newsobserver.com projects - Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice - Comments

Re: Lewis has $184,000

GiggleBox — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:14:54 -0400

I like Lewis, but that sucks. Third tier Congressional challengers have raised more in days.

Unless Burr does something really stupid, like open his mouth in the next year, or admit he's a wingnut, I'm officially issuing him a pass this time.

Re: New director of death penalty group

LilBit1 — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:54:27 -0400

YAY!! Im SO glad she helped this inmate from being put to death!! YAY!! Cause now he is a convicted sex offender. He was having sexual relations with a child. And made a baby in the process. Good thing we let this guy out of prison totally. *smucks*

Thanks.

James_Protzman — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:40:38 -0500

I suppose I could have found it ... but I appreciate the research. Thanks.

Re: Do you know whom she's replacing?

ryanteaguebeckwith — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:37:51 -0500

From Dan:

Michael Hamden, who left in April. There was also an interim head, Phil Griffin.

— RTB

Do you know whom she's replacing?

James_Protzman — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:56:45 -0500

n/t

Re: Hagan joins U.S. Senate

CitizenOpinionated — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:21:00 -0500

Oh no...she had lobbyist stop by her office...I am sure President-elect Obama would not approve of this since he believes lobbyist are evil.

Plus didn't Hagan run a campaign opposing Dole's ties to lobbyist...man she stuck to her guns for all of a day...

As long as Chuck Schumer says lobbyist are ok...then Hagan does not care what happens.

Re: Another name for Environment

WilmingtonDemocrat — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:20:24 -0500

Sandy Sands serves as a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute. Are you really serious about giving a lobbyist for big oil the job as the chief protector of the environment in the state?

PS, he also represents Blackwater, (the private security consultants in Iraq who are accused of falsely billing DOD for millions of dollars. He also represents Invista, the huge conglomerate owned by the Koch family, (the largest donors to the Republican Party in the country.)

Re: Another name for Environment

j1c2kp — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:05:12 -0500

Oh no not again, another name from the law firm that defends big business when faced with environmental pollution with their toxic tort litigation team. There has already been one name mentioned previously from that firm, can't they find someone who protects the environment not industry? Are there no qualified people within DENR that would be a good choice? Colleen Sullins perhaps?

Pull up Womble Carlyle and in the search bar type toxic.

Target markets

scharrison — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:38:30 -0400

As long as nobody in the General Assembly tries to legislate against Blackwater, I don't think we'll see much (lobbying) money spent there. Whatever markets they do have (or aspire to) in North Carolina, such as training local law enforcement, I'm pretty sure there's no State laws "impeding" them. The real market is up in D.C.

I'd be interested to know how much revenue North Carolina receives from Blackwater's billion-plus State Department contracts and all the others. Since they don't pay taxes on all their "subcontractors" (employees), I have a hunch they're not as much of a "boost" to the state's economy as other businesses of the same size.

Re: The N.C. Military Foundation's consultants

ryanteaguebeckwith — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:23:00 -0400

You guys sure are interested in this stuff.

Their state lobbying expenses are here and federal lobbying expenses are here.

— RTB

Re: The N.C. Military Foundation's consultants

Cdickson — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:41:43 -0400

What did these people do and how much were they paid?

Re: How much the state spent on BRAC

Anglico — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:47:15 -0500

With all the money they're making on so many fronts, it's really hard to understand why Womble Carlyle has decided to help a mercenary army pull more taxpayer dollars into Erik Prince's filthy pockets.

Got it.

Anglico — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:44:11 -0500

Thanks. I do see your point, and it's one I have some misgivings about. I've known attorneys at WCSR, they're good people. And I also suspect there is at least some consternation about this new client.

That said, I've seen Blackwater literally get away with murder (in my opinion) and operate with impunity at huge costs to our nation, both financial and moral. As someone dedicated to integrity in government, I don't feel I can stand by wringing my hands on this one. Especially given the North Carolina connections - and the toll mercenaries take on the safety of loyal soldiers, Marines and sailors.

WCSR is indeed representing Blackwater's legal interests, and from what I can tell, that's their story and they're sticking to it. Until those interests are no longer legal, WCSR has hit the jackpot. Indeed, WCSR has a financial stake in ensuring that Blackwater's business stays both legal and highly profitable.

And that's where I have a problem. The attorneys working to represent the interests of, say, the town of Cary, are also working to ensure that a band of mercenary war-profiteers remain in "good standing" with the government. WCSR may be one step removed from the business of killing, but it seems to me that they are at risk of becoming accessories. And since what they're all doing is legal, the only court to try them in is the court of public opinion.

I'm under no illusion about this. There's not a natural adversary to Blackwater like there was to the OLF in Washington County. People have enough problems without getting stirred up over the business dealings of a billionaire sociopath and his legal counsel.

But a guy's gotta do what a guy's gotta do.

To my knowledge.

Representation

Isaac136 — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:48:05 -0500

Whether the court is one of an actual judge or jury or whether it is the court of public opinion, yes, the entity is entitled to representation, and it is certainly entitled to pursue its business interests. To vilify the law firm representing its interests is within your rights, but I personally don't think I'd target my opposition toward the law firm or otherwise attempt to suggest that it or its members are somehow morally compromised for taking on the client.

In other words, I'd rather go after the action that I object to on the part of Blackwater than go against someone who disagrees with me about that action. I don't like what Blackwater does, but I like even less the idea that its lawyers are to be denounced for representing Blackwater's lawful interests -- and pursuit of business is a lawful interest.

It does cut too close to the idea that a criminal lawyer has dirtied his hands by representing someone accused of a crime. In both cases the idea is about persuading a person or persons to give attention to a perspective that might not be popular. To say that such an advocate is evil for performing that role is like saying it is not permissible for anyone to have a different perspective. All of this assumes, of course, that we're discussing lawful -- albeit unpopular -- activity.

Sorry. Please explain.

Anglico — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:20:27 -0500

I'm very interested in what you're saying, but apparently I misunderstood your original comment. I thought you were making the case that everyone should have the right to representation, no matter how odious their behavior.

I was agreeing, but adding that this agreement between Prince and Blackwater doesn't appear to be about "representation" in the sense of litigation. This is about lobbying the government for contracts.

Can you give it one more try? Please?