|
|
| A Lawyer Connection |
 |
|
Sunday, October 09 2005 @ 06:18 PM EDT
|
I was doing a little research yesterday, and I came across the 1998 Order [PDF] in the litigation Darl McBride brought against his then-employer, Ikon, and I was noticing that, oddly enough, Judge Kimball was assigned to that case too. Then I noticed something else. Guess who Darl's lawyer was? Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough. Do you remember them? If you check our The Cast page, where we have all the law firms in this SCO litigation frenzy listed, you will find Jones, Waldo . The firm represented Maureen O'Gara's company, G2, along with CNET and Forbes, when they unsuccessfully tried to intervene and unseal in SCO v. IBM.
For history buffs, here's G2's Motion to Intervene, and the G2, CNET, Forbes Reply Memorandum in Support. CNET and Forbes hopped on board with G2, as you'll recall. SCO didn't oppose the intervention but opposed opening up all sealed documents. By then, SCO had attached the IBM emails they kept leaking all over the place to a court filing, so it probably wasn't so urgent to them to get the December hearing transcript unsealed. That, in my opinion, was by then more an O'Gara personal quest. IBM opposed. And Judge Kimball denied the motions. Now, this is not a smoking gun in the sense of proving anything, but it sure makes me go hmm. It's not against the law to share a lawyer, or to refer someone to a lawyer who helped you in the past. I suppose it's perfectly normal to call a friend who lives in a state where you don't live and ask for a referral if you are wanting to file a motion in litigation in that state. But are O'Gara and McBride such good friends as all that? And were they coordinating on this? Or was it just a freaky coincidence, as in the Casablanca "Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine" variety? Are there any rules for lawyers? I know that where I've worked and for all firms I know of, the first thing the firm does, on being asked to represent someone, is to check that there are no conflicts of interest. I asked Marbux what he thought: I think it raises a justifiable suspicion, given MOG's obvious bias
and indications that she seems to have been getting insider information from
SCO.
Even if the fact were established, I don't think it would be enough to
create a conflict of interest under the disciplinary rules because
Darl is not a party to the SCO v. IBM case. If he were, then the firm
might have been required to obtain Darl's written informed consent in
order to represent O'Gara because her position would be adverse to Darl's
(it's conceivable they took that step in any event as a precaution).
That assumes that Darl would have taken the same position as SCO in
regard to the relief she was seeking.
If I were in the firm's shoes I would have declined to represent her
absent an express waiver of rights by Darl because I didn't want to
get in a position where such issues were even arguable.
But I don't think conflicts are of much interest in this situation
except for the possibility
that O'Gara was actually acting as SCO's undisclosed agent in the
intervention. Were that the situation, it would raise an issue whether
Rule 17(a) had been violated, see
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule17.htm, and whether SCO
abused the court's process by maintaining an action (the intervention)
where the parties were not sufficiently adverse, an
issue of standing. There is a long line of cases holding that
sweetheart lawsuits are impermissible because they are shams. It
would raise a lot of other legal issues too. Generally speaking,
judges don't like having the wool pulled over their eyes and have an
array of weapons to use when they find out somebody did. Of course, it's moot now, in any case, regardless of what the truth is, because their motion to intervene was denied, even without any of us noticing the lawyer connection. That doesn't mean the Judge Kimball doesn't remember, though, does it? He's seen Darl before and his then-attorney. He doesn't have to research this history, because he was there. At first, I thought I wouldn't even mention the lawyer in common, then, since no firm conclusions can be drawn, and it's a small fact. But then I decided to just put the new information in our permanent collection, small though it is. One thing I have learned from doing Groklaw: there is power in information, because what you don't know, someone else does, and you truly never know when or who or how dots will get connected in unanticipated ways, if you just put it all out there.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: MathFox on Sunday, October 09 2005 @ 06:29 PM EDT |
Please post links in HTML (see the instructions in red on the comment page.) We
prefer a short description of the page too.
---
When people start to comment on the form of a message, it is a sign that they
have problems to accept the truth of the message.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 09 2005 @ 06:46 PM EDT |
You know the drill..
Gracias. :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 09 2005 @ 06:51 PM EDT |
I've run across this before. They were not represented by the same lawyer, only
lawyers from the same law firm, 7 years apart.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Viv on Sunday, October 09 2005 @ 06:53 PM EDT |
In England we say "like two hands wash each other"
Viv
---
Is it me or what![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Sunday, October 09 2005 @ 06:55 PM EDT |
| One of many, I'm sure.
Look at how many cases have been settled out of
court,
with the settlement sealed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Sunday, October 09 2005 @ 07:18 PM EDT |
Right: Just because O'Gara is using the same lawyer as dear ol d Darl did you're
gonna say that he might have helped her file the suit?
Next thing you know,
you'll be telling us that there's no WMD's in Iraq
. . . . Besides the ones
that GWB sent in.---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel
within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Clicky - Authored by: jplatt39 on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 07:38 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: bbaston on Sunday, October 09 2005 @ 07:19 PM EDT |
missspellled -> misspelled correctly
---
Ben, Groklawian in training
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold
Have you donated to Groklaw this month?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bbaston on Sunday, October 09 2005 @ 07:34 PM EDT |
In light of the current MOG article (just before the hearing), insider
information conjecture is well founded.
"I think it raises a
justifiable suspicion, given MOG's obvious bias and indications that she seems
to have been getting insider information from
SCO."
---
Ben, Groklawian in training
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold
Have you donated to Groklaw this month? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dyfet on Sunday, October 09 2005 @ 07:52 PM EDT |
| It would seem the place this question should come up would be in the RedHat
suit. MOG's actions, if acting in concert "as an agent" of SCOG, would I
imagine
fall under the Lanham act claims. Since IBM asserted Lanham claims as
well,
that could get very interesting. Do you think one of those extra 10
deposition slots could be reserved for her?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AH1 on Sunday, October 09 2005 @ 07:52 PM EDT |
For once I'm thinking that this may be coincidence instead of conspiracy.
Before anyone jumps to conclusions somebody should ask if Ms. O'Gara and/ or G2
had done business with this Law Firm before filing her motion. It could be that
Ms. O'Gara could have done business with them in the past. It could have also
been the case that Daryl McBride actually recommended this Law firm to Ms.
O'Gara some time in the past (i.e. before SCO went law suit crazy). In which
case I don't think that there is actually a conflict of interest. Then again,
we are talking about a group of individuals who tend to exhibit questionable
ethics so it isn't difficult to jump to the conclusion that SCO was involved in
the MOG motion.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: elcorton on Sunday, October 09 2005 @ 08:22 PM EDT |
| Does anyone know how that case ended up in federal court? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- McBride v Ikon - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, October 09 2005 @ 08:44 PM EDT
- McBride v Ikon - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 09 2005 @ 08:51 PM EDT
- McBride v Ikon - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 09 2005 @ 11:14 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Latesigner on Sunday, October 09 2005 @ 08:41 PM EDT |
...and I can see O'Gara being introduced to Darl with a " You two really
have so much in common".
What happens after that ( they meet at a dark bar for drinks and it begins a
scam ) is plausible speculation given how things have played out.
---
The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 09 2005 @ 10:31 PM EDT |
I thought MOG's first expose article on PJ was enough to deter her taunting.
Get ready for a second enlightenment. Just don't whine and beat your breast in
phony paroxysms of anquish this time.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: IMANAL on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 12:41 AM EDT |
PJ quoted marbux: "because Darl is not a party to the SCO v. IBM
case"?
Maybe I don't understand the lawyers' role here. So, they are not a part of the
party they represent?
Because if they are, then Darl is also part of the party to SCO v. IBM case, as
he was one of the first lawyers they used in court. I can understand that he may
not be part, but please someone explain more in detail.
If he is part, then, I do not know what to think any more than I would have
thought and expected anyhow even I hadn't known or suspected the unthinkables,
sort of.
---
--------------------------
IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 01:36 AM EDT |
Your Lawyer Connection Article and stats_for_all's post hit me in the guts. You
are on to something extremely big and revolutionary here. It has immense
ramifications for fiaSCO, other cases and business as usual in big time
litigation. If there aren't already pattern interrogatories regarding planting
pr, media campaigns to bolster claims and litigation, there will be after this
case. If there have been other IP shakedowns by the people involved here, it
would be most interesting to compare any media involvement.
I had always dismissed MOG as a friendly media connection to SCO who could
always use a good story. I also dismissed her since I would skip over all the
treatment she would get on GL as repetitious and ridiculous. She is clearly
much more involved.
But what stats_for_all points out - Darl commenting with her story which he or
some Evil master may have planted, and that story then showing up in the
pleadings, motions, memo to bolster the litigation---well we [may be]* talking
about fraud and legal manipulation.
She has been a relentless SCO champion not just to support FUD, but to affect
litigation. These are folk used to creating their own reality with mere
accusations and media manipulation. I guess it is ok when you do it to sell a
brand of cigarettes or beer. It is something else when you do it to creat some
aspect of a tort or contract violation.
You may have suspected as much all along, but this now hits me and makes me
realize we [may]* have some fraud and abuse of process. There is some
conspiring to plant headlines to bolster arguments that might not otherwise have
been seriously made. There is a big difference between cheerleading and rigging
the game.
I'm sure the SCO folk hoped to bluff the world with their FUD and never have to
go to court to collect their ill- conceived billions. MOG is a FUD pawn in the
license campaign. But they had to go to court and figured they could persist
with the FUD to help out there too. It has no doubt worked before. But in the
context of court that FUD becomes Fraud, Uncertainty and Deception. Planting
what you seek to prove and then blaming it on the other guy is not fair.
How ironic that the scrutiny they would wish on you they are getting back in
spades. MOG is in for some interesting depositions. She can be examined about
everything she has written and its source. Will she take the fifth? Will she
go to jail to protect her sources? It is starting to get interesting. Who
needs TV detective shows with stats and you online?! I will have to post this.
*[legal hedging]
---
webster
>>>>>>> LN 3.0 >>>>>>>>>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 07:23 AM EDT |
| Caldera
2, Microsoft 0 from wired in 1999 - notice any familiar names representing
media groups?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveJakeman on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 09:27 AM EDT |
What a wonderful way to inform your public: write a "factual" report
of an event before the event even takes place, so as to have it ready
"immediately after" that event occurs. Then post, regardless of what
actually occurred. That's how to do objective reporting, not. There lies your
sponsored media message, your hidden vested interest, your manipulated media.
Conspiracy theory:
Every once in a while you will see even mainstream national media take up a
cause and just bleat and bleat about it in order to put some black PR message
across. It takes careful investigation and examination of factual data,
obtained at source, to determine that the media channels have been deliberately
used and abused to publish a pack of lies. The editor might not have a say in
it; he or she is somehow overruled. The controlling interest relies on the
otherwise impeccable reputations of the media channels to fool people during
these black PR campaigns. You accepted what such-and-such newspaper said
yesterday, so today it must likewise be true. Other media are not so subtle.
When you spot a black PR campaign being run in national media, know one thing:
those media channels are CONTROLLED and are being wielded for their primary
purpose. Sometimes you see the same campaign run in several channels
simultaneously. They all lead back to the same source. At other times, things
go quiet and tick over with run-of-the-mill, routine reporting. Then everything
seems fine.
These sponsored black PR campaigns generally decrease the circulation of the
media manipulated in these ways. But the manipulation continues, due to the
vested interests that call the shots.
Prior to the internet, there were very few mainstream media channels that were
not controlled and occasionally (or in some cases frequently) abused like this.
With the advent of the internet, there is nothing to stop those same vested
interests adopting the new media. But equally, there is more scope for
investigative reporting that can both publish the truth and expose the attempted
black PR campaigns, which then take on negative value for those that would run
them. It no longer requires a multi-million dollar empire to get your message
widely read. It can even be done by individuals.
Like PJ.
Keep up the good work!
---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stend on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 10:54 AM EDT |
| Time is not on SCO's side
The fact that several online journals
of note this morning rushed to report that IBM has dropped three charges against
SCO, even though the full story is a bit more complicated, points to one truth:
everybody now wants this case to be over and done with.
Not because it will
let us get on with business as usual — everybody outside SCO is doing that
anyway — but because most people have lost track of who is countersuing whom and
for what.
Luckily we have Groklaw to remind us. Even without the three
counterclaims now dropped by IBM in an attempt to speed things up, there is a
list of a further 18 from IBM and Novell alone, without even bringing Red Hat to
the table. ZDNet
UK ---
Please see bio for disclaimer. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Good one (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 11:48 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: wvhillbilly on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 11:10 AM EDT |
<<Darl is not a party to the SCO v. IBM case.>> --Marbux
Huh?
Is this another Darl and not Darl McBride, or is this a typo? Seems to me
McBride has been up to his eyeballs in this (SCO v IBM) thing from the get-go.
Seems to me he has been the primary motivating force behind this whole stupid
lawsuit from even before it was filed.
How is he not a party to it?
---
What goes around comes around, and the longer it goes the bigger it grows.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ajrs on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
aplogies to Kermit the Frog...
Why are there so few songs about lawyers
And who is on the other side?
Lawyers are vultures, and all are greedy,
And lawyers have something to hide.
So we've been told and some choose to believe it
I know they're wrong, wait and see.
Someday we'll find it, the lawyer connection,
The plaintiff, the defendants and me.
Who said that every question would be heard and answered
when asked under the sworn oath?
Somebody thought of that
and someone believed it,
and look what it's done so far.
What's so amazing that keeps us fact fishing?
And what do we think we might see?
Someday we'll find it, the lawyer connection,
the plaintiff, the defendants and me.
All of us under a restraining order,
we know that it's probably true....
Have you been half asleep
and have you heard voices?
I've heard them making new motions.
Is this the hot air that mouthes off to reporters?
The voice might be one and the same.
I've heard it too many times to ignore it.
It's something that I'm supposed to do.
Someday we'll find it, the lawyer connection,
the plaintiff, the defendants and me.
La, la la, La, la la la, La Laa, la la, La, La la laaaaaaa[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sk43 on Monday, October 10 2005 @ 08:48 PM EDT |
Under the Groklaw Latest News picks, there is a link to a story on law.com:
But the latest complaints also have put an earlier
critic in an odd position. Cravath, Swaine & Moore, one of whose partners
recently called the use of the document company, Amici, a "disaster" in another
matter, is co-counsel to Tyco with Boies Schiller. Armonk, N.Y.-based Boies
Schiller was co-founded by star litigator David Boies.
Gee, I
seem to recall that CS&M and BS&F are the main opposing law firms in the
IBM-SCO suit, but here, on the Tyco case, they are on the same side! What are
the ethics rules, if any, governing law firms when they are on opposing side in
one case but on the same side in another case simultaneously?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 11 2005 @ 07:48 AM EDT |
What is really interesting here is the legal action involving Daryl and IKON.
By way of a former IKON employee, I understand that Daryl got into a very public
screaming match with the IKON CEO in a national sales meeting. The CEO fired
Daryl on the spot, so he sued. IKON apparently paid Daryl to go away and leave
them alone. One wonders if this was another example of his trying to shake down
big companies for walking around money.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
