It struck me that most of the reporting that followed TKC news regarding the Micheal Fletcher lawsuit against Sharon Sanders Brooks was incredibly biased.
But what's funny is the local media is going to have to make a decision about whether they like Brooks more than Fletcher despite their tenuous relationship with both.
MAKE NO MISTAKE, MICHAEL FLETCHER IS GOING TO WIN HIS 3RD DISTRICT RACE!!!
A completely objective look at all 3rd District candidates will reveal that Fletcher has the strongest organization, list of connections, widest base of supporters and most importantly a simple look at campaign finance reporting reveals that HE HAS THE MOST MONEY!!!
So, in some sense this whole debate is theoretical. News of the lawsuit just made the paper a full two days after first word here on TKC.
Nevertheless, I wonder about the propensity of the media and the voting public to turn every politico from the 3rd District into an enemy and represent them in a mostly hostile way.
The Pitch described Fletcher as "combative" when words like successful, competent, capable or motivated would have been just as descriptive.
I've noted this time and again . . More than any other candidate currently running for office, Michael Fletcher has the potential to change the political landscape of Kansas City.
Meanwhile, Sharon Sanders Brooks would be hard pressed to find many supporters outside her immediate group of contacts or at all in other parts of Kansas City given the anti-incumbent mood that has swept the nation.
Over the years I've written this blog I've noticed a distrust of media throughout the 3rd District and frankly the media shares those feelings in return . . . In this Council Race there won't be any "white knight" that organizations like The Star seem so eager to tout. The fight for elected office in the 3rd District is the most important in Kansas City and local mainstream media not only seem disconnected from this part of Kansas City but completely unable to convey the importance and intricacies of this Council race.
Ok Fletcher the best candidate is only to grab attention. Who else besides fletche. Brooks? Little Jermaine "Alvin Brooks"split the votes Reed
ReplyDeleteE
E was for end the nonsense and let's focus on real issues. The last I heard is that Hughes was going to run.3rd in district,maybe should. If they are fighting now how will Fletcher get aloing with the other council members he will be suing each one for looking at him.
ReplyDeleteHere are some more adjectives:
ReplyDeletedisbarred
disgraced
Are those ok? Like "combative," they are applicable. The fact that they are negative does not make them incorrect.
Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!
ReplyDeleteThe only reason fletch was disbarred was from kicking the shit out of all the establishment law firms collectice and corrupt ass. Funny the lawsuit that did him in was against honeywell.
ReplyDeletehmm....
they seem to now be in the news related t0 400 dead and sick workers.
now we know why the government went out of their way to take his license...
Hmmmm . . . stop drinking the kool-aid.
ReplyDeleteIf you read the order from the court of appeals, you will find that his misconduct in the Honeywell case was the final straw. There were many other instances of misconduct before that. None of it had anything to do with being "successful." Many attornies are successful without engaging in the misconduct he did.
11:05 since you are so knowledgeable about the case, can you tell me why the attorneys of record on the case and who filed it were not punished to the extent that Fletcher was?
ReplyDeleteIt was a witch hunt and you know it. But you are too chickenshit to admit it.
Show me a case where two federal judges instigated a probe into a lawyers entire career.
Then call Teresa Levings and ask her how much the Federal judges allowed her to bill the government in the case.
I am sure you can't answer either because you are, in fact, a chickenshit.
I am 11:05. I will not admit it was a witch hunt because it was not. Fletcher acted in a disgraceful manner.
ReplyDeleteThe other attorneys did not have the extensive history of misconduct that Fletcher had.
Federal judges have filed ethics charges against attorneys before; it is not uncommon. What is unusual is for an attorney to (1) live in denial about his malfeasance and (2) wear his dishonor like a badge of courage or virtue.
I do not know how much Levings was paid for her time. It is not relevant.
For all your name-calling, nothing changes what Fletcher did or that it was wrong.
show me all the instances where federal judges ordered investigations of attorneys.
ReplyDeleteyou don't think it is relevant that the government paid a law firm hundreds of thousands of dollars to investigate an attorney for being aggressive?
you wouldn't be a chickenshit if you would give honest answers.
Your definition of "chickenshit" is "anyone who doesn't support Fletcher's views."
ReplyDelete"All the instances where federal judges ordered investigations of attorneys?" Surely you jest. I will not do that. It does not detract from my point. Besides, such actions are not always public. I am sure you will perceive this as "proof" that it didn't happen . .. use such flawed reasoning if you wish.
No, I don't think the amount the investigators received matters. Just as the amount an attorney gets doesn't affect the merits of the case.
In the end, you have only attempted to misdirect. You have not presented any real arguments that vindicate Fletcher or his actions.
In the end, y
No, I don't think
just try to answer a question.
ReplyDeleteshow me 3 other instances, 2?
ReplyDeleteyour evade questions real well.
11:47 I will answer for the other poster. I am keenly aware of the facts of Fletcher's case.
ReplyDeletePrior to the false allegation that he "filed 18 complaints against Honeywell" which the dockets for the Honeywell case show that he did not file a single one of, Fletcher had NEVER been sanctioned, disciplined or recieved even a client complaint.
As his attorney Stanford School of Law Professionr Jeff Fisher pointed out, his case is the "only case in America in which an attorney was discpined for allegedly misquoting deposition tesitmony."
Moreover, as his attorney pointed out, Fletcher was the only attorney in America who was 1) denied any discovery 2) denied the right to call or confront witnesses and who 3) was found in violation baed on the court putting into the record a box of alleged allegations--which never allowed him or the public to know what he was alleged to have done.
Moreover, your analysis fails to include the affidavit that Fletcher submitted from Terry Riley wherein Riley confirmed that Fernando Gaitan had told Emanuel Cleaver that Fenner and Smith were "out to get him" and that he had "done nothing wrong."
Finally, you completely neglect to address the admission by Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White that Fletcher submitted to the Missouri Supreme Court wherein Justice White admits that Fenner and Smith "applied an arbitrary and unwritten rule to fuck" Fletcher.
So your recitation of facts in such a bias and distorted manner do prove that you are a "chickenshit."
Sooner or later these judges and the fools like you who cover up for them will have to answer for their misconduct...maybe then chickenshit like you will understand how ignorant they are.
I am a lawyer, a real lawyer who tries cases for a living, and I have watched in horror as these abuses continue. I write not in support of fletcher who i will admit unlike you-that i have never had more than two words with-- but in support of our constitution which if you know history or law you will know th extent of this witchhunt.
Where did 11:47 go...Maybe the Stanford Professor is lying to?
ReplyDeleteIf Fltcher is lying about what these federal judges did, why don't they sue him. He is a millionaire, if someone said I was lying and framed somebody and it was not true, i would sue them especially if they had money which fletcher does?
ReplyDeleteTony,
ReplyDeletePlease offer some supporting evidence that Mr. Fletcher has the potential for changing KCMO's political landscape.
Funk has certainly changed the landscape and I'm not sure we can stand another extreme makeover like that!
Fletcher should focus less on posting and more on winning.
ReplyDelete3:43 Fletcher is the only candidate who had the political courage to argue against Local 42 and show that the MAST giveway is not factually warranted. Every other candidate has run and hid.
ReplyDeleteIts funny that whenever a lawyer posts in support of fletcher, people like 3:48 say it is "fletcher." An alternative argument is that hundreds of lawyers read this post and some of us actually care about the constitution--so we post!
ReplyDeleteHmmmm. . ..
ReplyDeleteJudge Gaitan was on the panel of judges that initially found a myriad of instances of misconduct.
The panel decision was unanimous.
The decision of the district court was unanimous.
The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming was unanimous.
So, what is more likely: huge conspiracy, or Fletcher did something wrong?
Gaitan = tom ass negro.
ReplyDeleteIs Mr. Fletcher being sued by KCMO for not paying his 2009 E-tax? Surely TKC can find the answer to this vexing question.
ReplyDelete5:10 you are just talking shit...so are we now starting with Fletcher not paying taxes, or like Riley having his water turned off or being indicted...do you have any basis whatsoever to suggest he has not paid his E-Tax, but if he doesn't live in KC he doesn't have to pay taxes since he doesn' live here or work here...more Caucasian silliness, and let me guess if he pays too much than he is corrupt and/or can't represent the 3rd--which one of the same old lines is it?
ReplyDeleteand then 3:57...so if the same judges who broke the law when they made up allegations, then they decide their allegations were correct and they decide they are right when he says they violated the law...there is some saying about "judge and jury" needing to be seperate but we will just ingore that?
ReplyDeleteE Tax? Do people who automatically assume certain things about a certain type of person ever wonder whether or not they are still bigoted even though the use a new word or set of words every few years. Why would you assume he hasn' paid his E Tax? Not that the truth matters to you and those like you but, dumbass, you cannot file for an elective office unless you have paid all of our taxes! I'm sure that won't change that little brain of yours, maybe you can say he "isn't tough on crime" or whatever latest t bag rhetoric you use.
ReplyDeleteSandra and Michael please stop all these detal postings, wait until you go ti trail.TMIM.
ReplyDeleteFUCK THE "NEGRO" COMMENT AND THE GUYS FAMIY WHO EVER SAID IT....
ReplyDeletewerd
ReplyDeleteAttacking federal judges? Not a recommended strategy.
ReplyDeleteMike Fletcher thank you for your legal analysis of this post. Over...and over...and over. How's cali?
ReplyDeleteSo why can't Fletcher get his law license back? Isn't his three year suspension up? And did Ms. Piggy, a.k.a. Rev. Saundra "the bishop made me have three-way sex orgies with his wife" McFadden-Weaver" ever get her money on appeal? That slimeball disbarred ambulance chasing Fletcher represented her in that case too.
ReplyDeleteHe can't get his license back because he won't admit his wrongs or give any indication that he has learned his lesson. To the contrary, he continues to file legally questionable stuff in his own name while representing himself.
ReplyDelete