Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

"I guess two crimes in 30 years (one of which is still mere allegation, moreover) isn’t exactly a life of crime,..”

Two that we know of. Wonder if there are any more incidents?

It’s time for this man to lose his license to practice law. He clearly believes that laws only apply to other people, not to him. Some time in a jail cell might help him understand the nature of his error.

A conviction on one serious misdemeanor and a credible allegation of another may not rise to the level of raping nuns and eating babies, but let’s not set the bar so low. That’s one more serious misdemeanor conviction, and two more credible allegations of serious misdemeanor, than either you or I or most of your readers have had laid at our feet.

Actually, the charge could have been a felony, but the judge refused to charge him with such a crime.  The law states property damage in excess of $300 constitutes as a felony.  I believe under any state’s bar, a conviction of a felony is grounds from removal.  Why can’t we get this guy on the appropriate charges?  Aren’t there any more charges on the books federally for assaulting a military member on his way to deployment?  The state often tries to find every charge in the book to nail petty criminals.. why not this guy?  He’s just a petty criminal himself.

It is the same Grodner.  I was practicing criminal defense in Kane County at the time of his troubles but I don’t remember any cases with him—just his boss, Armentrout.

BTW, the decision whether to charge a misdemaeanor is up to the victim or the police but the decision to charge a felony is up to the prosecutor, in Illinois.  The judge has nothing to do with it.  Judges have been removed from the bench for interfering with a prosecutor’s discretion what to charge.

Why is Grodner’s keying not considered a hate crime?

Not that I agree with the logic of hate crimes in the first place; but it obviously has an underlying element of hatred toward a specific social class of our society that is in the minority.  The Marine was not targeted as an individual but, in this case, is despised because of his choice to be a member of a group that shares his ideals and behavior and for this reason he is hated by another class… people like Grodner.

How is this different from a red-neck taking a ball bat and smashing in headlights at a gay club?

Ah, Prof, you have earned your martini this evening. Well done.

Is this joker’s home address in the public record?  Might be worth a trip to Chicago…

His Deerfield “office” is a in luxury residential apartment building, although I couldn’t see his name anywhere on the mailboxes or the electronic buzzer system.  Who knows?

Dear Professor Bainbridge: Is this question of yours rhetorical:

“What possess people like Grodner to act out in such ways? I just don’t get it.”

If not rhetoric such statements are naive to a degree that is astonishing in a law professor. But OK, let’s take it at face value. What possesed him?

HE’S A LAWYER.

He has a fair idea of how the system works, and new the odds were good of escaping with minimal inconvenience. Consider: when the Illinois State Attorneys first took notice of this case, what happened? From the original post at Blackfive on 30 December:

“After sending the car to the body shop, it was determined there is $2400 in damage, making this a felony. Mike went to court Friday morning to collect the damages against Mr. Grodner and file felony charges. Though the damages are over $300 (the amount which determines felony or misdemeanor) Grodner offered Mike to pay his deductible, $100, and have Mike’s insurance pay for it.

The Illinois States Attorneys tried to coerce Mike into accepting the offer. Appalled, Mike said he wanted this to be a felony. The state told Mike that it was not worth pursuing felony damage against Grodner because they don’t have the time. In addition, the state prosecutors told him that he would never it ‘would be difficult to recover the damages’ from Grodner because he is a lawyer.”

There are a great many people in this world who would gladly “key” cars if they could pay a $100 deductible. Jay Grodner is one. He knows the odds of how such prosecutions work and went with the odds.

But things are different now. Why? Because the state attroney was blinded in the manner of St. Paul going to Damascus by a heavenly light? No such heavenly explanation is needed. Just a blogstorm and an article in the CHICAGO TRIBUNE on 3 January:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-kass_03jan03,0,1836149.column

Jay Grodner did not take the new media into account. Suddenly there is energy in this prosecution. But not because law is a noble profession, dedicated to justice. It’s because the public is looking, and seeing one of the many double standards in law. Is this cynical? It is; 200 proof, laced with strychnine. Does it get us to the truth? I’ll let readers decide. One more test: watch to see if the Illinois Bar moves against Grodner BEFORE any prosecution. This would be a sign of alertness and energy in policing the profession. If, however, no action is taken until after any proseuction, it is merely “PR,” a sop to keep the public gulled. After the fact, Grodner will be assailed not for doing anything wrong to the public, but for forcing the Bar to stir its stumps and set the toothless hounds to chase, complete with a set of dentures that don’t fit very well.

I will close with the (to me) dismaying observation that the worse citizens treat lawyers, the better they behave, a perverse outcome for both sides if ever there was one.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

Two crimes in 30 years...isn’t exactly a life of crime - bit those were just the ones he where was caught - statistically a higher percentage is indicated, behind the two “catches.”

StuGots asked “Is this joker’s home address in the public record?”

It is.

[redacted by Prof B]

I find it absolutely incredible that someone displaying such evidently flawed reasoning skills is actually allowed to stand in front of a classroom of law students.

It doesn’t even occur to you that you have read only one side to this story.  Yet here you are, speculating away about someone else’s livelihood and personal and professional reputation.  And hosting comments linking to his home address and phone number and linking to a site full of exhortations to intimidate, harass, and maim someone...all based on a one-sided story.

Shame on you, you hack.

scout-

C’mon, Mr. Grodner, sign your real name.

Another bright bulb weighs in.

I agree with scout that Grodner’s address should be redacted. I don’t want anybody using my site to engage in conduct that drops down to his level. As for the rest, however, scout you can [expletives deleted]. It’s a matter of public record and Grodner’s alleged behavior deserves public shaming, as does yours.

One side is a matter of public record.  You can direct [expletives] in my direction all you want, but I’m not holding myself out to the world as any sort of legal scholar.  The shame is on you, you hack.

Gee, I notice you have at least one stalker - Mr. Jimm - commenting here.  That’s something to be proud of.

Scout,

There are two sides (actually more than two sides) to every story.

For example, you accuse the good professor of unfair speculation and irresponsible hosting of someone’s private information.  Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion and to post it in a comment.

But allow me to suggest that you take a look at another side to your complaint. 

Have you considered that Prof. Bainbridge is under no professional, moral, or legal obligation to hold up the publishing of his speculation until he is able to hear Mr. Grodner’s view of events, and that it is silly for you to expect him to do so?  That even if a commenter perhaps crosses a line by posting a private address, Prof. Bainbridge is capable or responding in a timely and sensible way by editing the address out?

Instead of trying to insult someone who is serving us by providing smart commentary and interesting links, perhaps you could just defend Mr. Grodner on the merits, and make a simple request to remove his address.  Prof. Bainbridge deserves gratitude, not crankiness, although he probably appreciates any good-faith crankiness on your part. 

Would you agree with me that as a commenter, you are assuming the role of guest to the professor’s role as host, and should pay him the courtesy of more civil feedback?

In any case, I wish you well, unless, of course, you are Mr. Grodner using a pseudonym

Hey, the man has no duty except that as a responsible blogger. 

If he posts irresponsibly, and links to posts that are beyond irresponsible, he should expect to be criticized for it.  And that includes pointing out that despite holding himself out to the world as some sort of legal scholar, this sort of dumpster diving makes him a shameless hack.

In any case I wish you well, unless, of course, you are Stephen Bainbridge using a pseudonym.

Unable to defend the indefensible, scout attacks the messenger. He makes no effort to rebut the public record in this case.

Jay Grodner did plead guilty to election fraud and was slapped on the wrist by the Illinois Supreme Court back in 1983. That’s a fact.

Jay Grodner has been publicly charged with keying the marine’s car. It’s been in the papers and all over the blogosphere. I passed on the allegations because I thought my readers, many of whom are lawyers, would be interested.

Instead of dealing with the merits, scout has relied on ad hominem attacks. Why?

In any case, scout’s out of here. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, I pay for this microphone and I’m giving scout a well-deserved time out. He’s had plenty of opportunity to criticize and now he’s just being a troll. Let him do that on his own dime.

The “NEW” Jay Groder is David Selden of Az. This has to be read to be believed:

Court will hide ID of illegal immigrant employer

A federal court will keep secret the identity of an Arizona business owner who admits in a sworn statement to hiring illegal immigrants.

The business owner, who remains anonymous, has filed an affidavit in federal court saying he was employing people not in this country legally last year when the lawsuit was filed, and he intends to continue to do so even with the new state law that took effect Jan. 1.

That law allows a judge to suspend or revoke any state licenses of firms that knowingly hire undocumented workers.

Attorney David Selden, who represents businesses challenging the law, said the purpose of the affidavit was to prove to U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake that the law will harm at least one company.

The judge had previously indicated he might not be able to rule on the validity of the law without some proof someone could get in legal trouble for disobeying it.

Selden said the move is justified because the business owner faces both the threat of prosecution if his identity becomes known, as well as the possibility of actual physical harm.

LINK:

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/105888

Here’s Dave’s info. Call him up and tell him how much you appreciate his efforts, and while your a it, find Dave’s home number and post it so others can call him there and tell Dave how much like like his efforts in this are:

http://www.ballardspahr.com/about/lawyers.asp?id=1855