well aware of their right to counsel of
their own choosing in criminal cases; the clamor over health care is
evidence that they think health care is not yet a right but should be.
>I'm not sure Johnny Cochran would be the first person I would think of
>if I were looking for a criminal lawyer.
Yes, especially since he's been dead for a while now. After he left off
being a prosecutor he became a defense attorney largely working big
name/ big money (and often controversial) cases, hardly a lawyer likely
to be available for us common folks. Even among that type of attorney
he was one of many of equivalent celebrity and ability.
--
Don Kirkman
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> I'm not sure Johnny Cochran would be the first person I would think of
> >> if I were looking for a criminal lawyer.
>
> >He did get OJ Simpson acquitted and this was a high profile case that
> >enters into public perception.
>
> And most who know the case believe a weak prosecution team and a jury
> somewhat in awe of both the all-star defense team and the defendant
> played as big a part in the verdict as Cochran himself did. Many still
> believe the verdict was wrong; it seems clear the jury did not take time
> to consider all the evidence but on the basis of defense questions and
> insinuations about the integrity of some of the forensic evidence
> rejected all the evidence in the case.
It seems you would claim that the outcome of this criminal case was
determined more by the lawyering (on either side) than by the evidence
(facts).
This should have folks even more motivated to clamor for national
legal insurance (at least as much as they are clamoring for national
health insurance) to protect them from the tragic event of being
charged with a crime especially if they truly believe in their
Constitutional right to (the best) legal representation during
criminal prosecution.
MarilynMann
> >I'm not sure Johnny Cochran would be the first person I would think of
> >if I were looking for a criminal lawyer.
>
> Yes, especially since he's been dead for a while now.
I was not aware that he was dead.
Marilyn
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
He died from an inoperable brain tumor at age 67 a little more than 2
years ago:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/29/cochran.obit/
My condolences to his surviving friends and family.
Be hungry... be healthy... be blessed:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease
MarilynMann
MarilynMann
> > have any idea what kind of hourly rates top criminal lawyers charge?
>
> Yes. It is comparable to the hourly rates that the top physicians
> charge.
>
I don't have the facts on that, but generally there would not be as
many hours involved. Some partners in large law firms charge $500-800/
hr. Check out this article on the potential cost of defending against
a white-collar criminal charge. Bear in mind that not all of this is
legal fees. There is document review, experts, etc.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1184231199215
Marilyn
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
Again, one has to wonder why Americans are not clamoring for national
legal insurance as they are clamoring for national health insurance if
they believe that they are entitled to the right of having their (best/
most expensive) legal representation (as written in the Constitution)
when faced with criminal prosecution as they believe they are entitled
to the right to have the best (most expensive) health care when
stricken with an illness. Moreover, this assumed latter right is not
even written in the Constitution ! ! !
Perhaps this can be Michael Moore's next documentary. The title
Prison-O would still be appropriate.
Don Kirkman
>convicted neighbor Don Kirkman wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >friend barrister MarilynMann wrote:
>> >> I'm not sure Johnny Cochran would be the first person I would think of
>> >> if I were looking for a criminal lawyer.
>>
>> >He did get OJ Simpson acquitted and this was a high profile case that
>> >enters into public perception.
>>
>> And most who know the case believe a weak prosecution team and a jury
>> somewhat in awe of both the all-star defense team and the defendant
>> played as big a part in the verdict as Cochran himself did. Many still
>> believe the verdict was wrong; it seems clear the jury did not take time
>> to consider all the evidence but on the basis of defense questions and
>> insinuations about the integrity of some of the forensic evidence
>> rejected all the evidence in the case.
>It seems you would claim that the outcome of this criminal case was
>determined more by the lawyering (on either side) than by the evidence
>(facts).
Well, to my surprise you apparently really can read and understand when
you want to, contrary to the impression you often leave your readers
with.
--
Don Kirkman
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >convicted neighbor Don Kirkman wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> >friend barrister MarilynMann wrote:
>
> >> >> I'm not sure Johnny Cochran would be the first person I would think of
> >> >> if I were looking for a criminal lawyer.
> >>
> >> >He did get OJ Simpson acquitted and this was a high profile case that
> >> >enters into public perception.
> >>
> >> And most who know the case believe a weak prosecution team and a jury
> >> somewhat in awe of both the all-star defense team and the defendant
> >> played as big a part in the verdict as Cochran himself did. Many still
> >> believe the verdict was wrong; it seems clear the jury did not take time
> >> to consider all the evidence but on the basis of defense questions and
> >> insinuations about the integrity of some of the forensic evidence
> >> rejected all the evidence in the case.
>
> >It seems you would claim that the outcome of this criminal case was
> >determined more by the lawyering (on either side) than by the evidence
> >(facts).
>
> Well, to my surprise you apparently really can read and understand when
> you want to, contrary to the impression you often leave your readers
> with.
Really can't return the compliment in your case.
You will always be without wisdom and understanding while you are
without GOD, Who is the Source of both.
Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for HIS compelling
you to unwittingly fulfill HIS prophecy concerning the worldly wise.
Laus Deo !
Be hungry... be healthy... be blessed:
http:///HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease