Michael Morris – In Focus

If what is found @ Game Politics is true the citizens of the 12th Judicial District have once again been reminded of the kind of unethical illegal racket that passes for a District Attorney’s office. According to the article written, it says, by an eye witness to part of the proceedings, furiosus at law Jack Thompson, during what seems to be evidence of dementia (motions hearing), once again indicted Sandra Grisham for her role in procuring Thompson’s specious services for one of her witnesses. I explained the law on this (HERE).

Some have whined from time to time that something I have written has negatively affected their business or vocation. My answer is that it was not my telling of your transgressions that harmed your vocational future. It was your transgression that harmed you. Your reliance on no one catching you is misplaced when trying to shift the blame for your shame to the messenger. As you will see during our walk from Thompson's insanity to Grisham’s soul robbing bitterness it is no wonder the voters tossed her from the bench and no fault of mine the Judicial Nominating Commission treated Grisham’s application for the District Bench in Carlsbad more like Mega-Member spam than the real McCoy.

OK, now back to our story. According to the article Jack Thompson, lacking the required measure of lucidity to actually comprehend the subject matter before the court, began to argue an outline version of the merits of his case. There is a snag. The hearing was all about jurisdiction. The defense presented a cornucopia of grounds for dismissal almost like asking Jack Thompson to pick a card to decide for himself which of the jurisdictional problems would bury this farce of a case. From basic matters of personal jurisdiction to the ravings of Thompson, while obviously the product of a very emotional man, failing to rise to any sort of claim anyone could make heads or tails of I am kicking myself for not closing the shop to go watch this. Of course Jack may be entirely sane, but that is his case to make. I can’t hear his case as my sarcastic jurisdiction probably does not extend to the realm in which this case appeared to have a snowball’s chance in hell of success.

Time to talk about Sandra Grisham and her role in the hearing. While not actually in the courtroom the carrion-like ambiance that is her trademark seeped in as Thompson, for no apparent legal reason, once again accused Grisham of the private practice of law while working for the DA for advising Plaintiff Verlin “Movi’n on up” Posey and contacting Thompson on Posey’s behalf. I wish we still had the stocks. She would look good in front of the courthouse in stocks.

Not only did Grisham give Verlin legal advice, she gave him bad advice to boot. Anyone who would take you to the never a winner, sometimes run from the court in ridicule Jack Thompson is not your friend. Poor Verlin is more of a victim in this suit than is Defendant Cody Posey who was surely told by competent counsel this case was like a really bad example from the Timothy Leary archives. Unfortunately Verlin is a simple man. This came in handy as it is not often a person comes along subject to being outwitted by Sandra Grisham. Thompson, for all his debilitating psychosis, has managed to carve a niche for himself selling the gullible and poorly educated these smoke cases intended to elicit donations from the feeble-minded supporters who actually think this guy some sort of prophet. This tag team operation managed to humiliate poor Verlin who had been floating on a cloud filled with trailer skirting and a fleet of duallys that would finally bring him the respect and recognition that had so successfully eluded him his entire life. Imagine how he feels today held up as a fool tricked by a lunatic for all to see. And you wonder why people hate lawyers?

Sorry, now for the serious part. Thompson made the statement on the record that Grisham contacted him on behalf of Verlin. Additionally Thompson noted this vile creature as the prosecutor in the Cody Posey case. Judge Valerie Huling should consider her responsibilities under the Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly 21-300(D)(2) with an emphasis on the shall part regarding the conduct of Sandra Grisham.

Time and time again Sandra Grisham rises up to embarrass us to a degree and in front of a population far beyond that which her position should command. Fortunately Grisham’s ill advised grabs for publicity every time the opportunity can be manufactured we have been able to witness in her a soulless bitterness that can challenge your assumptions regarding the definition of human. From the engineered trickery (plea bargain) that landed 15 year old Joel Ira a 91 year prison sentence for raping his step-sister to the manufactured evidence and hired perjury [in the Posey trial] that, once uncovered, left this inhuman wretch arguing with the judge to change his sentence making arguments only an unbalanced obsessed individual would make. Really, (LISTEN).

As important as it is for our nation that suits like this fail the integrity of the lawyers in our prosecutor’s office is of paramount importance as well. So is their mental fitness to do the job. In this case we have a prosecutor lacking the professional detachment required to avoid abusing the awesome power of an office capable of legally taking lives. Our DA, Scot Key, not only condoned this unethical quest to pursue the bloodlust left un-satiated at the Posey sentence, but also stands by her tactics as representing the same standards he, himself upholds. Remember that come Election Day.