LMAO: Embarrassing Defense of Balch Backfires

The publication of a foolish defense of the Balch and Drummond’s indefensible conduct (targeting poor children in North Birmingham to discourage parents from testing their toxic and contaminated property ) has caused members of the legal community to either shake their heads in disgust or others to LMAO at the absurdity.

The writer, Guy V. Martin Jr., has the audacity to write that Balch & Bingham “set a high bar for ethical standards others envy.”

We’re sure no one, and we mean no one, envies Balch-made millionaire and long time Balch partner Joel I. Gilbert’s “high bar:” a six-count criminal conviction and the prison term he is facing next month.

But the cherry on the whip cream is Martin’s conclusion:

But saying that everyone who wrote a letter or in any way touched the pushback against the EPA’s effort to expand the Superfund site is the moral equivalent of Nazis for poisoning the poor children of Tarrant is wrong, according to the Obama administration’s EPA’s testing.

Does Balch & Bingham truly want to be compared to Nazis by their own defenders?

We remind Martin “that everyone who wrote a letter or in any way touched the pushback” probably signed a “ghost-written” letter drafted by Gilbert or were  paid a “consulting fee” or bribe in an elaborate AstroTurf campaign, as court testimony showed this past July.

As the U.S. Attorney emphasized, the North Birmingham matter was not about the EPA or government overreach; it was about bribery, corruption, and criminal conduct.

And the jury agreed unanimously and on all 6 counts.