Why Preet's Potato? Well firstly of course, to honor Preet Bharara. Secondly, there is a children's game called "Hot Potato". Imagine yourself as a little kid in kindergarten, and there you are sitting around with other kids and someone starts the game by throwing a hot potato into your lap. Noone wants the hot potato! You could get burned. And thus we understand how some politico-economic saavy prosecutors feel whilst struggling with the professional duty oft excused as Prosecutorial Discretion.

If you just bury a potato in a hole in the ground, like in a cover-up, you're only going to end up growing a lot more potatoes.
-- Oliver Wendell Douglas, Esq.

But this is purportedly a nation of laws...

So what will Mr. Bharara do? Will he fry the potato into chips, mash them up, or make some Bratkartoffeln mit Zwiebeln ? Preet has got to do something with the potato besides passing it on to someone else, or just burying it. Such acts are the coward's way of dealing with misconduct & crime by bigshot firms, which most every prosecutor hopes to eventually join (or have a relation join) as a partner. Yeah, the fed pension is something, but it's equaled by just one year at one of those $2Million per year law firms. Do we wonder why no BigLaw partners get incarcerated, when so many fed lawyers jump into partnerships for a year or two prior to full retirement with their federal pensions?

We wonder, how many Feds are going to paint themselves into a corner before the eventual catharsis cleans out the crap. There is no fraud like eToys, the cover-up which keeps exposing naked chiefs proudly walking bare ass'ed through the middle of town.

At any rate, there is an interesting assertion in the eMail to the law firm Epstein Becker & Green P.C. which is reproduced below, authored by none other than Laser Haas "The unstoppable". We invite legal scholars to pine in here at this web site in our comments (or our own sites wiki pages coming soon) about this legal question:

At what point do lawyers become obligated, when they are working on a matter wherein either their client, or person associated therewith, is admitted to having engaged in crime? Obligated (enveloped? intertwined?) to take a variety of actions including say:

• withdraw from the proceedings,

• notify their own insurance carrier,
• make a criminal referral,

• inform their own law firm's executive committee,
• report a crime to an appropriate district attorney,
• inform on corruption or malfeasance by a governmental entity,

• seek independent counsel's advice,

• retain a criminal attorney for their own protection,
  ... and at the very least ( lest the self regulating foundation of the legal industry be found a charade )

• notify an appropriate state bar (when wrongdoers include an attorney)?

And here is another question:

Is it wise for an attorney working for the Federal Government to refuse to take action to punish blatant criminals just because such criminals were big players in the same industry the attorney hopes to join upon leaving the DOJ's revolving door?

If your answer was "not sure", "maybe" or even "yes", re-consider the same question in a circumstance where a number of internet and media savvy individuals are devoted to forever binding the names of government "regulators" who fail their duties - by corruption, cowardice, or sloth - to the blatant acts of the criminals. In other words, is that your final answer or would like to: "phone a friend", "confer with a criminal law specialist", or "ask the BankruptcyMisconduct audience"?

From: Laser Haas < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >
To: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Cc: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; FBI Virginia Public Corruption Unit < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >; Robert Mueller Director FBI < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >; USTP Bankruptcy Fraud Div < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >; Excutive Office for U.S. Trustees < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >; Senator Leahy VT < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; " This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it " < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >; Criminal Division US DOJ < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >; Insptector General US DOJ < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >; Marily Felton Asst US Trustee NY < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >; Mr. Schwartz NY US Attorney office < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >; Office of Inspector General US Dept of Justice < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >; G Robinson SEC Fraud Division < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >; Robert Kolker < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >; Washington Times Mo contact < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >; New York State Bar Federal Judge < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >; Associated Press < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2009 11:41:55 AM
Subject: Epstein Becker & Green law firm ------ Participation in Fraud on the Court - EBGLaw is Responsible for furtherence!

To Whom it May Concern; Let it be known, that Paul Traub has already confessed to supplication of more than seventeen (17) false affidavits and deliberately deceiving the federal court in the cases of In re eToys 01-706 (DE Bankr 2001); In re Kay Bee Toys 04-10120 (DE Bankr 2004) and ebc1 (eToys) v Goldman Sachs (NY Supreme Court 601805/2002). While Paul Traub has provided the premise - that we are just disgruntled claim holders - the fact of the matter is supplication of false affidavits, with some confessed as being intentionally so - that accomplished deception of the Court is;