received lots of requests for an update on the McGuckin saga. I
haven't said anything about it for a couple of weeks because, frankly, I
have had nothing to say.
showed up at a custody hearing with her county-paid lawyer and was once
again denied custody of her children. They continue in foster care.
She continues to face the criminal charge being pressed by good ol' Phil.
Their home continues to be owned by someone else. Their dogs continue
to be either dead or at the pound. This affair continues to dance to
good ol' Phil's tune, right down the line.
way, I do have some news, both good and bad. The good news is that
good ol' Phil might not be Bonner County's Prosecuting Attorney after next
year. The bad news is that, if so, it will be because he will have won election
to the local District Court judge's seat that his staff now confirms that he
wants. Gee, that means there might be an opening in the Prosecuting
Attorney's office, too. I wonder who that would go to....
the lady magistrate who has served as judge for most of the
McGuckin-related hearings, Debra Heise, has also expressed a strong interest
in running for the same judgeship. Another local lawyer, Tevis Hull,
who used to be Bonner County's Prosecuting Attorney, has also indicated that
he is going to file for the seat. And of course, there is the seat's
current occupant, James Michaud, to contend with. Though Michaud
always says he's not going to run again, he always does. I hear he's a
couple of years away from some sort of retirement vesting level, so it seems
certain that he will once again be leading the hunt. A contested
position for judge! Now, that is something of a novelty for anyplace
in America today, since usually the good-old-boy network ensures that there
is only one name on the ballot for voters to "choose" from.
I may just file for it, too, to make it a real free for all.
knowledge, nothing is happening with pursuing getting the McGuckins' home
back for them. Remember that JoAnn's county-paid lawyer and good
ol' Phil issued the joint statement that "the land is not in
issue" just hours after she stated in court that she no longer wished
me to represent her (for free, no less).
what I said about this a month ago:
what I think? I think it's over for this family. I think the
authorities are waiting for the public furor to die down, so they can
then do what they intended from the beginning. I think these kids
will end up split apart and adopted out. I think JoAnn will get
that psych eval and be shipped off to Orofino (the local mental health
"facility"). I think the land will go on to its intended
grand and glorious future. I think Bonner County will
continue to plunder its poorer residents, taking their land for back
taxes, then selling it and keeping the profit. That's what I think.
It's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it. So there.
haven't changed my mind. I don't know whether JoAnn has had that psych
eval that her county-paid lawyer agreed to allow. That's about
the only thing that I might be wrong about. JoAnn seems to be going
along with the government line on this affair so thoroughly that they
just might not have to ship her off. The local press, of course,
continues its scorched-earth campaign to paint her the miscreant and her
supporters as wackos.
get to the source of that "white supremacist" label that was
placed on the rally, however. The ABC News reporter, Dean Schabner, that
used that phrase responded to my offer of an interview (the first I had
given since JoAnn said she didn't want my representation) in exchange for
his identifying his sources for that. He got another story, which
purported to, for the first time (!), report my belief that this was always
just a land grab, pure and simple, that went awry.
who Schabner said told him it was white supremacists that
organized that rally? Come on, now, that's not a hard question,
at all. Here's who he fingered: JoAnn's county-paid lawyer,
Bryce Powell and the chairman of the Bonner County Board of Commissioners,
Tom Suttmeier. Furthermore, both had also been saying that I was
the (or, at least, a major) organizer of the rally. Of course, I had
nothing to do with the rally and showed up merely once, for a few minutes
know all about the ignominious withdrawal from that rally by the Freepers
who actually did organize it, of course, due to my prior missives.
it doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the dots and figure out why
JoAnn decided I shouldn't continue to represent her, does it? Or who
told her why. Or why.
have, through JoAnn's other county-paid lawyer, Sara Seaborg (who seems a
decent sort) left word that the trust fund is JoAnn's for the asking.
I have insisted upon her meeting me at the bank to sign for it personally,
however - I will not transfer it through intermediaries or by mail.
The total at last count: $31,446.32. I hope she accepts it soon
so that I do not have to continue to account for it.
some sort of dramatic development, I think this will be my last email about
the McGuckins. I'm going to move on. I have taken on another
significant pro bono case and will email you about that in full,
later this weekend. It's another highly controversial case (of course,
going in, I had no idea what the McGuckin case would turn into).
bears repeating: I have been SO impressed with your emails and the
outpouring of human good will that the McGuckin story has evoked, generally
(coming soon to your local made-for-TV movie, I'm sure, with good ol' Phil
reinvented by someone that everybody in the Pepsi generation just
loves). This jaded old lawyer has been so heartened by your
genuine concern and sharing of what you have with these people that you do
not even know. Thank you for showing me this side of America, the
America I grew up in and which I had come to believe no longer existed.
I sincerely wish I could afford to drop all pursuit of paid employment and
handle nothing but pro bono cases for people being unjustly mangled
by the system because there are so many and they have so little recourse.
I have already suffered the false negative typecasting, so now I have
nothing further to lose at the hands of the media, of course.
this, however. You made a difference. Many people
have awakened to the tyranny of local government due to our speaking out.
Furthermore, though you may not have directly touched the lives of the
McGuckins, at minimum you will touch others through me, due to your
reaffirming my belief in the need to take on cases like this.
be of small comfort, but because of your warmth, support and understanding,
none of which was in the least wasted on me or mine, my family fully supports
me in taking on other pro bono cases involving people being cut
down by government tyranny. Hopefully, my example will inspire other
lawyers to take on these "politically-incorrect" cases,
as well. I'll continue to tell you something of those cases as they
come along and develop, if you like. If not, simply opt out of my
newest case of mine involves someone who is also on the business end of a
railroad job being engineered by local government (not Bonner County
this time, though still in Idaho) and it involves some badly skewed
media coverage. I doubt it will achieve more than a regional media
profile, however, but that is the real problem anyway, because the jury gets
picked from the very people reading the false newspaper accounts. This
fellow has already been tried and convicted in the local papers, so it is my
challenge to see how best to undo that and get him a fair trial.
those who have been following my emails, I hope they now see a pattern that
they might not have seen before: namely, that the media simply does
everything in its power to promote the party line of the prevailing power
structure. That's one of the reasons that print newspapers are going
by the wayside in droves and those remaining see steadily declining
circulation. Many people simply do not trust them. And for good
most of my real news from the Internet, often from major
newspapers' online editions, but more likely from the new Internet news
services, such as WorldNetDaily, NewsMax, SierraTimes and LewisNews
(add ".com" to find them). I subscribe to the print versions
of the local papers only so that I can easily see and keep for evidence in
documentary form exactly what they are saying about my clients or myself.
I certainly don't expect to get any real news or truth from them.
Those days are past, folks, and we aren't likely to see them again.
Pity, but they did it to themselves.
last has nothing to do with what we have been talking about, but even so, I
add the following which was passed along to me by another because it is
important to every one of us. I checked it out and it is true. I
did the opt-out described below myself. I encourage you to do the
nobody has heard of this, but the four major credit bureaus in the
US. are allowed
by law, starting July 1, to release your credit information, mailing
addresses, phone numbers...to anyone who requests such. Nice,
To 'opt out' of this release of
information, you can call 1-888-567-8688. It only takes a couple of minutes
to do, and you can take care of anyone else in your
household while making only one call;
you'll just need to know their social security number. Be sure to listen closely
- the first opt out is good
for two years only, so don't choose it;
wait until they prompt you to press '3' on your keypad to opt out for