[Peace-discuss] again this lawyer thing

[Lisa Chason]

At the risk of beating this to a pulp I must continue to take issue with you
Carl. The point is we don't all "agree with him politically." Political to
me includes being non-sexist and showing reasoned judgement in engaging the
forces that be.
"You get what you pay for" -- indeed. Perhaps his cheap rates indicate he's
having trouble getting other work...
"The irony will come when events occur suddenly requiring a lawyer, we've
made no arrangements -- and we find ourselves
calling Marvin..." No. Niet. YOU call him if you need a lawyer. Fortunately
AWARE is busy looking for someone else.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>
To: "Alfred Kagan" <akagan at uiuc.edu>
Cc: "Lisa Chason" <chason at shout.net>; "peace-discuss"
<peace-discuss at lists.groogroo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] about the lawyer


> I don't know if it's pessimism, but I do think one tends to get what one
> pays for... --CGE
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Alfred Kagan wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > Your legal working group now has a good list of lawyers and is busily
> > contacting them.  There are some very likely possibilities and we will
> > report on Sunday. Let me say that pessimism is NOT in order on this
> > issue.  We never made a serious effort to find out the possibilities.
> > It is quite likely that we will find free legal assistance.  Thanks
> > especially go to Sandra, Danielle and Ken for their suggestions.
> > More thanks to Carol and Matt who are meeting and discussing.
> >
> >
> > At 8:52 AM -0500 4/28/04, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> > >On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Lisa Chason wrote:
> > >
> > >>  ... It seems to me that if some of the people who have given an
awful
> > >>  lot to the organization express such strong reservations, and say
they
> > >>  find this man sexist and are personally offended as well as
> > >>  politically put off by him, it should be enough to have us all
change
> > >>  gears and look for a mutually satisfying solution...
> > >
> > >I agree entirely.  In fact, that's been my view from the beginning:
> > >although I didn't agree with the objections to Marvin, the fact that
> > >several members had strong objections meant that we should look
elsewhere.
> > >
> > >>  ...There was an undertone to the meeting that if we were REALLY
> > >>  radical, we would see that his bad language is appropriate and the
> > >>  professional reprimands a badge of honor, considering the system in
> > >>  which we exist...
> > >
> > >I don't agree at all. Marvin's language was hardly appropriate, and I
> > >don't think anyone is defending it. My point was that Marvin agrees
with
> > >us politically (as his letter to the N-G last Friday shows) and that
we're
> > >going to have trouble finding anyone who'll work as cheap.
> > >
> > >The important point is that we have some legal representation in place,
> > >whoever it is -- first of all to deal with the police in regard to our
> > >demonstrations, beginning this Saturday.  And we're dragging our feet.
> > >As someone pointed out, the irony will come when events occur suddenly
> > >requiring a lawyer, we've made no arrangements -- and we find ourselves
> > >calling Marvin...
> > >
> > >---CGE
> > >
>