The Affect of Lawyer Stephen Glynn
There was no reason not to feel confident when I walked out of Lawyer Steve Glynn’s office years ago. He was filing an appeal on my behalf. He had identified relevant legal misconduct at a trial as “paternalism,” practiced by Judge D. Hansher and Lawyer M. Kohler. That was reassuring.
What had Glynn meant by “paternalism?” He confirmed a state of affairs by which theoretical law needed no application – for a case of minor significance – for someone of little influence. An experienced lawyer and judge could set things straight behind the scenes without getting journalists excited or the community disturbed. Glynn identified paternalism casually and confidently; he had seen it before and he knew how to handle it.
What would have disturbed the community? The implication that lawyers and judges and police had not done their jobs. A child was having his head forced under water by a mother suffering from clinical depression. The behaviour wasn’t new and it wasn’t being stopped – over two years – and nervous system damage loomed. Numerous factors, however, had prevented medical/legal intervention, not least County Supervisor Tom Bailey; he had a direct interest in protecting the mother from exposure.
The trial, for interference in child custody by the father to protect the child, should have served to expose negligence all along the sad course of complaints by the father. The trial could have stopped the abuse and protected the child from further harm. Defence Lawyer Martin Kohler and Judge David Hansher, however, saw things differently. Exposing the truth would have cast an unfavourable light on the Milwaukee lawyer tribe and members of significance therein … not least Tom Bailey but there were others
Hansher encouraged Kohler to force a plea bargain, allowing him to use unethical and even sadistic psychological means, as already described earlier in this biog and in the book Lawyers Broken Bad. Despite the demand for a speedy trial, Kohler was given free rein for 18 months. He had often boasted, with a sly smile, that he knew how to change a client’s mind. That effort finally culminated in red-faced anger and threat: “five years hard time in Waupun if you continue to refuse a plea bargain.” The bargain would have stated that there had been no justification for taking measures to protect the child. Kohler failed and Kohler raged, and the wrath of both Hansher and Kohler came down upon the father.
For the trial, Kohler had refused to present exculpatory evidence compiled over years, including medical evidence. Witnesses were sent home before the trial, some intimidated and lied to. Kohler refused to submit a witness list. Eligible Black jurors were deliberately prevented from serving. (Kohler later explained that he feared they might be too sympathetic in a child abuse case, as his profiling had shown.)
To conceal the misconduct at trial, Kohler hired Lawyer Robert Elliott, who delighted in spreading false information that the father was mentally ill, thereby discrediting his “wild assertions” about a rigged trial. To prove the point, three court-approved mental health reports – all highly favourable to the father – were maliciously altered and submitted to the court as authentic.
Glynn made it obvious that he knew that legal/ethical violations had occurred. That was how he sold his promised legal service. There was no reason not to expose the misconduct, along with asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, except for one overriding but unmentioned consideration: For Glynn, as for Hansher and Kohler and all but the lawyers that I could never find, the legal tribe had to remain shielded from criticism.
Lawyer Glynn does an excellent job of bemoaning the sad state of the Wisconsin legal system on camera and in interviews. He points out the errors; he’s well spoken; he appears impressive and trustworthy. Knowing what’s wrong means knowing how to fix it. But when it came time to drop the hammer on tribal members, Glynn – like Kohler – acted like a soldato, hiding the evidence, cleaning up the mess, keeping things under control and out of sight.
In public Glynn is “the man who can;” in legal battle he was “the man who ran.”
Glynn ultimately practiced the “paternalism” that he defined so well for others. His point of inflection came when he was asked to stand tall, above his lawyer tribe, to stand for the law. His affect has always been that of the erudite lawyer who sees what is wrong … then fails to fix it when he can.
The rationalisation by Glenn and other lawyers, for violating their oaths? “I can’t practice law with professional and financial benefit if I piss-off my lawyer tribe; I do my best within the system as it is. It has to be tribe first, client second. That’s why we have the plea bargain.”
The idea of standing apart so as to be tall abandoned Glynn and other lawyers long ago. For their own, misguided sense of self respect, they rely on mutual professional courtesy, keeping misdeeds from exposure.
Things may have gone along just fine for Lawyer Glynn after he punted on the appeal, but they did not go along fine for the child whom he betrayed along with his oath.
Former president Richard Nixon one remarked, “If the president does it, it can’t be illegal.” In practice in Milwaukee, if a lawyer does it, it can’t be unethical or illegal. The tribe will rally so that the community can’t see or hear. That’s what Kohler did; it’s what Glynn does.
As long as such stories as here remain untold, justice will remain a concept limited in scope to the whims of corrupt lawyer tribes, out of reach for the average citizen, who is served a spicy dish of “paternalism.”
Nota Bene: To obfuscate the above information, as well as previous information on this blog and in my books, someone in the Milwaukee lawyer tribe thought it a good idea to submit false information to Interpol, the international policing agency. I was “mentally ill” and “armed and dangerous” as I resided in Switzerland, it was claimed – where I was lecturing and editing research papers at the University of Basel. This information was also spread on the world wide web.
As can be seen earlier on this blog, Interpol investigated and concluded that the information provided by someone in government back in Milwaukee was false and politically motivated, exactly as the U.S. government has accused China of doing with dissidents.
I am not a dissident; I am merely exposing corrupt lawyers in the Milwaukee lawyer system.