Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nealm who wrote (6566)	5/28/2000 6:46:00 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 9127

comply with the law

To: nealm who wrote (6566)	5/28/2000 7:18:00 PM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

Well, as an attorney you have a duty to zealously represent your clients' interests to the furthest extent allowed by the law. Here, my client would have instructed me to try ever delaying maneuver I could until, presumably, a new and more sympathetic administration could take office in Washington. I could not openly advise them not to negotiate with the feds in good faith, but I think many attorneys would pursue a strategem of delay and complication instinctively if they felt this is what the client wanted. I suppose I would also have to advise them of the volatility that enters into a situation when the federal government, rightly or wrongly, feels it is being defied. This is aggravated by ongoing, emotional demonstrations and vigils. In this respect, I would be concerned about the physical safety of Elian and the family members. Since the feds were threatening just this type of action as a last resort, I would go into federal court and seek an injunction against any removal of the child pending an asylum decision. Of course, before doing this, I would have to thoroughly evaluate the law. If the law was against me, and it looked like I would lose on this point, I would not pursue such an injunction. I would also look for some way to assure the feds that at least the occupants of the home were unarmed; I guess I couldn't speak for protestors. Assurance would have to be more than verbal, but it is hard to provide 100% assurance given how easily pistols are concealed. I don't think that, as their advocate, I would have advised anything different from what was done. Of course, as you know, their can be a wide gap between what a lawyer helps you do, and doing what is right.