Missed this ’cause I’m out of town, but there was a great writeup of Denver civil rights attorney David Lane on the front page of yesterday’s Denver Post. I get accused of being everything from an anarchist to a militia member, and though I kind of like both of those tags, David Lane probably sums up my political beliefs better than anyone when he says that “the most dangerous entity on earth is a government that has the ability to do whatever it wants whenever it wants without control.”
In Colorado, if there’s a case where the government and the Constitution clash, Lane is often the attorney at the flashpoint. Whether it’s a teacher on a classroom tirade against George W. Bush or the Rainbow Family’s members fighting to get into a court hearing or the Hells Angels angry about being roused out of their clubhouse — or even the “Balloon Boy” — Lane is often the man in the middle.
And of all the controversial clients he has ever represented, none has been quite like Churchill, fired by CU after questions were raised about his scholarship. But those questions first arose after the emergence of an essay in which Churchill referred to some victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as “little Eichmanns.”
For Lane, it was a clear-cut First Amendment issue — he believed Churchill was fired not for plagiarism or fabrication, as CU leaders claimed, but for his speech.
And Lane won, sort of, when a jury sided with him, although the judge later issued a ruling tossing out the verdict. That case is still on appeal, and things may change.
One thing that hasn’t changed is the way Lane has been attacked for representing Churchill. Like the day he sat with a client, in prison for second-degree murder and facing a first-degree murder charge for a slaying behind bars.
“This guy’s doing second-degree murder time, facing the death penalty, and he says, ‘Can I ask you a personal question?’ ” Lane recalled. “I said, ‘Sure.’ He said, ‘No offense, but how do you represent a scumbag like Ward Churchill?’ “
The rest.
In Colorado, if there’s a case where the government and the Constitution clash, Lane is often the attorney at the flashpoint. Whether it’s a teacher on a classroom tirade against George W. Bush or the Rainbow Family’s members fighting to get into a court hearing or the Hells Angels angry about being roused out of their clubhouse — or even the “Balloon Boy” — Lane is often the man in the middle.
And of all the controversial clients he has ever represented, none has been quite like Churchill, fired by CU after questions were raised about his scholarship. But those questions first arose after the emergence of an essay in which Churchill referred to some victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as “little Eichmanns.”
For Lane, it was a clear-cut First Amendment issue — he believed Churchill was fired not for plagiarism or fabrication, as CU leaders claimed, but for his speech.
And Lane won, sort of, when a jury sided with him, although the judge later issued a ruling tossing out the verdict. That case is still on appeal, and things may change.
One thing that hasn’t changed is the way Lane has been attacked for representing Churchill. Like the day he sat with a client, in prison for second-degree murder and facing a first-degree murder charge for a slaying behind bars.
“This guy’s doing second-degree murder time, facing the death penalty, and he says, ‘Can I ask you a personal question?’ ” Lane recalled. “I said, ‘Sure.’ He said, ‘No offense, but how do you represent a scumbag like Ward Churchill?’ In Colorado, if there’s a case where the government and the Constitution clash, Lane is often the attorney at the flashpoint. Whether it’s a teacher on a classroom tirade against George W. Bush or the Rainbow Family’s members fighting to get into a court hearing or the Hells Angels angry about being roused out of their clubhouse — or even the “Balloon Boy” — Lane is often the man in the middle.
And of all the controversial clients he has ever represented, none has been quite like Churchill, fired by CU after questions were raised about his scholarship. But those questions first arose after the emergence of an essay in which Churchill referred to some victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as “little Eichmanns.”
For Lane, it was a clear-cut First Amendment issue — he believed Churchill was fired not for plagiarism or fabrication, as CU leaders claimed, but for his speech.
And Lane won, sort of, when a jury sided with him, although the judge later issued a ruling tossing out the verdict. That case is still on appeal, and things may change.
One thing that hasn’t changed is the way Lane has been attacked for representing Churchill. Like the day he sat with a client, in prison for second-degree murder and facing a first-degree murder charge for a slaying behind bars.
“This guy’s doing second-degree murder time, facing the death penalty, and he says, ‘Can I ask you a personal question?’ ” Lane recalled. “I said, ‘Sure.’ He said, ‘No offense, but how do you represent a scumbag like Ward Churchill?’ “
Thanks for sharing this! It was a great write-up.
I like that it gave the reason behind David Lane’s passion in his work. I had no idea that his family were Holocaust survivors.
I enjoyed the part where his client, who was behind bars for murder and up on another murder charge, asked him how he could represent Prof. Churchill. It had me laughing out loud.