Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Robinson: Wait. First of all, would you like an open or closed hearing? <br /> Mr. Roth: Open is fine. I don't think I have anything to hide here. You <br /> know this all started with a phone call. Actually an email from an <br /> attorney in Honolulu asking if my son's employment causes...a <br /> conflict. And my son works for NASA's Jet Propulsion <br /> Laboratory and I said...first of all, he's living in California, I don't <br /> think there's any conflict whatsoever. But I ask...why would you <br /> think there's a conflict? And he said well, he doesn't work for <br /> NASA, he works for Caltech. I just saw his badge, it says <br /> NASA...I don't think so. I called him up and he said...well yeah <br /> it's kind of complicated...it's kind of under both. I said okay <br /> so...he works for Caltech...what does that mean? Well Caltech is <br /> one of the partners in TMT. I said okay well so far removed I <br /> don't think there's a problem. The papers get involved. The paper <br /> called me up and I said well look...I'm pretty sure there's no <br /> conflict of interest here but I want to just disclose...my wife also <br /> works for a telescope and I still don't see a conflict of interest <br /> because her job is so far removed from what's going on as far as <br /> TMT that there's no conflict. Well the AP writes an article and the <br /> article they ask for opinions of different legal professionals and <br /> they had my opinion, the Attorney General did not give an official <br /> opinion....although I did talk to her and she's...she didn't see there <br /> was a conflict. But the way the article was written...gave the <br /> appearance that there may be a conflict. Including...they had this <br /> one professor from Washington who I've never met before...this <br /> other attorney who started this whole thing and then the law school <br /> professor, Ken Lawson. And I don't know if you received his <br /> email? <br /> Mr. Wiseman: Yeah we did. We have it. <br /> Mr. Roth: Which is kind of interesting because...Ken Lawson makes clear <br /> that there's no legal conflict of interest. But you know for the <br /> appearance of impropriety...maybe it's best that I step aside. So <br /> I've done my research on this. I can find no violation of our rules <br /> of professional responsibility. I've asked for, not only you, for an <br /> opinion but I've asked the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the <br /> body that sees after attorneys. They gave me a written <br /> opinion...non opinion...basically saying that they can't give me an <br /> opinion whether there is or is not one and they said maybe I should <br /> ask our local ethics committee or people in charge which is <br /> actually you. The Attorney General said that...ODC said that. In <br /> the ODC opinion though...and I want to be completely fair...they <br /> refer to a Missouri Law Review article that was written in 1998. <br /> Entitled What You See Is What You Get: Applying the <br /> 16 <br />