Fwiw
I don't post much, mostly lurk, but this is a huge deal all around, for the hobby and the hobbyists.
From what little I know, as a lawyer, the Sixth Amendment assures that a person charged with a crime has counsel. The Sixth Amendment does not require any particular attorney to take on any particular client (there are even rules that allow lawyers to refuse to take cases for some types of clients). Any lawyer is, generally speaking, free to accept any representation, but typically is not required to do so.
Having said that, I admire someone who has been a critic of a person or entity, who then takes up their "defense," often not to save or salvage the person or entity, but instead to ensure that the person or entity gets the treatment to which they are entitled, to ensure that the system treats the person or entity fairly and properly (and legally). I am not sure that Charles Manson's lawyers wanted him to be acquitted; I am sure they wanted the trial process to be fair and open and legitimate and transparent.
If Mr. Lichtman (who I do not know at al and have never met) wants to ensure that PWCC is treated properly in the process, that's his choice, and I respect it. If his object is to try to get something positive out of PWCC in its relationship to the hobby, I think its a net positive. And I think he's entitled to be paid for his work, too. If his object is to insulate PWCC from its obvious liability, play tricks with the system to get PWCC and its principals off the hook, that's different, but I, for one, do not hear that in his comments here. On balance, having someone intimately familiar with the hobby is a net plus; he knows how it all works, who the participants are, etc. I'd rather have someone knowledgeable involved than an outsider who is in it for the acquittal at all costs.
Also, please understand that there is a great deal he cannot say due to the attorney-client privilege. Do not crucify him if he is limited in his disclosures, especially in the context of a pending criminal investigation.
|