The American Constitution Society held it’s 6th Annual Convention this weekend.  I didn’t go as I wasn’t invited, though many others from the blawgosphere were.  One such participant was part of a panel discussion about the right to counsel in civil cases, and this participant posted about it yesterday.

I’m being somewhat obtuse in my reference because, while the post came across my feed, the blogger subsequently decided to remove the post in its entirety.  While the bell once run cannot be unrung (meaning that I have a complete copy of the post), I will respect the poster’s desire that his/her identify not be revealed and the post not be attributed to him/her.  Given the content of the post, one of the most bizarrely misguided diatribes I’ve ever seen, I can completely understand the poster’s shame and desire that the words never see the light of day. 

Of course, should the poster chose to out him/herself, then the gloves are off.

The post was a screed against providing access to free legal counsel to indigent civil litigants upon the fundamental basis that if they had any merit at all, they would be worthy of the limited resources of the Legal Services Corporation or garner the help of some Biglaw pro bono program.  Thus, by definition, the fact that they can’t find free legal counsel demonstrates the meritlessness of their cause and they don’t deserve more.

But buried in the post, which was the prepared text of a presentation at the ACS panel, was this little nugget explaining the wastefulness of criminal indigent defense:

Criminal Gideon shows why a civil version will have problems. Let’s give credit to the public defenders’ office for the often thankless task they do, but let’s also agree that the record of court-appointed defense counsel has been one of triage at best. And that is triage often executed for political ends rather than the good of their clients. Take the case of the Atlanta public defenders, where the public defenders have blown a fifth of their budget on a single case, that of the plainly guilty Brian Nichols, who murdered a judge and a court reporter and two others. Why? Political maneuvering against the democratically-created death penalty. On the civil side, Legal Services Corporation taxpayer funding has gone for first-class airfare and limousine service and $14 cookies. GAO and inspector general reports have found a lot of waste. Before Congress stepped in the 1990s, LSC would focus its budget on political causes and regulation through litigation rather than providing legal services to the poor.

Triage at best.  The allocation of scarce resources dictated by political ends.  Taxpayer funding for first-class airfare, limousine services and $14 cookies.  Note that the use of triage is not to suggest that they lack the funding to fulfill their mandate, but rather that they allocate funding to further a radical political agenda at the expense of the poor.  In other words, indigent defenders are the enemy of the poor, using Gideon as a political weapon while standing on the writhing bodies of indigent defendants.

This is from the prepared text, meaning that the author had the opportunity to deliberate, consider, edit and modify its content.  Assuming that their is ny physiological reason why the synapses weren’t firing properly at the time, this paragraph reveals the author’s true feelings on the subject and finest intellectual approach.

Apparently, the talk didn’t go over very well, since in the post-panel post, the writer includes this footnote:

1) The talk was mistakenly interpreted as an attack on criminal Gideon itself. I agree that Gideon was correctly decided (the Supreme Court’s previous test was unworkable) but the constitutional and normative concerns motivating Gideon–better n guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail–are not applicable.

This brief exculpatory claim belies the poster’s shocking misapprehension of his/her intent.  Apparently, the author is of the view that the reaction was because of wrongfully perceived challenge to the concept of Gideon, rather than his manufactured contention that indigent defenders are evil, abusing the poor and taxpayer alike in their quest to further their politics and fly first class.

The rest of the post, arguing why the poor are undeserving of a civil right to counsel and how such a right would be abused to foment an explosion of frivolous litigation, is equally offensive (perhaps even more so).  But to reveal it would likely give the astute reader an inkling as to the identity of its author, and subject him/her to widespread hatred and ridicule. 

As the author has apparently come to realize, purportedly upon the advice of counsel, that public disclosure of such views, would not be one of his/her brightest ideas, I will honor his/her decision.  Though honor is hardly a word that should be used in connection with the author’s post.

But make no mistake about it.  This post reflects the personal views of one well-known but self-loathing member of the blawgosphere.  And this poster has plenty of followers.