Comments on: Ky. fen-phen foreman: “There’s a lot of people that should have been on trial that weren’t.”

By: Ted Frank

Ted Frank — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:06:14 +0000

That’s a very charitable take on Chesley’s role, but one not held by the trial court in the civil fraud trial.

Without Bamburger’s testimony, there is a straightforward conspiracy and judicial-bribery case. I still don’t see why it wasn’t made.

By: Legalesse

Legalesse — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:11:33 +0000

The settlement letter you’ve linked to references another letter, which may be where the indemnification agreement was. Or maybe it was a Gallion myth as you suggest. But wouldn’t the prosecution have caught that? Just a thought.

The foreman obviously didn’t understand the case too well, which is the fault of the prosecutors. Chesley can’t really be tried for malpractice because he wasn’t those plaintiffs’ attorney. He signed no agreement with them and there was no attorney/client relationship. He was something like a special legal advisor to Mills, Gallion, and Cunningham. He negotiated the settlement amount and gave them some suggestions. He didn’t set up that charity or take any money he wasn’t entitled to. They knew he wanted 20 mil for his services from the beginning. Did he give bad advice? Probably, but it’s not malpractice to give bad advice to another attorney unless you’re representing him. In this case, Chesley represented no one.

And without Bamburger’s testimony (which would’ve been muuuuuuch different without immunity), the prosecution would’ve had even less of a case than they ended up with.

By: Homer Siegel

Homer Siegel — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:54:36 +0000

The following is noted:
1.) The misspelling of the name “Franks” was not a misspelling, but a grammatical error. It was meant to be “Frank’s”
2.) The argument against your blog is not a diatribe against Bronson, but that Bronson is reported as providing information about the trial. Bronson is not a reporter, but a columnist. This would be analogous to using a Maureen Dowd column to support an argument against George Bush.
I have nothing against Bronson, I have noted that columnists are not necessarily accurate sources of information.
3.) If you choose to be so limited in your understanding of the problem with your blogging that you need to call me a troll, so be it.

Banish me the waste lands.

Revoke my privileges.

Take away my ability to post.

Your disregard of any first amendment rights deserves to be noted in a web site that ridicules those who lack any understanding of common sense law and civility.

By: Allen Sanders

Allen Sanders — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:51:41 +0000

Dear Mr. Frank,
I wonder if you would give your opinion on the Ky. Fen Phen “trial”. First, where do you think the 3 hid all those multi millions? And secondly, do you think the Prosecution will charge them, AND CHESLEY & BAMBERGER this time, with wire fraud AND malpractice?
In my opinion, as a voter, taxpayer, citizen, I think they put the millions in accounts/businesses under their wives/girlfriends/relatives names, to protect it. And I also think the only part the 10 idiot jurors got right was that they said ” alot of people should have been on trial that weren’t.” We all know, from logical reasoning, they are referring to Chesley & Bamburgler & probably Modlin). So, I also believe Chesley and Bamburgler should get charged with fraud & malpractice. Am I correct? Thanks!

By: Common Sense

Common Sense — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:40:44 +0000

The Federal goverment should not waste tax payers and jury time 10 not guilty VS 2 other votes. Is a clear mesage. The press finds them self have to explain why did not report instead of hoping this was there big case. They did not even report Sandy Rios who dealt with half the clients and said there was know conspircy?

By: Ted Frank

Ted Frank — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:28:44 +0000

Mr. Siegel’s latest comment is as inaccurate as his first five, right down to misspelling my name. The record will reflect that I have been writing about this case for years before Mr. Bronson has.

Mr. Siegel has never commented on any other issue except his vendetta against Mr. Bronson, and has yet to make a substantive remark. He gets one more chance before he’s banned as a troll.

By: Homer Siegel

Homer Siegel — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:13:37 +0000

Unfortunately, Franks attempts to base his facts of this case almost entirely on the information of Bronson. He brings his argumentum ad verecundiam to the table, based on the concepts that an editorial writer is a reporter.

This is not a single issue discussion. It is a concern that a columnist is being used to provide factual information. The reporting of this case in the Cincinnati Enquirer did not ever refer to any of the statements noted by Bronson and requoted by Frank in his blog.

By: Ted Frank

Ted Frank — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:10:50 +0000

Siegel has left multiple comments criticizing Bronson, but still hasn’t identified a single fact he’s gotten wrong or even a reason why his opinions aren’t well-reasoned conclusions from the underlying facts. The only topic Siegel has ever commented on as Bronson. He’ll need to bring more than ad hominems to the table if he doesn’t want to be considered a single-issue troll.

By: Homer Siegel

Homer Siegel — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:09:15 +0000

As Allen Sanders wrote, “Peter Bronson could be John Grissom’s brother, he is such a talented writer.”

Obviously, the jury and the facts of the trial did not support either your hyperbole or the biased and slanted journalism provided by Bronson.

As has been noted in the past, Bronson is not a reporter, he is an editorial page contributor. His columns are not presented as facts, nor are the intended to be fact. They are biased and slanted to provoke comment and response.

He is no more than a web troll, publishing for the sake of flaming the crowds.

Accepting his information as fact is similar to believing a Grisham (not Grissom) novel is a true story.

By: Allen Sanders

Allen Sanders — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:31:51 +0000

As church lady would say, “Well, isn’t this special?!” The idiots, I mean “jury” acquits & mistrials the biggest theft from clients in the history of Kentucky, and the “foreman” has the nerve to say “a lot of people should have been on trial that weren’t?!!” IS HE KIDDING? Than why didn’t the 12 fools AT LEAST have the decency to convict the thieves who WERE actually on trial and at least make a good faith effort for the innocent victims? This is an outrage and I hope they lose lots of sleep over the idiot stupid decision they made!