Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman
You either do bad things or you don't, period, and if you do, anyone helping is an accessory. Enablers grease the machinery of wrongdoing. Like the guy installing plumbing on the Death Star. Never lifted a gun, or hurt a soul, just went to work every day installing toilets, until he was blown up. Tragic? Nope. Without his work, the genocidal Grand Moff Tarkin has nowhere to drop a deuce. In this case, despite the abundant information about its new partner, CSG management has decided to get in bed with PWCC and help that enterprise prosper. CSG deserves scorn and a consumer boycott.
|
Good, so people should also quit using the US postal service that delivers their mail, find out who they buy office supplies from so everyone can boycott them, shut off/cancel their gas, water, sewer, electricity if they currently get any of these utilities from the same provider PWCC gets their utilities from, immediately close out and move any and all accounts/funds they have from whatever bank(s) PWCC also uses, find out if PWCC uses PayPal, Venmo, Zelle, or any other payment services as part of their business, and if so, everyone else should immediately discontinue using those services, and so on. And every employee of PWCC should be shunned and scorned by family and friends, and denied help and service from any and all other companies, stores, and businesses, to the point that no grocery store will ever sell them food for themselves and their families, and no doctor will even take them on as a patient.
Oh, and I'm forgetting the best example of all, PWCC's attorney(s), both in-house and external, if applicable, should be disbarred permanently for daring to work with and represent a known criminal enterprise. In fact, based on your logic, any attorney ever representing any criminal or criminal enterprise should probably be immediately and permanently disbarred.
And I can easily extend your logic even further. Since it is an indisputable fact that a portion of current practicing attorneys make money off of representing known criminals and criminal enterprises, it is an additional fact that other attorneys, like yourself for example, are well aware of that, yet allow such criminally involved/associated attorneys to belong to the same Bar Association and related organizations as the rest of you licensed attorneys. And because all attorneys get support and resources from the Bar and related organizations, why do all the non-criminally involved/associated attorneys allow those attorneys representing criminals to belong to the same organizations as them, interact with them, help support and at least indirectly supply them with resources they then can use on behalf of criminals, and so on? Even though you may not be doing any of that directly yourself, why aren't you actively seeking to have these criminally involved/associated attorneys removed from such organizations or disbarred? And absent being able to, or having no success in doing so, why haven't you instead removed yourself from the Bar, and any other of these organizations, so you aren't potentially tainted by some direct/indirect affiliation, enabling, or interaction with these criminally associated attorneys?
And by the way, I like the Star Wars reference, even though it's a little bit out there. But let me add a more real world twist to your question of a moral dilemma. Instead of the Death Star, you're looking at a WW II concentration camp in Poland, and a local civilian is conscripted and put to work in the camp and ordered what to do. He sees and is aware of what is being done, but shuts up and does as he is told. Even though he has not had his life directly threatened, he has a wife and small children outside the camp he still needs to be around for to look after and support. The war ends and years later he's suddenly accused and brought up on war crimes charges. So, is he guilty, or should he have risked getting shot and killed by not following orders while working at the camp, and leaving his wife and children to fend for themselves? Decisions aren't always so crystal clear, are they? And we both know that regardless of how you would answer this moral dilemma question, there will be a group out there somewhere that would vehemently attack and seek to discredit you if they were aware of how you responded and had a ready platform to come after you on.
And along the lines of coming after someone, I'd be more cautious about that very last statement you posted, "CSG deserves scorn and a consumer boycott.", especially on a public forum like this which directly interacts with and is followed by numerous businesses and individuals that could all be potential CSG customers. I think we both know it wouldn't be impossible to dig up at least a few of your legal brethren who would be happy to come after you for making that libelous statement about boycotting CSG, if they thought they could get a pay day (and I'm not talking candy bars) out of it. Especially since CSG has been neither accused nor convicted of any crimes or misdeeds that I'm aware of, and though they have been accused, PWCC has never (at least not yet) to my knowledge been formally charged or convicted of any crimes or misdeeds either. I believe your profession still follows the "Innocent till proven guilty in a court off law." mantra, right? And the fact that, to my knowledge, you are not also publicly calling out for a consumer boycott of any other individuals or enterprises currently or previously engaged in business in some way with PWCC would on the surface seem to indicate you are specifically targeting CSG, and CSG alone, with your statement. The legal profession is one I feel truly does not always embrace and adhere very well to the old adage and concept of, "Honor among thieves."