Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Love, Joy, Feminism

Home
Nonreligious
Anonymous Tip: A Reporter Catches Wind

Anonymous Tip: A Reporter Catches Wind

Last updated on: May 6, 2016 at 7:41 am by Libby Anne

Anonymous Tip: A Reporter Catches Wind 2016-05-06T07:41:27-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

A Review Series of Anonymous Tip, by Michael Farris

Pp. 287-292

On Monday afternoon, Morgan Howard, a reporter with the Spokesman-Review, calls Peter’s office and says he was at the federal court “checking some recent filings” when he came upon the file for Gwen’s case, and that it “looks very newsworthy.”

“Newsworthy? I’m not sure of that,” Peter teased. “All you’ve got is document tampering by state agents uncovered by a computer guru and a federal judge. Plus some perjury in state court, a little warrantless strip search of a four-year-old girl, and a mysteriously murdered defendant. I’m not sure why you think it’s newsworthy. I’ve got six other cases just like it.”

“Very funny, Mr. Barron,” Howard said dryly. “If you knew we weren’t doing our job, why didn’t you call us?”

“I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to make fun of your work. It’s just such a bizarre case. And I didn’t call because I’m not the kind of lawyer who tries his cases in the newspaper.”

“You are willing to talk, aren’t you?”

“Sure, fire away.”

Peter may not be the kind of lawyer who “tries his cases in the newspaper” but he is certainly the kind of lawyer who talks about his cases with the press without checking whether his client wants him to first. The extent to which Gwen is not included in Peter’s decisions is startling. Does this give us some sort of insight into how much Peter feels wives should be included in husbands’ decision-making, I wonder?

Speaking of wives and husbands, in Peter’s description of the bizarre nature of the case he left some things out, like the fact that he’s been romancing his client, or the fact that his client almost kidnapped her child back out of foster care (to be fair, of course, I don’t think he knows that). Or how about the fact that he blackmailed another lawyer into illegally turning over Gwen’s files? Peter really doesn’t want the press digging too deeply on this case!

Anyway, Morgan says he’d rather talk in person and that he’ll be right over.

It took seven minutes for the fiftyish, thin man in an olive corduroy sports jacket and khaki pants to present himself to Sally Finley. He had grey curly hair, slightly long and disheveled. He wore gold wire-rimmed glasses that he would peek over when he was trying to make eye contact with an interviewer. Even if Peter had not told her that Morgan Howard was coming, she would have known he was a reporter.

Good to know we’re still dealing in stereotypes. More importantly, based on Farris’s description, who would you tap to play Morgan in the movie?

Guys what Peter does not do—or even think of doing—in the seven minutes it takes Morgan to come to Peter’s office? Call Gwen to ask if she’s okay with him speaking with the press. To his credit, Peter does tell Morgan that “because of the nature of the case I am reluctant to go into details that go beyond the public record.” He then tells Morgan that Gwen is a single mom and that she works at Sacred Heart. Is that part of the public record? Or not? When Morgan asks a question about the original hearings, Peter says:

“This is awkward because the juvenile court proceeding itself is confidential, and I can get in trouble with the Bar Association—not to mention the judge—if I reveal details about that.”

Wait, now Peter is worried about getting in trouble with the Bar? Where was that concern when he blackmailed another lawyer into illegally turning over Gwen’s files? Or, you know, when he started a romantic relationship with his client—a skeezy, underhanded, manipulative, and controlling relationship, no less?

“I think I can repeat what we have alleged in our Amended Complaint. There were child abuse charges brought, and now we contend in the federal suit that those charges were based on deliberate falsehoods concocted by the Child Protective Services. CPS succeeded in removing my client’s daughter for seven days, but when the full hearing was held, that decision was reversed and Case was returned to her mother, and the case was dismissed by the juvenile judge.”

Would Casey’s name be part of the public record? Does anyone know?

Next they move into a discussion of the computer tampering. Peter gives details, including the date the tampering occurred. He does not mention that the person who examined the computer and found the tampering was his best friend. The press getting wind of this case really shouldn’t be as positive for Peter as he seems to think it is. Of course, he may not need to worry, because Morgan does not appear to be a very good reporter. Peter says they believe perjury occurred in the initial court action as well, and we get this exchange:

“What kind of perjury?” the reporter asked, still scribbling notes from Peter’s last response.

“Basically they claimed to find bruises that never existed.”

“Do you have any reason to believe that CPS has ever falsified information in other cases?”

Really? That’s the followup? Not, oh, “why do you believe they falsified the bruises?” Isn’t that kind of, you know, important?

Next they start talking about Blackburn. Morgan asks whether Blackburn’s death was at all related to the case and Peter says he has “no evidence nor any theories” on that. And again, the reporter lets that go. Morgan asks who he thinks falsified the computer records, and Peter says: “They appear to be claiming that Blackburn did it.” He does not say who “they” is and in fact has not mentioned Donna’s name. Is the fact that Donna said in her deposition that she thinks it was Donna part of the public record? Regardless, Morgan once again does not follow up.

When Morgan asks about the chance that Judge Stokes will dismiss the case Pete says “off the record” that he does not think Stokes will. Then, “back on the record,” he references the cases “which say that social workers cannot be sued” and says that “[t]hat rule stinks.” He then explains—in actual legal language—why he doesn’t think social workers should “be shielded from liability.” Morgan scribbles away, and then announces that he’s going to call the Governor and Attorney General to get quotes from them on that.

Morgan leaves his card and says he wants to be notified of new developments and of any scheduled hearings. He also asks to send a photographer to Gwen’s house to take pictures of her and Casey.

“Hmm. I’ll have to think about that one. Let me call her and talk it over. Off the cuff, I’m a little reluctant to do it because this little girl has been traumatized by this whole deal, and I’m not sure I want her picture plastered all over the paper. Call me back in a couple of hours and I’ll let you know.”

It’s about damn time! I was wondering when he would remember that this is actually Gwen’s case! Even here though he starts to make a position independently, without even checking with Gwen. Shouldn’t she be the one to determine whether Casey is too traumatized? They could also, you know, ask Casey whether she wants her picture taken and put in the newspaper.

Now the scene changes.

“Hello,” Gwen said.

“Hi, it’s Peter.”

“Good to hear form you, Peter. Something new going on with the case?”

He was glad she directed the conversation toward business right away. “Yes. Are you ready to become famous?”

Dammit, Peter! You’re asking this question—and so glibly—after you’ve already spoken with the press, and without your client’s consent? Are you trying for the “most unethical fictional lawyer” prize or something? Because let me tell you, you are in the running whether you realize it or not!

“What are you talking about?”

“I just spent half an hour with a reporter from the Spokesman-Review. They finally woke up to this case and sent one of their senior reporters, Morgan Howard, to get up to speed on your case.”

Here is where Gwen should say “wait, you talked to reporters before checking with me?!” But no, she’s Gwen, so instead she’s going to be all soft and slightly ditzy and definitely more than a little bit clingy! Come on, Gwen! Be more assertive!

“Is that good or bad?” Gwen asked with concern.

“I’m not sure. It might be good. For one thing, it is certainly unavoidable. You’ve got state agents caught forging documents and a dead man. It’s news.”

“Do I have to talk with them?”

“Not if you don’t want to.”

“Then I don’t want to.”

“That settles that. I’ll tell them I have advised you not to talk to the press. It’s the advice most lawyers give to their clients.”

“Good. I knew I kept you around for some reason,” Gwen laughed.

What even is this? Is Peter ever going to tell Gwen that whether or not he talks to the press is up to her? And what’s with them spinning it such that it sounds like he’s the one telling her not to talk? Is it so hard to just say that his client does not walk to talk to media? Why do they have to make it sound like he’s the one in charge, and not her—especially when he most expressly did not tell her not to talk to the press? Shouldn’t that violate Peter’s ethical code?

“How about pictures? Do you want to see that beautiful face of yours all over the papers? They want to send a photographer out to your house.” As soon as the words were out, he knew he shouldn’t have said them.

Oh my GOD. Peter, STOP.

Gwen turned a little red, not form embarrassment, but from the turmoil such words created inside her—wanting to hear them, but knowing that Peter was a bit beyond the edges of his commitment to her.

Gwen, honey, you can do so much better than this. That wasn’t even a sweet complement. It was a creepy-ass complement. Run, girl, run while you still have time.

“Oh, I don’t want photographers in my house.”

“That’s what I told him you’d say. I’m sure you don’t want Casey’s picture in the paper—and that’s clearly what they want.”

“Yeah, you’re right,” Gwen replied.

No, that is not what Peter told the reporter she’d say, because Peter did not actually say anything about what Gwen would say or want one way or another. Instead he said he didn’t know whether Casey should be subjected to further spotlight and attention. And I realize this is a small difference, but I’m really getting tired of Peter pretending to be all straight and ethical while lying like it’s a second language.

Anyway, Peter tells Gwen that Morgan plans to contact the Governor and Attorney General and ask about Willet’s use of the legal standard that social workers cannot be held liable or sued, even in a case of proven perjury or tampering, and that he thinks Morgan may press the Attorney General to waive this defense. “It sounds like a long shot,” Gwen says, and Peter says it is, but that “we can make them squirm for a few minutes.” (If anyone knows anything about making people squirm, it’s Peter.)

And then, at the end of the passage, there’s this:

“One more thing,” Peter said in a subdued voice. “I’m sorry I went overboard a few minutes ago flattering you. Of course, I do think you are very beautiful, but it doesn’t do any good for me to keep throwing lines like that into our conversation. I’m sorry. Will you forgive me?”

“Sure, Peter. I forgive you.”

Of course she does, because she’s bound by her evangelical faith to forgive everyone for everything they ever do to her. If she doesn’t, she will be painted as having strayed form the straight and narrow, as though she is wronging the one who wronged her. Nice religion you got there, Peter. Pretty convenient, ain’t.

You’ll have to wait until next week to learn what the reporter prints, and how the world’s most unethical lawyer responds.

Uncategorized

Anonymous Tip

Previous Post

May 5, 2016

Christian Homeschool Leader Announces Conference for Arranging Child Marriages

Next Post

May 6, 2016 We Can't Afford to Let This Become the New Normal

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How many chapters are in the book of Revelation?

Select your answer to see how you score.

30 12 22 24