🚀 go-pugleaf

Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy@Malcolm.wattle.id.au> writes:

> Australian legal system.  To so surrender would require me to refuse
> to act for any clients who do not measure up to EFA's high standards,
> thereby rendering myself no longer an independent and disinterested
> advocate, but rather a "politician for hire".  Until I change
> professions, this course of action would be entirely unprincipled and
> wrong.

This is arrant nonsense. Many defence lawyers, Galbalies included,
point-blank refuse to work for the prosecution. This is the most noble
selection criteria. Almost all lawyers practice seven others.  1)
profitability/ability to pay 2) prestige 3) other forms of career
enhancement 4) conflicts of scheduling 5) conflicts of clients 6)
conflicts of clients in the same firm 7) `fun factor'. Only unpopular
lawyers are so desperate for money that they don't perform case triage
and examine 1) alone.

The context for the glib self-serving ethic of which you espouse lays
outside the domain of criminal defence work. Here it serves only as an
aid for deflecting moral censure when in pursuit of a share of
ill-gotten gains.

In criminal law, individual defendants not only face the full power of
the state, but are innocent until proven guilty. In the matter
concerned, the Church of Scientology is not an individual, not
a defendant, does not face being imprisoned by the state, faces
no question as to its guilt and is the prosecutor. It is deserving
of lawyering as it is of ballet lessons.

--
 Julian Assange        |If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people
                       |together to collect wood or assign them tasks and
 proff@iq.org          |work, but rather teach them to long for the endless
 proff@gnu.ai.mit.edu  |immensity of the sea. -- Antoine de Saint Exupery