Lord Acton warned that we should not make moral allowances for powerful people just because they are powerful. If a common man murdered someone, Acton explained, he should hang. But when a king or queen murders, we make allowances for it. “I would hang them higher than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice, still more, still higher, for the sake of historical science” Acton wrote. The same dynamic applies here.
One thing is for certain. There should be zero-tolerance for forensic fraud perpetrated by those in positions of power. This is worse than Annie Dookhan as her victims were abstractions. She did not see the damage that resulted from her laboratory misconduct.
And as far as I can find, these documents are the most elaborate and complete representation of the mechanics of forensic fraud available and show the sequential steps between the requesting party and complicit lab. The documents also show how easy laboratory misconduct is…
View original post 150 more words
Disrupted Physician 
[…] knowledge can be inferred from circumstances and “a lawyer cannot ignore the obvious.” The criminal misconduct and fraud is obvious to anyone including any pre-teen who has watched a few episodes of “CSI” or […]
LikeLike
[…] The criminal misconduct and fraud is obvious to anyone and this includes any pre-teen who has watched a a handful of “CSI” or “Law and Order” […]
LikeLike
[…] The criminal misconduct and fraud is obvious to anyone and this includes any pre-teen who has watched a a handful of “CSI” or “Law and Order.” Comment 3 to Rule 1.13 (Organization as Client) states that “ As defined in Rule 1.0(f), knowledge can be inferred from circumstances and “a lawyer cannot ignore the obvious.” The falsely-created evidence and perjury are here are not just obvious but glaringly obvious and bedazzled in sequins and day-glo. The documents are specific, precise and crystal clear. They are also copious and redundant. No ambiguity or doubt or alternative hypothesis exist. Therefore Bertram’s “willful ignorance” card is is a bust. His continued defense of the indefensible is rife with contradictions, flip-flops, non-sequiturs, absolute nonsense and outright fabrications. This has become glaringly obvious and his candor patina is chock full of holes. The simple and direct but inconvenient fact is that the documentary evidence shows clear and detailed evidence of flagrant fraud and inexcusable misconduct that is displayed so plainly and comprehensibly that any reasonable person including a child could recognize it. One does not have to be an attorney to see it as the only two conditions that would prevent its recognition are being asleep or the inability to read. The truth is neither arcane nor equivocal and this renders Bertram in full violation of the Rules of Professional conduct and he has dug his heels into the ground and stuck his head in the sand for over a year. E-mail exchanges show exactly what he was told and when and ignorance here is not bliss as his falsely feigned “I know nothing” indifference is not not simply apathetic but pathetic. It is unbelievable and absurd. He might as well claim that he was under the impression that the sky was yellow and the sun was blue. […]
LikeLike
[…] documents provide direct evidence of crimes (no other evidence is […]
LikeLiked by 1 person