It goes without saying that during the course of doing what you believe to be the right thing people will inevitably offer their two-cents. Some may offer guidance. Others may support efforts. And some will criticize. It’s all part of the activism process.
Typically, I welcome feedback of any kind. Engagement (and discourse) is important! However, Dear Reader, I recently received what I believe to be an offense and insulting email from a member of the Prosecution Team, Mr. Chuck Rohde.
As you are aware from my previous post, Mr. Rohde represents the foster family in this case. Earlier this week I was contacted by Mr. Rohde who asked that I remove any photos of Nunu Sung with her son from my articles. I listened. We discussed. I considered. I have (now) declined.
Upon returning home from work last night I opened my email to find a note from Mr. Rohde waiting for me, which I would like to share with you.
From: <chuck@ >
Date: Wed, Sep 21, 2011
Subject: RE: Blog
To: Susan D.
“Tsk, tsk, Susan.
I had hoped to be as non-confrontational as possible in my emails yesterday about my feelings and concerns about the photographs you have posted (many lawyers would have handled things far differently) and I had taken it on faith that you would be compassionate toward other people who are either innocent (Joshua) or innocent and altruistic (my clients), and the harm you might accidentally do them. Ah well, I suppose it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve given someone the benefit of the doubt when I shouldn’t have.
Suffice it to say that I am disappointed in the way you have decided to handle things, not least of which in the fact that you chose not to call me today before updating your blog. I’m still willing to speak to you, and I promise not to be angry, even at this point. I’d welcome the chance to educate you on some very important legal and factual points that you are getting wrong. After all, it reflects poorly on someone who is writing about or following a case when they are making significant errors.”
Dear Reader, are you as appalled by such an inappropriate reprimand as I am? Are you as offended by such a bold demonstration of unprofessionalism as I am? Are you as shocked by the demeaning and belittling tone of this email as I am?
Yet, I think something significant is happening here.
Mr. Rohde’s actions reveal to me this blog is now on their radar. The prosecution is becoming uncomfortable. The content presented is achieving its purpose: to give voice to a woman who has been denied a voice in this process; to communicate the injustices and inconsistencies in the handling of her case; and to articulate my observations of a mother who dearly loves her son.
This is the last of my attention directed toward discussing Mr. Rohde. I will not dignify his alleging ignorance on my part. I believe the focus of Mr. Rohde’s statements lies in semantics rather than the ethical and moral matters in this case. The bottom line, Mr. Rohde is paid to represent his clients in these proceedings and has demonstrated is not above engaging in behavior considered questionable and unprofessional in an attempt to manipulate others to conform to his view.
My intention in writing this series on Nunu Sung is to share her story and support her efforts to retain her parental rights of her son. I will not be distracted from that focus.
I thank you, Dear Reader, for permitting this slight digression.
Thank you, Dear Reader and keep up the good work!