Many fictions abound, and they're not coming from me. "They tried to get him" is one. The bar never heard the name Christopher Hodgkins. And all that was asked of CH in this incident that so "scares" you was that he acknowledge the disgusting lie he'd told, a task of which he was entirely capable.
What happened is what I've indicated happened. This is it in detail:
My husband called the WBA, association, asked to speak to someone who could answer generic questions about ethics, did so, described the nature of this forum, the behavior of an unnamed member of their bar, included the fact that aliases are used on the forum and that all the individuals involved had been participating in it for years, and asked if the behavior of the Washington State attorney was -- given the anonymity to (most) readers of the two victims' contributions -- a violation of the standards of behavior to which attorneys are expected to adhere in their private lives.
The answer was yes, and not only were we not "told to go away, nicely," we were encouraged to write a letter documenting the behavior and were referred to an article written by the head of the ethics committee of the WBA laying out the high standards of behavior expected of members of the bar in their non-professional lives. We had already found the article on our own, as could anyone who tried, I assume.
I sent a link to that article to CH.
At no point was the name of the sadistic, threatening, sexually fixated, lying, I mean "word playing," attorney told to the WSBA.
Perhaps, like you, in spite of his threat, CH didn't really intend to sue us if we reported his behavior.
Like you, he used language anyone would assume meant that; but, like you, he might well have claimed later that the language meant something else he had kept secret.
To his credit, and unlike you, he didn't deny it.
We're busy, and though we would have won if he'd sued us for reporting his well-documented behavior, it would have cost us money and not him (you lawyers rely on that to make threats from you credible); we were satisfied that he now knew that we knew that he'd violated the standards of ethics of his professional organization, and that everyone else (except you, of course) recognized he was a liar who had behaved caddishly and sadistically; and we had the additional satisfaction of seeing him disgrace himself further and very publicly with the bizarre, ill, "word play" "apology" he issued using my husband's suggestion that he might save face by claiming he had been joking.
An amusing footnote is that the author of the piece on ethics to which we referred CH was the individual whom CH had attacked in a letter to a WSBA publication.
Another amusing footnote is your pretence or delusion that CH had no choice but to continue his behavior to a point where at some time in the future, he might actually have been reported to his bar association. Helpless victim CH.
It's more sad than amusing that the fact that CH might actually have taken responsibility for his own actions didn't enter your head.
And that the fact that the abuser is not the victim also didn't enter your head.
X, I'm tired of your distortions and omissions and unresponsiveness and subject-changes and "word play" and most of all denial denial denial. So I'm proposing that you just quit the "needling" (to borrow again kholt's word for your behavior) and keep your nose out of discussions I'm involved in and you aren't, and let me be through with you. That would be very nice. |
