Dirty deeds in Denver: Ex-prosecutor faked texts, destroyed devices to frame colleague
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Huh? Colorado lawyers are required to take an ethics exam (the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE)) in addition to the bar exam to be licensed in Colorado. Most also take Ethics in law school to prepare for the MPRE. -Ethical Colorado Lawyer.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
People upvoting misinformation, however “funny”.
Approval of things that are false but popular concerns me. It should concern you. If truth is only important when convenient, well, this is how we got two seasons of Trump.
Upvote
-17
(3
/
-20)
Just most of the time. Many departments require an IQ test and will not hire you if you score too highly. The Supreme Court even upheld that as legal.
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)
Yes, the ridiculousness of this whole story, at least on the surface, sounds like it would make for a comedic "based on a true story" TV Show Plot... Whether Choi was crazy/stupid or whether there may have been other factors in the workplace pushing her to act... I'm sure the actual details are juicy either way!
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
You apply this to billionaires?
#notallhealthcareceosEdit: How about
#notallcops or #notallcampguards?some groups are toxic
Last edited:
Upvote
-14
(5
/
-19)
With how much people are expected to be at work now to be able to afford to live, the "don't date at work" advice is more and more impossible to follow. Where exactly will you meet like minded people if you spend most of your waking hours at work?
Upvote
3
(6
/
-3)
I don't see why this should be the case with only negative regard. Métier is not a reliable indicator of virtue.
... but, sure, I could have phrased that more diplomatically - writing "overly respectful" would have probably put it closer to my feeling on the subject.
Last edited:
Upvote
1
(3
/
-2)
The only difference in this topic is we've moved on from "believe all white women" (see lynchings) to "believe all women." Not really sure that's much better. There's still not much evidence.
Upvote
-4
(4
/
-8)
you can walk in too, if you don’t mind waiting till whenever. i’ve done it more than once.
Upvote
-1
(1
/
-2)
They do, and the vast majority of attorneys take ethics seriously. You have to both take and pass an ethics course as a requirement to graduate law school. There's also a standardized exam for ethics (the MPRE) which is required to become admitted as an attorney. Attorneys are required to abide by the rules of professional conduct, and are actually required to snitch on each other if we find that another attorney has "committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer." (Rule 8.3)
In addition to ethics issues in the practice of law, Ms. Choi's actions also could be considered spoliation of evidence, which is a separate cause of action in itself. Ms. Choi could potentially face disbarment for her actions and could pay out the nose for damages.
(source: I am an admitted attorney in New York, and I both took and passed my required ethics course and the MPRE. colorado will probably have similar rules)
Last edited:
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
Either she is just that dumb or she was hoping thinking it to not escalate the way it did. Nonetheless, too high a risk and the consequences would not be worth it. She is a law graduate.
1. How could she be so dumb to the very basic investigation and questions likely to arise from her accusations?
2. If she is that dumb, how the hell did she pass the bar? did she do some favors to get a pass? and then get an employment - passing the interviews/checks?
3. what does this say about bar exams and the type of lawyers coming out of it?
Either way, it is a bad example of scrutiny by bar exams process to produce such an imbecile.
1. How could she be so dumb to the very basic investigation and questions likely to arise from her accusations?
2. If she is that dumb, how the hell did she pass the bar? did she do some favors to get a pass? and then get an employment - passing the interviews/checks?
3. what does this say about bar exams and the type of lawyers coming out of it?
Either way, it is a bad example of scrutiny by bar exams process to produce such an imbecile.
Upvote
-9
(1
/
-10)
Seems it was a Mac, so if the mainboard is toast there isn't an easy way to recover the encryption key for the drives. If it were a PC there is a good chance you could just pull the drive and read the contents, but modern macs are built more like giant phones than traditional laptops.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
We're probably better off addressing them when they actually show up. It's barely worth taking fringe opinions seriously for any reason other than to deconstruct and debunk them; pre-emptively lamenting an uncommon bad take is distracting at best.
Even in the best case of statistical gathering, we can only count the people who try and fail; we don't know how many bad actors would if they could.
Why would news of a malicious actor getting caught trying to fake accusations make people less likely to speak up? Unless it's being spun as "proof that everyone's faking it," I'd argue that these cases confirm our ability to discern truth from these messy situations. It gives victims concrete answers to questions like "What if my abuser says these pictures are photoshopped?"
They also show victims just how reliable some forms of evidence are, and where evidence of abuse might come from.
I generally agree, you always need evidence to justify punitive actions.
Harassers will weaponize the systems meant to hold them accountable if they can. There are people who will cause large amounts of damage to others for trivial personal gains. They're rare, but we cannot leave them unchecked.
Upvote
9
(11
/
-2)
Bar exams don’t test you on your knowledge of electronic devices. Having worked with lawyers most my life, I can attest to the fact that lawyers have the same range of technology knowledge as the general population. I’ve known a few that could rival the most experienced tech support worker, and several that had to be repeatedly walked through the most basic operations.
One of the only stereotypes that I might be willing to say lawyers might have greater representation as a whole than the general population is that with an advanced degree, the assumption that they have an innate expertise on any subject, even when they have no clue. Certainly not all lawyers, probably not even most. But I’ve known my fair share of “I have a JD. I’m an expert on all things.”
I‘m guessing that’s what we’ve got here. As a lawyer, she is certainly an expert on what kind of evidence can be most damning. But she likely fell into the trap of then assuming that expertise extended to how to manufacture said evidence and cover her tracks. Something she obviously had no actual clue on.
Again, not something the bar exam covers, nor should cover.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
The worst part is the man who waa accused of something he didn't do and all the other men who have suffered the same fate but didn't have the ability to prove their innocence. Typical that a man suffered but someone thinks the worst victim is a hypothetical woman.
Upvote
-6
(7
/
-13)
I think some people are getting confused about the issue. Just because the events occurred in the Prosecutor's Office, I don't think there was a criminal complaint/investigation in the case. The author of the article uses the word "investigator" quite a bit, but it's unclear who the "investigator" is. Could be it was Helen from HR.
His move due to the first allegation was definitely an internal HR matter. Her falsification of evidence in the second case? Still unclear from the article whether that became a criminal matter.
I don't think anything in the article rose to the level of being a criminal matter, and thus the Prosecutor's Office was not working as a "prosecutor" in this case. Even disbarment is a civil matter. There is no "conviction" or "prosecution" occurring.
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
At a minimum, an accusation shows that two people aren't getting along. If what happened can't be conclusively proven one way or another, is it a surprise than the boss wants to separate those two people?
That being said, thank $DEITY that I've never been involved in such a situation.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Considering the offender was a prosecutor who had seen the local PD's work, maybe not. In any event, she was accusing another prosecutor who was certain to leave no stone unturned.
Upvote
-2
(0
/
-2)
On the other hand, it's obvious that assembling a tight case isn't her forte. Maybe it's time for a career change.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Fabricating evidence is clearly deliberate; the phone records show that.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
When I first read your post, I'd forgotten about Deflategate. That makes this read very differently.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
No, it's just Elon taking advantage of a situation to get more publicity.
The funny thing about this is that Elon would light himself on fire if it got him more likes.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Yes, it's often overlooked, but ethics training is quite common to many fields. The problem is the same as driver's licence tests and a great many other measures. They check knowledge/ability, but can't effectively measure attitude.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Upvotes for this post are a sure indicator that people actually believe that the chicken was stapled to the punk rocker.
Upvote
-4
(0
/
-4)
Upvote
-10
(0
/
-10)
Digital_Dreamer
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Because he's the man. In cases of man on woman DV, the man is taken away. In cases of woman on man DV, the man is asked to leave.
You can thank feminism for this.
Upvote
-10
(7
/
-17)
Rather than just sexism/gender roles/chauvanism, there is data on m/f DV resulting in greater physical harm and hospitalization rates than f/m DV (the latter does have higher rates of non-physical abuse and usage of illegal tracking/surveillance, though). From a purely risk-based assessment, it does make more sense to view the man as a greater danger to parties involved.
There was an entertaining kerfuffle some years back where a city's (I forget which) police dept. wanted to update training for dealing with same-sex couples and even hired advisors for it with the new guidelines being to take away whichever partner seemed "more masculine." It was not well received.
Upvote
5
(10
/
-5)
Yeah, and data actually being forever on the internet is a real plus when we need to know who said what when to who.
In my very drawn out divorce and following years of further court hearings, a huge part of relevant evidence were emails and text messages, and sometimes phone logs. I was able to prove again and again that I had told my ex things she denied I said, that she said things she denied saying, that she failed to accept my calls when she claims I didn't call her. So when she tried to argue it was merely my not wanting to see my kids as the reason why she hadn't transferred them for a month, it was crystal clear that I'd actually gone to great lengths to make it happen and she'd verified several times that she was intentionally keeping them from me
Being good at data wound up being a big deal as well. Being able to get emails and text messages onto black and white letter sized paper in clear and legible ways was a big deal. I created most of my own exhibits that way, as that's a nerdy wheelhouse of mine (my attorney said they were much better than what she typically sees even from expensive firms).
Of course, having factual reality on my side also made a huge difference. I had offered joint custody but she demanded full custody, went to court over it, and I wound up with full custody at the end due to all the shenanigans that were harmful to the children and my relationship with them.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
The perp was a prosecutor so what does that say about systemic stupidity?
Upvote
-2
(0
/
-2)
That's a solved problem thanks to the internet.Interacting with the like-minded online is more efficient than meatspace which is why it's so popular. If the objective is "social intercourse" ditto. A major bonus is access to self-selected groups or individuals you deem worthy while filtering the rest.
The "don't shit where you eat" advice of yore is increasingly important now every other employee is a potential legal threat. That doesn't mean one should be worried or paranoid. Keeping workplace interaction strictly professional is healthy and wise for all concerned.
Upvote
-2
(1
/
-3)
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Nope
It was the absurdity of the reverse logic of trying to answer every question wrongly. Years ago a fellow tried to get the lowest score on SAT, but was disappointed he accidentally got one question right. Because the test was written wrong. Ha ha ha! Whoosh
Last edited:
Upvote
-9
(0
/
-9)
How can that even be possible? Oh, never mind.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Regarding the ethics education/aptitude question, as other noted it is a scholastic component in many fields. Many years ago I took an 'ethics in science' class, toward a BS degree.
I don't know aptitude can be measured. My experience suggests the only way to judge that is in a real-life situation with some personal stakes, when the 'chips are down.' I have seen a few people falter even within companies that had their own internal decent (to my eye) business ethics training and certification. I saw them they make one or more decisions that were either in a "grey area shaded toward red" or outright unethical (leading to for-cause firing in several cases).
I don't know aptitude can be measured. My experience suggests the only way to judge that is in a real-life situation with some personal stakes, when the 'chips are down.' I have seen a few people falter even within companies that had their own internal decent (to my eye) business ethics training and certification. I saw them they make one or more decisions that were either in a "grey area shaded toward red" or outright unethical (leading to for-cause firing in several cases).
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)