(The above looks like I clip quoted, but I didn't) I think you would get a better idea of what folks are steamed up about if you listened to the whole thing. That way you have the whole context. It won't take that long, and you can be speaking from a position of actual knowledge. I think it's a little coy to claim other's aren't seeing the context when you're read only an excerpt. (I didn't react to it the same way most here are reacting, but that's just me.)
It looks like any member of the public can order a copy of AL's lecture from the FACDL's website (although I haven't tested the order form to see if it asks me if I'm an association member). That being the case, the real beef with the information being released appears to be more financial on the part of the organization--or simple bad publicity--rather than a disclosure of "confidential" information.
You haven't addressed the question of your own possible bias against WFTV and Shaeffer because WFTV *apparently* dumped you as a commentator and hired Shaeffer?
Finally, something that has always bothered me is your release of your advice to Baez. I'm not going to launch a detailed work product analysis here, but how was that proper, and how did it not violate your listserv's TOS?
I am taking a break from work, but will try to answer your questions and work in questions to some other things I have scanned.
As for the tapes, I really don't have the time to listen to them - nor do I need to so that I can answer your question.
What you want me to say is that her comments were outrageous and that she is evil, etc. But I have been to these seminars and they are as much pep talks and war stories as they are actual informational speeches.
So she used graphic language to get her point across about the people she deals with. Her language and her blunt delivery is no different than the delivery of the people who express their disgust for the Anthony defense. You may not want to admit that, but it is true.
As for ordering a copy of the materials, please try - it will be a dead end. If you haven't noticed, their website is not the most modern setup around. They basically have an email form that sends your information to their executive director. That person in turns verifies your membership by phone and then processes the delivery.
As for the organization's "beef," don't you think you are being a little too conspiratorial about why they are angry. Remember, they invited Ms. Lyon to speak because of her reputation as one of the country's top death penalty lawyers and she agreed to come. It is this seminar where Mr. Baez met her and apparently approached her about working on the case (he has previously said that is where he met her, I just don't think any of you put two and two together).
But now a member of the organization that has invited her dishonestly obtained the seminar materials for the sole purpose of distributing it to Ms. Belich. And now, Ms. Lyon is being vilified for the speech she gave. From FACDL's perspective (or any organization) it matters not whether it is deserved, it only matters that they will be unable to attract other quality speakers to their seminars because people will not trust its members to abide by an agreement not to distribute proprietary materials (simply meaning protected by copyright).
Now, much has been made of the financial motives for my actions (interestingly, most of you vilify the Anthony defense for questioning Mr. Kronk's). Well just like Mr. Kronk has tried to justify his "motives" by appealing to common sense, I will try to do the same.
The following is an email (modified at parts) I sent to a person who was filibustering (comment spamming) my blog because they thought I was only posting to get readers and for publicity. I think we have since agreed to disagree.
----------------
@Texas Girl - It was never about the publicity, in reality I lost the publicity that matters if that were my motive. While "internet fame” may seem important to online readers, continuing to be a legal commentator on local TV would have been much more lucrative to me in terms of attracting clients.
So, I could have continued on my merry way being on three different local news stations for the remainder of the case (NBC, FOX, and CFNews 13).
I knew before I posted my original post, that I would be unusable as a local commentator once I called out another local "expert." But to me, it was more important to point out he was misstating the law, for what I can only assume was to appeal to the pro-prosecution crowd.
--------------------
So if you still think I have something to gain, other than calling out a dishonest person in my ranks, you would be mistaken. I did the same to Baez (discussed below).
Now lets talk about the email - what exactly did I release, I released my own words blasting his handling of the case. And if you actually read what I wrote WHEN I wrote it, I foresaw this entire train wreck.
There is no prohibition anywhere that I am aware of that prohibits me from releasing my own thoughts. The email just provides verification of my current claims.
If this were a trial, my email would be considered a prior consistent statement made before I had a motive to "lie" to rebut inferences of recent fabrication.
In any event, I explained the philosophical justifications for my release in great detail in an earlier post. So I will not address this particular questions again - as I have answered it as best it can be answered.
(Coincidentally, that is the reason that only one lawyer for a party can question each witness, otherwise the witness would be saddled with a million different questions seeking the same answer, but never able to finish because each lawyer doesn't feel their question was answered good enough.)
I think that is all you asked, if there is more I may address later on today.
