How Another Hour Of My Life Was Just Consumed By A Conspiracy of Incompetence…

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

I wonder if I can create a mass tort claim against the people responsible for episodes like this. Behold:

1. On March 28, I received a threatening letter from First Source, LLC, a debt collector. It alleged that I had an account with something called AfterPay U.S., which I have never heard of, for $750, that I never spent, for something that I still have no idea what it was. The letter also said that I now only owed $590.64, since I had paid $187.50, which I have not. My bank doesn’t thinks so either.

2. I called First Source, which …Hallelujah!…has an automated system that got me to a human being almost immediately. That human being was Rhea. She was cordial and professional, and did not constantly read from a script. She heard me out, and said that she would initiate a fraud investigation. I didn’t have to do anything more.

3. Yesterday I received two cheerful emails from AfterPay. Both involved alerting me that I had changed my email associated with my imaginary account. I hadn’t done anything regarding AfterPay, because I still don’t know what the hell it does other than charge people for stuff they never bought, and my email has been the same for 20 years. “Please log into your AfterPay account to view these changes. If this information is incorrect, please update so we have the most up to date information for you,” “Shiara” of Customer Support informed me. “Have a great day.”

Bite me, Shaira.

4. This morning I called FirstSource back to ask what’s going on. But instead of Rhea, I reached Michael, who appeared to be an idiot. As I tried to explain what had happened, he kept reading disclaimers and asking me for the same information I had already given to Rhea and that was already in my file, since it was repeated in the letter FirstSource had sent me. I told him, “I have a simple question you need to answer,” and he replied, “I can’t answer it because you keep interrupting me!” “No,” I said, “I keep asking you to stop reading a script that I have heard already, and to talk to me like a human being, and listen to what I am trying to tell you.” He hung up.

5. I called back and got Michael again. He acted as if we hadn’t just spoken second earlier. He read the same script, an asked me for the same information: my full name, my date of birth, my mailing address, and my “reference number.” It was literally de ja vu: a near exact replay of our previous conversation. This time, he said, “We have closed your account, so you will have to contact AfterPay.” Progress! He then gave me a phone number.

6. I called it. It didn’t work.

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Conflict at Trader Joe’s

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

It’s as if these situations seek me out.

Here I was at Trader Joe’s, doing a quick grocery run after a Zoom seminar, when a small, dark, middle-aged woman woman speaking some variation of English stops me. “Please, sir.” she says, and flashes a card with words written on it. “I am poor and hungry and have children,” it says.

That’s a first: a panhandler in a grocery store. I told her to wait a second and I dug in my wallet to find six bucks, which I gave to her. Then she showed me a basket of some kind of consumables. “Buy food?” she said. What, did she take credit cards?

I shook my head and left. But by the time I got to check-out, the scenario bothered me. Trader Joe’s has a hippie vibe, even a cultish vibe, so maybe panhandlers are welcome, but an in-store competitor seemed a bit over the line. I ultimately decided to blow the whistle on her, and told the store manager on duty that someone was peddling their own commodities in the store. My reasoning: if Trader Joe’s wants to allow that sort of thing out of fatal empathy, it’s their choice. But they at least should know about it.

I half expected the manager to say, “Oh, that’s just Gladys. She’s harmless.”

This ethics decision-making episode fell into my Golden Rule basket. If I was the store owner, I would want to know about Gladys, or whatever her real name was.

I’m still feeling guilty, however.

On The Matter of a Murderer’s Insanity

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Conservative pundits seem to be having a problem with the fact that Decarlos Dejuan Brown Jr., the homeless man who slaughtered Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska on a Charlotte subway as her fellow riders pretended they were under the sea or something, has been declared incapable of standing trial and prosecutors have delayed his competency hearing by six months.

A horrified conservative writes on PJ Media in part:

“….because soft-on-crime authorities in Charlotte ensured he was always released on cashless bail after his 14 prior arrests, he was free to thrust his knife into a stranger on the subway. Unfortunately, woke medical and legal professionals continue to treat Brown as if he were the victim, a pitiable, crazy man with no responsibility for his actions, rather than as a serial criminal and sadistic killer. The new assessment that Brown is incompetent to stand trial could prevent trying him for the death penalty….”

Ethics Alarms has barely touched on the question of whether not guilty by reason of insanity verdicts (NGBRI) are ethical or even sensible. That’s a big failing, because this is one of the major ethics questions in criminal law, and one that is still unsettled. It may be beyond settling.

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: Investigative Reporting Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

In this article, (Gift Link) a New York Times investigative reporter explains how he has cultivated a source that he knows is distributing illegal drugs that may be fatal.

He writes in part,

“It was a small-time operation, but one that illuminated a big point for our reporting: A single person, without cartel backing, can order and redistribute potent chemicals.

I wanted to verify his account with others. But I also had to make good on my commitment not to reveal his identity. So I compared the information he was giving me with reporting I’d done with dozens of experts and law enforcement officials who told me what they understood about this market. I also spoke to people in his circle of friends and associates.

All along, I was keenly aware that the drugs Chemical Analyst was selling can be fatal. I asked him about this — as I’d asked other dealers and suppliers — and he professed here to be a libertarian. As a human, I find it terrifying the drugs he sells could kill people. It was painful to watch him use drugs himself, and I often feared for his safety. But as a reporter, I have a responsibility to explain to the public what’s really happening on the drug frontier.”

This is different from most Ethics Quizzes here, because my position is set and unshakable. The reporter’s duty “to make good on [his] commitment not to reveal [the drug pusher’s] identity” must be subordinate to his duty to society as a citizen and responsible human being. Even lawyers are authorized to violate a clients’ confidentiality to prevent death or serious bodily injury to a third party. How many people should die so that the reporter can explain what’s happening on “the drug frontier?” My verdict: none.

The reporter says he’s talked to lawyers and other journalists as well as “experts” and law enforcement officials. I doubt that he has talked with any ethicists.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day(that I have already told you my answer to..) is…

Would it be ethical for the reporter sic the police on this criminal? Could it be ethical not to?

I Just Can’t Give Trump a “Julie Principle” Pass When He Says Things Like This…

/ Jack Marshall / 25 Comments

“For Fox executives only, take Jessica Tarlov off the air. She is, from her voice, to her lies, and everything else about her, one of the worst ‘personalities’ on television, a real loser! People cannot stand watching her.”

….quoth the President in a Truth Social post two days ago. Tarlov is one of the rotating progressive Democrat co-hosts on Fox News’ talk show “The Five” and routinely does what she was hired to do, which is to be the house contrarian on a biased news channel, like Scott Jennings on CNN.

It’s a lonely and crummy job, but somebody’s got to do it. Jennings does it much better, but 1) he’s smart, articulate, and usually has the right side to defend, 2) the wokies and Axis agents on the panels with him are hardly the best and the brightest, and 3) Tarlov isn’t the worst of Fox’s hired Lefties, and I’d rank her as better than Juan Williams, the thankfully departed long-time holder of that role on Fox. Faint praise, I know.

But Ethics Alarms correctly slammed the Biden White House when it dishonestly attacked Greg Gutfield of “The Five” in 2023, so I shouldn’t use The Julie Principle to give President Trump a pass now. Presidents should only carefully criticize journalists and pundits by name if at all, and Trump doesn’t do anything carefully. It is punching down by definition; it looks petty, it makes him look thin-skinned and weak, and worst of all, it hands his principle-free and shameless critics an opportunity to say he’s pro-censorship.

This has been true for years, and yet Trump has a flat learning curve. It’s like a man who keeps smashing his head against a wall without figuring out that it’s not a good idea.

The Tarlov nonsense is even worse that that, in fact. After Trump has “demanded” (he can’t demand, because its none of his business) that Fox fire someone like Tarlov, he’s given that individual immunity from getting dismissed no matter what she does. Fox News has to keep Tarlov or look like Trump is running the network. Fox News is too much of a Trump and MAGA lackey already.

Pages: 1 2

The ABA Wants Lawyers To Report Biased Judges

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Hmmmm. It can’t be that the notoriously woke ABA is concerned about partisan judges legislating from the bench, can it? Naaah, impossible. What was I thinking?

The American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility today released a formal ethics opinion regarding the ethical obligations of lawyers who possess information that could lead to a judge’s disqualification. The opinion declares that a lawyer’s role as an officer of the court requires the disclosure of such information to protect the integrity of the judicial process, provided the disclosure does not violate client confidentiality.

Citing ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d), otherwise known as the “catch-all rule” that some bar associations (like Virginia) regard as too vague to be meaningful, the ABA concludes that because lawyers are prohibited from engaging in conduct that is “prejudicial to the administration of justice,” when a lawyer knows of information reasonably likely to trigger a judge’s disqualification obligation under the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, the lawyer has a duty to speak up. Lawyers typically would rather not do so in such situations, being afraid of making an enemy in black robes.

Examples of such information not meant to be all-inclusive include prior employment connections (a client of mine couldn’t get a judge to recuse despite his having been a partner in the opposing counsel’s law firm), campaign contributions (the judge knowing that your client, or you, contributed to the judicial candidate who ran against her); a spouse’s law firm’s involvement in the case, and a counsel’s business relationship with a judge’s family member.

Here is the link for ABA Opinion 522.

Anyone Who Genuinely Couldn’t Figure Out That Trump’s Threats and Deadline For Iran’s Annihilation Weren’t Bargaining Ploys Should Shut Up… Forever

/ Jack Marshall / 28 Comments

…or at least stop weighing in during this President’s term.

What does it take for the Trump Deranged and hopelessly biased (or hopelessly stupid, or hopelessly dishonest) to be embarrassed? Surely there has to be a tipping point where the public starts pointing and laughing. Surely. Surely.

No? Wasn’t it obvious that Trump’s “war crime” ultimatums were designed to get Iran to make concessions? I don’t mean just obvious to me (“I’m smart! I’m not dumb like everyone says!”) but obvious to doctors, lawyers, beggarmen, thieves and Indian chiefs along with anyone else who has watched this guy operate since his real estate days? Seriously? Really? No? Wow.

I’d like to make Rep. Ro Khanna the poster fool for this malady. Shortly after this EA post, Trump announced the two week cease-fire and Khanna did a double back-flip with a twist, stood on his metaphorical head and called the President a TACO, as in “Trump Always Chickens Out”! This is another clear Trump Derangement symptom. Attack the President on the presumption that he is doing or will do one thing, then attack him when he does the opposite.

Why isn’t this embarrassing to those exposed again and again as reflexively criticizing whatever the President does? Let’s see: the ethical values here are fairness, honesty, integrity, accountability, consistency (being consistently inconsistent doesn’t qualify), prudence, proportionality, humility…there are more, but I don’t feel like looking up the list. Ethics, analysis, logic and reality has nothing to do with how these critics react. It’s all emotion and the Cognitive Dissonance Scale:

Imagine, however, that sub-zero section reaching down forever to infinity, with Trump there rather than only at -10. Prof. Festinger’s theory holds that a negative bias that strong is enough to pull anything…literally anything, people, ideas, books, policies, bunnies, rainbows, babies, The Beatles, Taylor Swift, Nancy Guthrie, opposing cannibalism…into negative territory. What’s going on here? THAT’S what’s going on.

Podcaster Dave Rubin wrote on X: “Trump has been running the same negotiation playbook forever. Pressure, escalation, chaos… then leverage a deal. We’ve watched it happen again and again. This wasn’t complicated. It was basic pattern recognition.” Yup! What does this tell you about people who refuse to see that pattern? Go ahead: come up with a kind description. I can’t think of any.

While Fox News and even CNN were properly reporting on the developments in Iran (Not a word about Nancy Guthrie!) do you know what MSNOW decide was the big news? The danger that Trump was going to come up with some way to steal the mid-terms! Yes, that well-used “future news” subcategory of fake news.

Anyone who watches MSNOW for anything but amusement or intelligence on what the Axis of Unethical Conduct is plotting next should also be embarrassed. How I long to post an entry like this on Facebook…but that would be mean. But fun. But mean…

Over at the New York Post, conservative pundit and law prof Glenn Reynolds wrote, before yesterday’s late developments,

Pages: 1 2

Stop Making Me Defend “Law and Order”!

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

A recent study accuses Dick Wolf and his various “Law & Order” shows of “manufacturing white criminals.”

Depictions of criminality and violence on “Law & Order,” the researchers say, are misleading and divisive. “Results suggest whites are disproportionately portrayed as criminals five to eight times more often on police dramas compared to actual crime statistics for the city of New York,” we are told, “and exposure to police dramas leads to elevated perceptions of white criminality among non-whites.”

Oh, bite me.

Don’t get me started on all the ways “Law & Order,” “Law and Order SVU” and TV procedurals in general commit routine demographic whoppers. All the police women are trim and gorgeous, for example, except for Mariska Hargitay, who is 62 and way past her pull-date. These shows, see, are make believe. They aren’t documentaries, and anyone who thinks they represent real life should be watching Nickelodeon.

If you believed television shows or streaming series were accurate, you would conclude that half the population is gay. You would also be convinced that all illegal immigrants wonderful people just trying to have a better life. Commercials tell us that about 60% of couples are mixed race. The procedurals also pretend that most computer and tech whizzes are female, black, or both. It’s nonsense, but why should anyone care? Yes, it’s indoctrination by trying to erase somewhat accurate stereotypes, but so what? That’s entertainment.

And we all know—why don’t the researchers?—that if L&O showed the disproportionately high rate of black on white crime consistent with the statistics, it would be boycotted and attacked as racist. At least pretending that almost all inner city crimes are committed by whites gets white actors hired while Hollywood is actively trying to DEI them onto the unemployment line.

Incompetent Elected Official of the Month (and an Ethics Dunce To Boot): Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Cal.)

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Wow. Just look at this tweet…

So any unethical assholes to write about, so little time.

What do you think: does this creep know how dumb that tweet is? Or is he just counting on the dumb voters who elected him not to be civically literate enough to realize it? We have so many incompetent, irresponsible fools in Congress that it’s hard to keep up with all of them, but this guy is special.

Let’s see:

1. The 25th Amendment is specifically designed for situations where the President of the United States is disabled. The Democratic Party’s delusion that it can be used to remove a President whose policies they don’t like or whose public utterances are annoying is itself unconstitutional.

2. Like so many progressives, Ro wants to criminalize speech. Threatening isn’t a war crime: it’s called negotiation. When Nikita Khrushchev said “We will bury you,” nobody was stupid enough to call it a war crime. But Ro, as I said, is special.

3. Exactly what provision of the Constitution does this moron think prohibits Presidential speech, whether it is threatening or not? Either Rep. Khanna hasn’t read the Constitution, has read it but doesn’t get it, or he’s lying.

4. The argument that threatening to destroy the infrastructure of an enemy is a war crime is being flogged by Democrats now who want to make sure the U.S. loses. If a nation makes a threat only in order to “spread terror” among civilians, that’s a war crime, supposedly (that war crime has never been prosecuted or charged). If the threats are designed to, you know, make the enemy surrender, it’s not a crime. If threats in war are aimed at making the enemy commit a war crime itself (“Kill all the male babies or we destroy your electric plants!”) that’s a “war crime.” If the threat is used to get an enemy to be reasonable and negotiate, it’s copacetic. Mind readers are not admissible in court as expert witnesses.

In any event, neither the United States, nor President Trump, not I, would submit to any international claim that threatening a brutal, dangerous, terrorism-spreading nation like Iran with mass destruction is a “war crime.” A law that is void for vagueness and unenforceable isn’t a law at all. I wonder if Ro knows that.

The anti-American, anti-Trump, anti-military, anti-strength weenies that run the Axis of Unethical Conduct think war itself is a “war crime.” They would love to settle disputes with evil regimes like Iran with a Twister tournament.

Dana Milbank Helpfully Illustrates Why So Many Pundits Are Useless and Incompetent

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Dana Milbank is one of the Washington Post’s most dishonest and untrustworthy partisan hacks, so naturally he rates a “Guest Essay” in the New York Times. This one is called, “How Much Humiliation Can JD Vance Take?”. The thing is filled with the standard issue Axis talking points ( GOP policies to enforce laws against illegal immigrants are “anti-immigrant stances” and are among “other dark elements of the MAGA movement”) but the most notable aspect of this trash is that Milbank found remarkable what is standard management practice in business, government, and in fact any hierarchical organization blessed with competent leadership. He wrote,

“At a closed-door Easter luncheon at the White House, President Trump decided to entertain the crowd by humiliating his understudy. Mr. Trump demanded an update on Iran peace negotiations from Vice President JD Vance. “How’s that moving?” Mr. Trump asked, in a video of the event the White House seemed to have accidentally posted online. “It’s going good, sir,” Mr. Vance replied from the audience. Mr. Trump cut off the rest of his response.“Do you see it happening?” the president asked, about a successful end to the war. “Uh,” the vice president replied. “We’re going to brief it to you.” Then Mr. Trump delivered his punchline. “So, if it doesn’t happen, I’m blaming JD Vance,” he said, to laughter. “If it does happen, I’m taking full credit.”

Milbank seems to think he has a smoking gun example of the VP being “humiliated.” The only one humiliated is Milbank: Somebody tell him.

First of all, Trump was joking, and, as usual, obviously so. The Axis has established a pattern of interpreting Trump’s deliberate self-parodies, trolling and exaggeration for effect as sinister. Morons. Even if much of Trump’s clowning is needlessly polarizing and unpresidential in my view, taking it seriously is a core Trump Derangement symptom.

Primarily, however, a superior’s position that if a subordinate fails, he or she is accountable, but if the subordinate succeeds, the boss gets the credit is routine, classic, absolutely correct and well-understood by anyone who has managed, been managed, been in the military, been active in the business world or, to be blunt, has the minimal life experiences minimally qualifying anyone to be trustworthy as an analyst or commentator.

I was informed that Trump’s declaration was the way of the world in my first post-hiring meeting with the future head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the most gifted leader and manager I have ever encountered. “here’s what you need to understand,” Tom Donohue said. “If you do a good job, I look good, I get the credit, and I’ll take it. If you don’t do a good job, I look bad, and you might suffer for it.” I went through my own career as a manager and leader frequently conveying the same message to my staffs. Part of the job of a subordinate is to make the boss look good.

And may I add: Duh.

Pages: 1 2