Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Email to law professors

"Intellectuals and Courage" by Professor John Lachs

Dear Professor ________ (I apologize for dispensing with individualized salutation and for not taking the time to type your last name as I have done previously),

I would be interested in any comment you would have about the above essay by Professor John Lachs, a professor of philosophy at Vanderbilt University (which essay you can find at this link "Intellectuals and Courage"). I find the essay to be very a propos of some of the experience I have encountered over the past several years, and I was wondering what you think.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Monday, August 25, 2008

Intellectuals and courage

I came across an essay by Professor John Lachs of Vanderbilt University, entitled Intellectuals and Courage, that I found very a propos of some of the experience I have had that is recorded in this blog and which you can find at D. Law Professors and at F. Ethics Organizations. I contacted Professor Lachs and asked him whether it was ok for me to publish and make use of his essay in my blog. Professor Lachs said it was ok, and you may find his essay here: Intellectuals and Courage.

Intellectuals and courage

Intellectuals and Courage
By John Lachs

The will to group is one of the most profound characteristics of the
modern world. Julien Benda, The Treason of the Intellectuals (1969), p. 4

Intellectuals do not enjoy a distinguished history of courage. There are, of course, shining exemplars of heroism among thinkers, writers and scientists. Some told the truth unmindful of the consequences; others were dauntless in their criticism of the established powers; a few even went to their deaths for principle. Zeno bit off the ear of a tyrant, Gandhi spent years in jail for his beliefs, and a number of Russian scientists lost their health, their freedom and their jobs for their resistance.

Most intellectuals, however, are compliant workers who don’t want to bite the hands that feed them. Some, unfortunately, feel they are little people whose insignificance entitles them to cowardice. A few—we could all provide names—combine bad judgment with ambition and servility to emerge as particularly despicable human beings.

This is no different from the course of affairs among ordinary people. But intellectuals receive a great deal more public attention, and that is how the few courageous ones among them come to serve as icons of moral achievement. We focus on Dr. Schweitzer and on Dr. King, overlooking the acts of valor and endurance that surround us on all sides. Yet the proportion of fortitude among those who earn their living by the use of their minds is not likely to be greater than in the general population.

This is unfortunate for two important reasons. Being in the public eye, intellectuals serve as exemplars of how one is to behave. Thinkers and scientists seem to or ought to know what is acceptable or right. So people look to them for guidance in life, and such reliance imposes obligations. Furthermore, intellectuals in fact know or at least could know better than anyone else what is worth having and what we need to do to obtain it. The social investment such knowledge represents also confers serious, potentially burdensome responsibilities.

Freedom of thought and investigation, for example, is a structuring value of all the arts and sciences. Without it, we cannot hope to attain novel and sustainable results. Writers and scientists know the importance of being unhampered in their own work, so they have every reason to generalize this value and to support its application to social life. Although some parts of moral life are full of problems and doubts, there is no uncertainty about what is right in this case. Yet many intellectuals are willing to live with whatever restrictions church or state imposes, instead of acting as steadfast champions of freedom.

How can we understand such disappointing failures of nerve? A distinction might be helpful. Writers and scientists exhibit considerable intellectual courage. In the privacy of their studies and labs, they investigate boldly. They experiment with ideas and are always ready to abandon those that do not work. They follow the argument wherever it leads and are happy to embrace any conclusion the evidence warrants.

Intellectual courage, however, does not make for courageous intellectuals. One does not have to be very daring to think dangerous thoughts in quiet privacy; the test of valor is one’s readiness to publish them. Opening one’s mind to the public may have dangerous consequences, and it is just these consequences that one can avoid by remaining silent and letting the world go its way. Intellectuals worthy of the name do not lack the courage to think, but many of them lack the courage to speak, to act on what they believe, and to expose themselves to the effects of being unpopular.

We know why the people who run established institutions do not wish to be criticized. They think objections hurt their image and thereby diminish their power. To retain their privileged positions, they withhold information, which then entitles them to claim that things are vastly more complicated than any outsider can know. But why are intellectuals, who know that criticism is essential for the vitality of institutions, hesitant to provide it? There are at least two powerful reasons.

The first is well expressed by Benda in the claim that nowadays everyone wants to run with the crowd. The desire to be, at least in our opinions, indistinguishable from anyone else exercises great influence over us. Intellectuals no less than other people find it safe and comforting to fade
into the group, to mouth favored dogmas and prejudices so they may convince their friends and employers that they are just regular folks, after all. The day of the great British eccentrics is gone. Perhaps they could afford not to care what others thought about them; for us even the bizarre is governed by universal rules.

The second reason for the failure of intellectuals to offer criticism is the sad one that they are afraid. In most of us, petty concern for self overshadows all other allegiances. Intellectuals want to be safe, they want to do well, they even rationalize and say they want to take care of their families. The fact is that they know criticism draws punishment, and they can’t think of a principle for which they are willing to suffer. The great ideas of humankind are only abstractions, after all; concrete flesh and feelings, on the other hand, can really hurt. They reason that if the truth is destined to triumph in the end, it certainly doesn’t need their measly contributions.

Pervasive misunderstandings of the function of scientists and writers lurk behind this avoidance of responsibility. Managers and the public at large think of intellectuals on an analogy with other producers of social goods, and those normally do not, and perhaps cannot, threaten the stability of the existing order. At a minimum, "knowledge industry" employees are expected to be team players, although they are always welcome to do what Marx claimed they were hired for and develop justifications of the status quo. Intellectuals themselves seem not to understand that their social role, like that of doctors, firefighters and the police, involves the potential for self-sacrifice: it requires that they value truth more highly than their private good. This is what renders being a writer or a scientist not just a wonderful privilege, but also a costly duty.

What makes thinkers and researchers different from other producers is that their job is to generate ideas. Nothing is potentially more destabilizing and revitalizing than a new idea. Many major advances and major collapses in the history of humankind were precipitated by ideas whose time had come. In spite of the known connection, however, we have not learned to deal with thoughts in a way sufficiently deliberate to capture their potential. This is particularly surprising and distressing today, when the availability of information and rapid reaction to it are essential for commercial, social, political and national success.

A society’s thoughts constitute its most striking and most precious possessions. Learning to view the studies and laboratories of intellectuals as factories for manufacturing ideas might help the leaders of nations to keep this in mind. If they could think this way, they would insist on finding out about everything writers and scientists turn up: they would demand into each new idea be made public for assessment and potential application. It goes without saying that some notions are too clever or abstract or impractical to be applicable, while others have no conceivable use. Public laughter might eliminate a few of them, and open debate would show the weaknesses of many others. But that would still leave some whose potential value could be learned only by small-scale social experiments.

Politicians have, from time to time, paid lip service to just such trials, calling them pilot projects and hoping to learn valuable lessons from their successes and failures. Unfortunately, however, no one seems to have the courage to let them fail. As egos and careers become invested in them, they begin to be viewed as potential solutions to problems rather than as experiments. Moreover, knowledge that any experiment, once started, is difficult to stop makes us reluctant to try anything: we do not want society saddled with a string of enduring failures.

Convincing national leaders and the managers of institutions that ideas constitute our most important resource is, unfortunately, not enough. To be sure, it would make these individuals revise their view of their own roles: they would begin to welcome, even to seek, criticism and to think of themselves as initiators of improvement through change. But the public also needs to be taught to expect intellectuals to speak their minds. The central problem here is to keep people listening, in spite of the fact that a good deal of what thinkers and scientists and writers are likely to say will be of little value. Yet we can treat food with respect even if we do not carry home everything we see in the store. Similarly, we can dismiss many ideas as worthless, even as we look with interest to future fruits of thought.

Most difficult of all, we must find ways to overcome the diffidence and fear that beset intellectuals. Institutional reforms to eliminate punishment of criticism promise some results. But in the nature of the case, it is impossible to safeguard against secret retaliation. So a more positive approach might work better: we must bestow the highest honors on those who undertake to assess our practices and to pronounce judgment on them. Support of the existing state of things is necessary only when it is under external attack; for the rest, it has enough power and momentum to sustain itself. We can expect far more good from constructive, well-aimed critique. Criticism must, of course, be viewed as serious business. Fortunately, if we place a high social value on it, even those who engage in it will tend to respect its dignity and refrain from making it cheap or capricious.

If encouraging intellectuals to engage in public debate does not work, we may have to make it mandatory. As part of the job description of thinkers, writers and scientists, such participation would become a matter of habit. To get things going, we might have to impose the obligation that each intellectual undertake two or three critical sallies a year. Mechanical as this sounds, it would tend to break the cycle of fear and withdrawal in which many of the most intelligent humans are now caught. In the long run, intellectuals have to understand that they are on the payroll of the community in order, among other things, to warn us about our ways, to help us see our practices in perspective, to present arguments against what we are bent on doing and, again and again, to present interesting alternatives. Their job is to shake up state and institutional orthodoxies, instead of working to preserve them.

In unstable societies, intellectuals have an even more pressing obligation to contribute to public dialogue. Economic problems, social upheaval and political turmoil prepare fertile soil for irrationality. In hard times, it is attractive to look for scapegoats, to resort to desperate measures, to substitute naked power for consensual policy. Under such circumstances, thinkers, writers and scientists must have the courage to act as the consciences of their communities, even if they are the only people who speak on behalf of sanity and good sense.

The spectacular failures of human history hold important lessons about what simply does not work or works only for a short, painful time. The American philosopher George Santayana once said that those who do not remember their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.1 Who but intellectuals are in a position to remind us of these errors, to warn us of impending folly and to present sensible alternatives to failed or suicidal policies? Who but thinkers and scientists have the knowledge and the trained calm to overcome panic and point the way out of our difficulties?

When intellectuals take public positions, they may find themselves drawn into the political power struggles of their society. This is dangerous because once they are perceived as partisan, they lose their claim to speak on behalf of the good of the entire community and with that they forfeit the attention of all who disagree. For this reason, they must scrupulously retain their objectivity and remain above the fray. They do enough in providing ideas and nothing of value in trying to ride to power on their backs. They set a great example by showing that not everyone is out for selfish gain and that cool reason retains its hold on better minds.

Beyond that, they need to remind us that acting on even the best idea is not a solution, only an experiment. No one, therefore, has the right to claim possession of the answers to our social ills. As in science and in all constructive thought, we must try the hypothesis that looks most promising and continue with it if the results bear it out. Such experimental work has borne fruit in intellectual life. Although it denies us the comfort of certainty, it represents the only intelligent approach to the broader problems we face.

Friday, August 22, 2008

Email to CPA societies


Anti-plaintiffs' lawyers blog

I very much doubt that I will hear from your CPA society, but I wanted to give you the above link anyway.

Thanks.

Robert Shattuck

Email to hospital associations

Anti-plaintiffs' lawyers blog

I very much doubt that I will hear from your hospital association, but I wanted to give you the above link anyway.

Thanks.

Robert Shattuck

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Email to medical associations

Anti-plaintiffs' lawyers blog

I very much doubt that I will hear from your medical association, but I wanted to give you the above link anyway.

Thanks.

Robert Shattuck

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

To: Governmental Affairs Officers of State Chambers of Commerce

To: Governmental Affairs Officers of State Chambers of Commerce

Dear Sir or Madam:

Please go to my anti-plaintiffs' lawyers blog.

I would like to work at and through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce level. I am not making headway there at the moment, and I will commence working at the state level in the meantime.

I would particularly call your attention to the approaches I have made to I. State legislatures and E. State attorney generals. Although I have not gotten started, I intend to activate myself on the issue at the state level, which I will most likely report on here: L. Our lawmakers and politicians- 2008.

Please contact me if I can do any of the above work in conjunction with your state Chamber of Commerce.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Inquiry to National Chamber Litigation Center

Subj: Is NCLC working on this issue?
Date: 8/10/2008 1:06:45 P.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShatt
To: RConrad@USChamber.com

Dear Ms. Conrad,

I recently tried to agitate the Xerox Board of Directors about their settlement of a securities class action lawsuit against Xerox. You may find out more about what I did here: Xerox

I find this type of securities class action lawsuit especially outrageous, and I wrote this Letter to Judge Thompson about about the Xerox case.

The materials on the Institute for Legal Reform website particularly mentioned Professor Coffee at Columbia regarding this kind of lawsuit, and I wrote Professor Coffee an email in which I asked the following questions: "Do you think there is any basis (e.g., due process, arbitrary loss shifting with no rational justification, other legal basis?) on which a judge could dismiss the lawsuit against Xerox? If there might such a basis, do you feel it has been adequately presented to a judge in a comparable lawsuit of which you are aware? Do you have any views about the propriety of Xerox directors approving Xerox entering into the proposed settlement agreement that gives net favorable treatment to some Xerox shareholders and bondholders and net unfavorable treatment to other Xerox shareholders and bondholders in an arguably arbitrary fashion? Is there a conflict for the plaintiffs' lawyers to represent both shareholders (and bondholders) who will have a net gain and also shareholders (and bondholders) who will have a net loss from the settlement? Do you believe there is a basis for Xerox requesting the court to include other Xerox shareholders and bondholders who are not in the plaintiff class who are also real parties in interest and who should be entitled to joined as parties in the lawsuit and be afforded legal representation?"

I got no reply from Professor Coffee and no reply from other law professors and lawyers on the ABA class action committee that I tried to ask similar questions of.

Is the NCLC working on this issue? Is it an issue the NCLC would like to work on?

Thank you for your attention to this email. I hope I hear from you in response.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Asking US Chamber whom I might target

MY FIRST EMAIL:
Subj: I want to complain to our lawmakers
Date:8/7/2008 8:29:05 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShatt
To: JEskelsen@USChamber.com

Dear Mr. Eskelsen,

I wish, as a private citizen, to complain to our lawmakers about what is going on in cases like the Xerox class action lawsuit I previously wrote to you about.

Would the Institute for Legal Reform be in a position to give me names of Senators and Representatives, and/ or staffers, whom the Institute thinks would be appropriate people on Capitol Hill to whom I should direct my complaints? Should I direct such a request for contact names to someone in the Chamber itself if there is a separation between the Institute's activities and Chamber lobbying activities?

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck



MY SECOND EMAIL:
Subj: Fwd: I want to complain to our lawmakers
Date: 8/9/2008 6:10:53 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShatt
To: LRickard@USChamber.com

Dear Ms. Rickard,

I have no reason to think that Mr. Eskelsen will not reply to me on behalf of the Institute, but I thought I would send my email to you directly as well.

I will add that, while I am a lowly citizen of little or no regard in the eyes of our lawmakers, I have the advantage possibly of not carrying the baggage of bias that the Chamber or the Institute may have.

I hope the Institute or the Chamber will be able to provide me with contact names and email addresses.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Forwarded Message:
Subj: I want to complain to our lawmakers
Date: 8/7/2008 8:29:05 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShatt
To: JEskelsen@USChamber.com

Dear Mr. Eskelsen,

I wish, as a private citizen, to complain to our lawmakers about what is going on in cases like the Xerox class action lawsuit I previously wrote to you about.

Would the Institute for Legal Reform be in a position to give me names of Senators and Representatives, and/ or staffers, whom the Institute thinks would be appropriate people on Capitol Hill to whom I should direct my complaints? Should I direct such a request for contact names to someone in the Chamber itself if there is a separation between the Institute's activities and Chamber lobbying activities?

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck


MY THIRD EMAIL:
Subj: I want to complain to our lawmakers about class action lawsuits
Date: 8/9/2008 6:21:35 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShatt
To: RLundberg@USChamber.com

Dear Mr. Lundberg,

I have been communicating with the Institute For Legal Reform about class action lawsuits. As the below email indicates I wish to complain to our lawmakers, and I solicited from the Institute names of appropriate lawmakers and/or staffers. Because of a possible separation of Institute activities from Chamber lobbying activities, it occurred to me that my request for contact information should be directed to the Chamber itself. Hence I am sending you this email.

I hope the Chamber can provide me with the information I request.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Forwarded Message:
Subj: Fwd: I want to complain to our lawmakers
Date: 8/9/2008 6:10:53 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShatt
To: LRickard@USChamber.com

Dear Ms. Rickard,

I have no reason to think that Mr. Eskelsen will not reply to me on behalf of the Institute, but I thought I would send my email to you directly as well.

I will add that, while I am a lowly citizen of little or no regard in the eyes of our lawmakers, I have the advantage possibly of not carrying the baggage of bias that the Chamber or the Institute may have.

I hope the Institute or the Chamber will be able to provide me with contact names and email addresses.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Forwarded Message:
Subj: I want to complain to our lawmakers
Date: 8/7/2008 8:29:05 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShat
To: JEskelsen@USChamber.com

Dear Mr. Eskelsen,

I wish, as a private citizen, to complain to our lawmakers about what is going on in cases like the Xerox class action lawsuit I previously wrote to you about.

Would the Institute for Legal Reform be in a position to give me names of Senators and Representatives, and/ or staffers, whom the Institute thinks would be appropriate people on Capitol Hill to whom I should direct my complaints? Should I direct such a request for contact names to someone in the Chamber itself if there is a separation between the Institute's activities and Chamber lobbying activities?

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck


REPLY OF MS. RICKARD:
Subj: Re: Fwd: I want to complain to our lawmakers
Date: 8/11/2008 6:38:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time
From: LRickard@USChamber.com
To: RDShatt@aol.com

Mr Eskelson is no longer with ILR. I am sorry, but this is not the type of work we do. The names and addresses of Members of Congress are readily available on their website.

----- Original Message -----
From: RDShatt@aol.com RDShatt@aol.com
To: Rickard, Lisa
Sent: Sat Aug 09 07:10:53 2008
Subject: Fwd: I want to complain to our lawmakers

Dear Ms. Rickard,

I have no reason to think that Mr. Eskelsen will not reply to me on behalf of the Institute, but I thought I would send my email to you directly as well.I will add that, while I am a lowly citizen of little or no regard in the eyes of our lawmakers, I have the advantage possibly of not carrying the baggage of bias that the Chamber or the Institute may have.I hope the Institute or the Chamber will be able to provide me with contact names and email addresses.Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Monday, August 11, 2008

Our lawmakers and politicians

Responsibility for our civil liability system and the tolerance of plaintiffs' lawyers predations on society ultimately lies with our lawmakers. They are unfortunately generally corrupt and pathetic. Nonetheless they have to be turned to. This presidential election year is another appropriate time for doing this. I will proceed to do so.

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Also a letter to the Chairman of British Airways

I am also trying to get a letter to Mr. Martin Broughton, Chairman of British Airways, that is similar to my letter to Richard Branson, inasmuch as British Airways is ensnared in the same fuel surcharge class action litigation as is Virgin Airways.

Trying to get Richard Branson's attention

I am trying to get Richard Branson's attention with the below letter:

Mr. Richard Branson
Virgin Atlantic Airways

Re: Air Passenger Fuel Surcharge Litigation

Dear Mr. Branson,

I am writing to you about the ensnarement of Virgin Atlantic in the fuel surcharge class action litigation against it and Biritish Airways that is pending in the district court for the Northern District of California.

First, let me say I have no information or opinion relative to the economic/legal policy merits of the antitrust laws that are applicable to Virgin Atlantic or whether there was any violation of those laws by Virgin Atlantic.

I do, on the other hand, strongly object to private class action litigation such as the Virgin Atlantic fuel surcharge litigation on the basis of numerous social, economic and legal policy grounds. If you are interested I have a blog in which I set out my objections at length. Generally speaking, I am sure you are aware of the strong sentiment against plaintiffs' lawyers in the United States, led in part by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its Institute for Legal Reform .

As you are also presumably aware, this parasitical activity of the plaintiffs' lawyers is seeping into the United Kingdom.

I hope Virgin Atlantic's ensnarement in the Northern District of California litigation prompts you to take a more active interest about this subject. If it does, I have some suggestions for you.

First, I have recently agitated the Xerox Board of Directors about their settlement of a class action securities lawsuit against Xerox. You may find more information about this at this link: Xerox If you know any of the Xerox directors personally (the "independent" Xerox directors are Glenn A. Britt, Richard J. Harrington, William Curt Hunter, Vernon E. Jordan Jr., Hilmar Kopper, Ralph S. Larsen, Robert A. McDonald, N. J. Nicholas, Jr., Ann N. Reese, and Stephen Robert), you might want to have a discussion with them about Xerox's ensnarement by the plaintiffs' lawyers.

Second, I have by chance been a member of the plaintiff class in several class action lawsuits, including the Virgin Atlantic fuel surcharge class action litigation. I have written letters to the judges objecting to the legal shenanigans they are overseeing (see Letter to Judge Pauley, Letter to Judge Thompson ), and I will probably write a letter to Judge Breyer in the Virgin Atlantic case. These judges do not and will not pay any attention to me, but they could pay attention to you and Virgin Atlantic. If you are interested, I would suggest you explore with Virgin Atlantic's lawyers how you and Virgin Atlantic can best register objection. (The answer to this could be, as in the Xerox case, don't try to object or resist, because, if you do, Virgin Atlantic will get hammered more by the plaintiffs' lawyers and their cohort judges.)

Third, I see that the plaintiffs' lawyers fees are subject to negotiation with Virgin Atlantic. You might consider that as a venue for registering objection and have Virgin Atlantic take a hard line about those fees because of the social inutility, or disutility, of the work the lawyers do.

If any of the above suggestions appeal to you, please let me know, because I would have additional suggestions to proffer to you.

I hope you consider this letter to you worthwhile.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Email to Xerox Chief Ethics Officer

From: RDShatt
To: ethics@xerox.com
Sent: 8/3/2008 11:26:16 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Would you care to express an opinion?

Dear Ms. Nazemetz,

Recently I attempted to agitate the Xerox Board of Directors relative to their settlement of a class action securities lawsuit against Xerox. See this link for further information: Xerox

Further, I am currently expressing criticism of the Ethics and Compliance Officer Association for not affording me a forum to dialogue with ethics officers relative to certain argumentation I am attempting to propound about how the law is an impediment to the mission of ethics officers to nurture and inculcate ethical business conduct by corporate employees. See this link for further information: Letter to ECOA members re Orlando conference

Being the chief ethics officer at Xerox, you are specially situated at an intersection of the above two matters, and I am contacting you specially for that reason.

If you choose to take the time to review the materials at the above links, and if you would care to express any opinion about anything that is set out in those materials, I would very much like to hear from you. If you are not in a position to express any opinion, I will, however, understand.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Sunday, August 3, 2008

Letter to ECOA members re Orlando conference

Dear ECOA members,

I was very interested in attending the Orlando conference to dialogue with ethics officers, academics and others regarding Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?

Unfortunately the ECOA has said it is not interested, and I should not bother the ECOA. See email correspondence with ECOA .

I question the legitimacy of the ECOA's lack of interest.

The ECOA said I have made thoughtful argumentation going in one direction. I asked why, then, could I not find thoughtful argumentation going in the opposite direction. I suggested some answers to the ECOA.

One possible answer I did not suggest was that there is not a basis for thoughtful argumentation going in the opposite direction. I want to keep an open mind on that and am very interested in being cited thoughtful argumentation going in the opposite direction from the argumentation I make.

I did say to the ECOA that my argumentation is not rocket science. It is based on common sense and common human knowledge and experience, and credentialed experts can understandably not be keen on having something put before them that undermines their self-image as being a specialized repository of knowledge and expertise that makes them the only qualified persons to speak intelligently related to their subject and to have worthwhile opinions. I suggested to the ECOA that could be one reason for its lack of interest.

I further suggested there is the matter of ethics officers being subject to higher up corporate masters. I said to the ECOA that the law may materially undermine the objective of corporate ethics officers to nurture and inculcate ethical conduct by the employees of corporations in exactly the way I argue, but that is venturing into a much bigger domain than ethics officers are in charge of, and those officers are not going to say or do anything except as fits within the big picture strategy and tactics of corporate management in responding to and dealing with the travesties of our nation's civil liability system (such as is being carried out by the national Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform ). (As regards that strategy and tactics, I solicited the ECOA that, if it would like more insight, I would be pleased to engage with the ECOA about it.)

After saying the foregoing to the ECOA, I did not go on to say to the ECOA that the entire corporate ethics industry may consider itself puny and wholly ineffectual should it try to take on the plaintiffs' lawyers in urging changes in the law to make the law more supportive of corporate ethics officers in trying to achieve their goals. If one is puny and thinks one will not be able to make headway in a particular direction, one can well decide not to spend time tilting at windmills.

If the ECOA is going to say it is not interested in dialoguing about Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?, I think the ECOA owes it to itself and to its members to be honest about the reasons for its lack of interest. Thus far, I do not think the ECOA has evidenced that honesty.

As indicated above, I am interested in reading thoughtful argumentation that goes in the opposite direction from Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics? If there is not any, and the explication of the ECOA's lack of interest is as set forth in this letter, I wish to call that to the attention of corporate ethics officers and others and urge that they and the ECOA find more backbone and fortitude in trying to prosecute their mission.

I would like to dialogue about this in Orlando. I requested the ECOA to waive the conference fee for me, but the ECOA declined. In the circumstances, I told the ECOA that I did not consider it worth my expense of going to the Annual Conference, and that I would continue my efforts by email and by my blog, which I am hereby doing.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Friday, August 1, 2008

Email correspondence with ECOA

From: RDShatt
To: kdarcy@theecoa.org
Sent: 3/22/2008 3:34:38 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Continued interest in ECOA as forum

Dear Mr. Darcy,

I continue to plug away (today's blog entry) and continue to seek the ECOA as a forum.

Maybe that will never be offered to me because I don't have credentials; if so, I will just have to accept that.

In any event, I see the "call for speakers" item on the website for the Annual Conference, and I will send Mr. Hansen an email suggesting myself.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck


From: RDShatt
To: JHansen@theecoa.orgCC: kdarcy@theecoa.org
Sent: 3/22/2008 3:40:36 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: call for speakers

Dear Mr. Hansen,

I propose myself as a speaker at the Annual Conference.

I don't have credentials or a CV to submit, except for what you care to extract from my blog, starting with this.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck


From: RDShatt
To: rholmes@southernco.com
CC: kdarcy@theecoa.org
Sent: 4/1/2008 10:19:19 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Fwd: call for speakers; solicitation for interview

Dear Mr. Holmes,

I believe my name is known to you by now.

Per the below email, I have solicited the ECOA to be a speaker at this year's conference. Inasmuch as you are in Birmingham and I am in Birmingham, I would be desirous of an interview with you, in order to evaluate my potential as a conference speaker. If this is something that you are willing to do, please contact me. My telephone number is 967-5586.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck


From: RDShatt@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 12:20 PM
To: Keith T. Darcy
Subject: Request for waiver of conference fee

Dear Mr. Darcy,

I would like to attend the annual conference. I am retired and receive no compensation for anything I do in the corporate ethics field. You know of my efforts in that field, including particularly my trying to communicate with ethics officers and academics related to certain argumentation I am trying to propound. I applied to the ECOA to be a speaker at the conference and solicited an interview with Mr. Holmes regarding the same, but received no reply to either communication. I have asked the ECOA to allow for some publication of my article on its website or be allowed to avail myself in some way of its email list of its members, but I have not been able to obtain any of that. I would like to gain access to the materials in the member resource center on the ECOA website to see what is there that may have bearing on my argumentation, but, for the same reasons that I am requesting waiver of the conference fee, I cannot justify paying to be an ECOA member in order to find out that information by that means. I have extensively solicited from ethics professionals comment and evaluation about my argumentation, but have not received any substantive feedback that I would consider meritorious of reciting here. I have some understanding of the credentialistic environment in which I am trying to make headway, and also that many ethics professionals are subject to constraints either of their corporate masters or of their marketplace. The ramifications of the foregoing factors and considerations are not likely to deter me in carrying on. I would like to do so in person at the Annual Conference, but I cannot justify to myself paying the conference fee, and rather than pay the fee to attend I would continue and extend my current mode of communication to professionals in the ethics field. For the foregoing reasons, and in the foregoing circumstances, I respectfully request of the ECOA that I be allowed to attend the conference without payment of the conference fee.

Thank you very much your attention to this request.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck


From: kdarcy@theecoa.org
To: RDShatt@aol.com
Sent: 7/27/2008 1:02:13 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: RE: Request for waiver of conference fee

Mr. Shattuck,

Thank you for your email.

As a matter of policy, we do not waive conference fees.

Regarding access to our member resource center, it is only available to our Sponsoring Partner members.

As I have previously mentioned, we do not make available our member mailing lists.

I have previously reviewed your material and concluded that, while it is a thoughtful argument, it would not of interest to our members either at our conferences or through our newsletter. I believe that the lack of response despite having “extensively solicited from ethics professionals” supports my conclusion.

You have been writing to myself, directors and others now for an extended period of time. I would respectively ask that you cease making these repeated requests of the ECOA. We are simply not interested.

Thank you, and best wishes in your endeavors.


Keith Darcy, Executive Director


From: RDShatt
To: kdarcy@theecoa.org
Sent: 7/27/2008 4:08:08 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Request for waiver of conference fee

Thank you very much for replying, Mr. Darcy.

If I make a thoughtful written argument going in one direction, surely I should be able to find a thoughtful written argument arguing in the other direction. Can you cite me something? In my extensive communications, I have explicitly or implicitly been soliciting anyone to say anything or cite anything that argues to the contrary of the thrust of my argumentation, but have not gotten anything to that effect.

Do you have any idea why that is?

I have some ideas.

One is what I have referred to as "credentialism." My argumentation is not rocket science. It is based on common sense and common human knowledge and experience. The last thing credentialed experts want thrown at them is something that undermines their self-image as being a specialized repository of knowledge and expertise that makes them the only qualified persons to speak intelligently related to their subject and to have worthwhile opinions, and heaven forbid that there is something brought before them that is within the competency of the lay public to have an intelligent view about.

Second, I mentioned your corporate masters. The law may egregiously undermine the objective of corporate ethics officers to nurture and inculcate ethical conduct by the employees of corporations in exactly the way I argue, but that is venturing into a much bigger domain than is occupied by corporate ethics officers, and they are not going to say or do diddly squat except as fits within the big picture strategy and tactics of corporate management in responding to and dealing with the travesties of our nation's civil liability system. (If you would like more insight into that matter, I would be pleased to engage you on it.)

So, Mr. Darcy, you may profess lack of interest, and further I suspect your lack of interest will carry the day for and within the ECOA, and I will try not to bother you or your directors any further. If, however, I choose to email corporate ethics officers and others and say the same to them as I say to you in this email, I am sure you will not hold it against me.

With all best wishes,
Robert Shattuck