An organization called Perverted Justice — a so-called “Internet Watch” group — goes around the country and induces men to correspond with what they think are minor boys via email, instant messenging and chat rooms. However, the minor boys are really Perverted Justice operatives, who then turn over the evidence of solicitation to police authorities while notifying the news media about the impending arrest of the men for soliciting sex over the Internet with people they thought were underage boys. In turn, the police enjoy the publicity and allow the news media to tag along to video the arrest for the 10 o’clock news.
This past Sunday, a well-regarded 56-year old prosecutor, Louis Conradt, Jr.. of the North Texas town of Terrell killed himself as the police were knocking on his door to arrest him in a Perverted Justice-inspired sting operation. Of course, a Dateline NBC camera crew was outside Conradt’s house when Conradt killed himself.
Although there is forensic computer evidence that Conradt had communicated over the Internet with other minor boys, there is no evidence that he had ever actually met any of the boys. Conradt clearly needed help for a personal problem, but that therapy did not include having a camera crew show up on his front porch to film the most humiliating moment of his life. What Conradt did is shameful, but what Perverted Justice, the police and the Dateline NBC reporters did to Conradt is much worse than the crime that they contend that their actions are attempting to deter.

GQ interviews former Attorney General John Ashcroft and it’s an interesting read. For example, the following is Ashcroft’s explanation on how he got into politics:

The way my life unfolded would have required the kind of vision that could make a man rich overnight. I mean, look at my career. I started out as a teacher. After five and a half years, the congressman from my district decides heís resigning, so I decide to go and sign up. I couldnít even name the counties in the district, but I said, ìWell, Iím going to make an American election out of this.î So I go out with more naÔvetÈ than you could get in two dump trucks and a coal train. And it turns out that there are two other kooksóI put myself in the categoryówho also sign up. So it becomes a four-man primary, and I lose. But little did I know that in losing, Iíd get the attention of the man who was being elected governor, Kit Bond, and his election would mean he vacated his position as state auditor, so he would appoint me to replace him. Now, if I had figured that out in advance, you would think that this is a guy whose counsel I should seek, because he can see around corners. But thatís the story of my life.

In another part of the interview, Ashcroft talks about one of his weaknesses:

You mentioned public outreach as a failure. What other failures did you have?
Oh, my gosh. How much time do you have? One thing, Iím too hasty to make decisions. Sometimes I think that Iím so right that I donít need to consider things carefully. Thatís when I have to be very careful. One good thing about the Justice Department is that there are lots of bright people. I mean, where theyíre used to flyspecking: ìNot so fast there.î ìAnd on the other hand.î ìHave you thought about this?î I staged meetings just for that purposeóto guard against my own propensity to make a snap judgment.

H’mm. Looks as if someone missed the “have you thought this through” meeting on the Justice Department’s decision to prosecute Arthur Andersen out of business.

Turnabout is fair play as this Third Circuit decision holds that the plaintiffs in a settled asbestos class action can pursue a class action against their lawyers for breach of fiduciary duty. The theory of the plaintiffs’ case is that their former class action attorneys did not disclose to the plaintiffs fee arrangements that the lawyers routinely made with local counsel that allegedly led to lower settlement payments for the plaintiffs. Not the greatest theory in the world, but what the heck.
At any rate, a U.S. District Court declined to certify the class and granted summary judgment for the defendant plaintiff’s lawyers, but a divided Third Circuit panel reversed and remanded on the grounds that the District Court used the wrong standard in evaluating the plaintiffs’ claims. Thus, under applicable Texas law, the appellate court ruled that the plaintiffs’ are entitled to proceed with their claims. As a result, a legal theory based on Texas law that tort reformers probably oppose is being used to pursue taking money out of the pockets of plaintiff’s lawyers, which is certainly something that the tort reformers support. This is a great state, isn’t it?
Hat tip to Robert Loblaw for the link to the Third Circuit decision.