David “Media Ueber Alles” Brauer read the State Department of Education’s report on Tarek Ibn Ziyad Academy, and sees NO-tink, NO-think!:
The bottom line, to me, is that Kersten’s overarching concern — illegal Islamic education — is largely unfounded. TIZA’s problems come down to one 30-minute Friday break and changing after-school busing.
Things worth fixing? Definitely. A massively overblown controversy? Definitely.
Scott Johnson at Powerline begs to differ.
Yesterday the department issued its findings in the investigation prompted by Kersten’s columns. The Star Tribune reports on the findings in “State orders charter school to correct 2 areas tied to Islam.” The findings vindicate Kersten’s reportage, ordering the school to reform its practices concerning its weekly Friday prayer service and its extension of the school day. The department found that both of these practices crossed the line. (The department also found that the school’s Monday-Thursday prayer services were student-led and therefore permissible. The department does not understand applicable constitutional law in this area.)
Beyond that?
The department discussed the “after-school” Muslim Studies program run by the Muslim American Society/Minnesota, the state chapter of the national offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. MAS/Minnesota owns the building in which TIZA operates, runs a mosque in the building, and provides religious instruction at the end of the day. The department asserts that the Muslim Studies program is fee-based and voluntary. Zaman purports to be unable to provide statistics concerning enrollment in the Muslim Studies program. Zaman is not only the TIZA principal, however, he is also an officer of MAS/Minnesota. Who is kidding whom? The Minnesota Department of Education’s investigation is of the kind perfected by Inspector Clouseau.
So is Scott being overpunctilious? Is David Brauer ingenuously taking the word of a state agency at face value (as long as it’s not Carol Molnau’s MNDoT)? We’ll see.
Now, I don’t personally have a problem with this; I think that religious groups should be able to start charter schools – subject to state law. Is the Department of Education following applicable law? I’m no lawyer – and either is David Brauer.
But Scott is…
Brauer, however, hasn’t written about this bit here yet…:
KSTP Eyewitness News sent a reporter and crew out to TIZA to get a reaction to the Minnesota Department of Education findings from Zaman. KSTP reports that its crew crew was attacked by Zaman and another school official. Its cameraman was injured while wrestling with Zaman and his sidekick over the camera. In the video of the KSTP report, Zaman goes right for the cameraman’s camera. Where is Clouseau’s servant Kato when you need him? And what is it that Zaman does not want Minnesotans to see?
We called Greiling a thug when the Star Tribune posted her letter to the editor calling on the Star Tribune to fire her. In Greiling’s case, the use of the term was metaphorical. Zaman is the real deal.
So it would seem.
So, business as usual for Peev then, right?
A lawyer who comments out of school is perpetrating malpractice.
Peev, I dare you to go to sites like Patterico, Beldar or Lawhawk and tell them they are unqualified to comment on anything outside of their specialty because by doing so they are ‘perpetrating malpractice.’
I double dare you.
Mitch, can’t you talk the St Paul public library into revoking peev’s computer privileges?
Peev, unsurprisingly, hasn’t got a clue.
There only two “specialty” bars, for admiralty law and patent law. Otherwise every lawyer has to know about tax law, property law, wills and trusts, contracts, and yes, constitutional law in order to pass the bar. Every lawyer is a generalist, especially since so many lawyers are general practitioners or work for small firms.
Why, Jay, it’s almost as if you’re a lawyer or something.
Obviously, if you knew anything, you’d be a compliance guy.
So is it accurate to say that peev has committed comment malpractice? (again)
Okay, Yoss. You owe me a new keyboard for that last one!
Peevish blathered:
“BTW Mitch, to illustrate the point, if you sign a contract (according to lawyers I’ve known), which is more than just a short, pro-forma document- you generally are absolved of being required to fully understand it, and therefore of legal liability”
This is, in fact, a statement of the exact opposite of what the real law is. A student makes that sort of assertion in first year Contracts class, and they are automatically refunded their tuition and asked never to return. Peev is clearly incompetent to comment on such matters.
/attorney
Just in case you were wondering, Peev – Foot and Jay are both actual lawyers. Attorneys. Admitted to the bar. The real thing.
I realize that’s not “a compliance officer in health care”, but perhaps even you might learn from them?
Just a suggestion.
Peeeeeev?
Your premise is crying for help!
You wouldn’t just abandon it, would you?
Peeev?
You wouldn’t just abandon it, would you?
What else is a gutted fish to do?
Bleed.
Mitch,
perhaps you can’t comprehend english, I said ‘this is a nonsense, I’ve got better things to do” jackass.
Foot – really, ok, I’ll bite – so let me ask you, have you heard of the premise of the basis of capacity. Have there really not ever been contracts voided based upon the fact that the signer isn’t deemed to be aware of the intent of the language? Oh, wait, there HAVE been.. jeez, sorry, guess I’m just wrong, hope you get a refund on your tuition though. The point is Foot, which you so deftly avoided, I, as a layperson am held to a different standard. I’m not an attorney, and YES I was referring to my layman’s understanding – I’m sure you in fact do understand this better than I – but let’s focus on the bigger picture, do you want to, for a moment, claim that an attorney is given license to pontificate over legal areas he’s not practised in without risk of rebuke, or if practicing, without risk of review? Do you, for a moment, equate the opinion of a layperson as carrying equal risk to the opinion rendered by an attorney – in refering to law? No? thought not, and THAT was the point, and you damned well knew it – or should have.
Jay, my comment wasn’t about common knowledge, now was it? It was about claiming another attorney was wrong, when you don’t practice in the area.. try reading, rather than just supporting an imbecile like Berg.
Just for the record, if Johnson is qualifed in this area, as I said, ALL WELL AND GOOD.
You said it was malpractice. – actually, Berg, I said it was a potential, and frankly, practicing implies rendering opinion for a fee (normally) but certainly upon which action is taken. Doing so, when you know you aren’t qualified in the area, is very definetly opening the door, but I NEVER ONCE claimed Johnson committed malpractice.. are you even competent to read, jeezus. Try again, and frankly, I sure as hell didn’t backpedal, I said FROM THE START you punctilious oaf that if he’s competent to comment, fine – go back and read — good god, you really, truly, are an imbecile.
Gosh, I suppose a quick re-read is in order, a lawyer commenting out of school is perpetrating malpractice, I suppose it should have said a lawyer PRACTICING out of shcool. Now every other comment I made clarified this distinction, but since you don’t seem to be able to follow one thought to the next Mitch, please let me correct myself – practicing out of school – in areas you know full well you aren’t competent, is fertile ground for a malpractice suit.. gee, sorry Mitch. Perhaps, in future, you might want to try to tie ALL of the points together in your little pea brain before you leap to something that isn’t there. And just for the record, NONE of your attorney friends actually said that this is wrong.
Foot said that laypeople aren’t insulated against signing – which of course wasn’t fully what I was saying – but I’ll take his word for it.
Jay said lawyers have general knowledge, which I NEVER denied, nor was it my point. Would you care to try again to embelish, misrepresent, and/or mistate what they said? Ask your friends again, doofus, no, really, do so this time. A lawyer who repudiates another, claiming the legal opinion of that lawyer is wrong, in an area they don’t practice in is: a. An arrogant ass b. Has an opinon worth little to nothing c. Is probably being irresponsible and d. If representing someone (fee or no) – would be bordering on malpractice. Ask them, my lawyer friends, and my law professor say the answer is e. all of the above. I didn’t say Johnson couldn’t comment on the Constitution, clearly, obviously he can, and I said so. You either can’t read, or have to lie, and say I said Johnson committed malpractice, which I didn’t say, for a moment. I DID say he breached ettiquete and decent standard IF he were practicing out of area. Conflating my comments to say something you WANT them to doesn’t make them what you say they were.
…but Kel’s right; a lawyer is under no more liability for commenting in a blog about a law, specialty or not, than I am, and Peev is talking out his ass when he claims they are.
Mitch, since when did you become an attorney where you can talk about liability? In fact, i talked specifically about this to an attorney, and as the attorney in question (Johnson) is putting his opinion in a public space, if he were to say “the law is X and so, and you may rely upon it” as a comment to one of his commenters (especially one he knows), according to attorneys I know, he in fact has FAR greater liability than a layperson, and I daresay, any of your attorney friends will tell you so. The fact is Mitch, you are making a claim to knowing the law in your comment above, not just maybe, but that ‘they have NO greater liability”, which is both wrong (according to attorneys I’ve asked), and offering unqualified legal advice of which, as a layperson, you can do without risk as I understand, as long as you let everyone know you’re not an attorney and thus, your opinion isn’t worth a plug nickel. You’re also doing what you accused me of..in short, your a blatant hypocrite.
While I’m absolutely certain of everything I’ve said to Peev so far regarding lawyers and commenting outside their specialties, –
How could you POSSIBLY be absolutely certain – you’re not an attorney – and by the way – you were wrong – so much for certainty. Johnson can comment all he likes, but that really wasn’t the point was it? It’s that he claimed another attorney’s opinion is in error – and were in he involved in representing someone, and his client acted on such advice, when Johnson didn’t know the area, or even if Johnson just put unqualified advice in a public space (oh by the way oh doofus of giving bogus advice) – he’d damned well be at risk..
You have avoided the overall issue Mitch, is Johnson qualified to render an opinion. Not just is he an attorney, but does he know the regulation, standards, past case history, etc.. that come to comprise a competent opinion. Ask your buddy Jay whether that’s important – he knows it, but you chose to parse words. You seem hell bent to turn everything into a personal attack – rather than the topic. Johnson claimed the state was wrong, based on what qualification? Being an attorney? If you think that’s sufficient, and by the way Jay, if all attorneys are competent in all areas except patent law (and whatever the other stream is) are you going to hire a IP attorney to represent you in criminal court? No? What a shock! Typical lawyer, hide behind words. Mitch you should have been one, but given your incapacity to handle larger concepts, then again, maybe not, you’d have sucked.
a lawyer commenting out of school is perpetrating malpractice, I suppose it should have said a lawyer PRACTICING out of shcool.
Words mean things.
The peevish school of argument; when shown to be wrong, scurry away in a cloud of ad-homina.
Mitch you should have been one, but given your incapacity to handle larger concepts, then again, maybe not, you’d have sucked.
I probably would have.
OTOH, I’m 1-0 at representing myself.
Just saying.
Would you care to try again to embelish, misrepresent, and/or mistate what they said?
Look, Peevish – there’s not need to “embelish” (sic) anything; you did it yourself.
You started with a fatally flawed premise – that since Scott Johnson is a civil litigator, he’s not capable of competently reading Dept. of Ed statutes, which is completely absurd – and went on to say various flavors of “it’s wrong”, “it’s malpractice” and “he’s not qualified”. Then, when cornered, you…:
* fine-tuned your statement
* de-tuned it again
* conjured up phantom anonymous “experts” that support you
* got pissed, as usual, and started tossing ad-homina about.
There is no need for anyone to “embellish” you.
That charitably leaves aside the fact that your writing is so muddled and unclear that anyone making the mistake of trying to address it will inevitably “embellish” it. I’m not trying to be insulting, Peev – I used to teach writing, so I’m very clinical about the subject – but you ARE that sloppy.
I should state that I’m not an actual lawyer yet… just 2/3rds of the way there.
Here’s what the Rules of Professional Conduct say about the matter:
“[2] A lawyer need not necessarily have special training or prior experience to handle legal problems of a type with which the lawyer is unfamiliar. A newly admitted lawyer can be as competent as a practitioner with long experience. Some important legal skills, such as the analysis of precedent, the evaluation of evidence and legal drafting, are required in all legal problems. Perhaps the most fundamental legal skill consists of determining what kind of legal problems a situation may involve, a skill that necessarily transcends any particular specialized knowledge. A lawyer can provide adequate representation in a wholly novel field through necessary study. Competent representation can also be provided through the association of a lawyer of established competence in the field in question.”
Minn. R. Prof. Resp. 1.1 cmt. 2 (emphasis mine).
The Supreme Court held that student-led prayer can violate the Establishment Clause. Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000).
Scott Johnson’s statement was absolutely correct, a lawyer can freely and openly comment on public issues the same as any other citizen can — otherwise both Senators Clinton and Obama would be committing malpractice every time they speak since they (and many, if not most) politicians are practicing lawyers.
I’m not a lawyer either, although I did work for a law firm for a number of years many moons ago. But I know this much – when an attorney is asked to issue a formal legal opinion, generally on behalf of a client, that is when the attorney is practicing law. All Scott Johnson was doing in this instance was sharing his view of a legal matter. He wasn’t representing anyone other than himself. He’s certainly entitled to do that, just as much as any of us are. And precisely because he has greater expertise than anyone else commenting on this thread (with the exception of Learned Foot), his views carry great weight. Certainly more than those of a compliance officer (Peev) or a freelance writer (me).
And Peev? If I were you, I sure the hell wouldn’t argue with Learned Foot.
Mr. D is a freelance writer?
Me too! Well, once in awhile.
Great minds and all that.
Peev reminds me of the Boppo the Clown punching bag I had as a kid. It was inflatable with sand in the bottom so that when you punched it it always sprung back upright. No matter how hard Peev gets smacked down he pops back up with the same idiot clown grin on his face; not because he’s good at it, just simply because his butt is loaded down and his head is full of air.
Well, once in a while.
Yep, that statement proves you’re a freelance writer, Yoss.
Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Dilemma