Plagiarism Renders Scott McInnis Unfit to Practice Law or Govern

By Julian Dunraven, J.D. M.P.A.

Honorable Friends:

Yesterday’s Denver Post reported that Scott McInnis plagiarized the work of Colorado Supreme Court Justice Gregory J. Hobbs in articles McInnis drafted for the Hasan Family Foundation. The foundation paid McInnis $300,000 for these articles.

After the story broke, Mr. McInnis blamed a researcher for the problem and claimed in his own press release that the plagiarism was unintentional. This is rubbish.

Mr. McInnis is certainly familiar with academic and professional writing standards; he is a doctor of law, after all. Thus, he should know he has an obligation to review any material submitted by a research assistant. However, he should also know that, if he intends to use whole pages of text submitted by his research assistant, then he has a responsibility to list the research assistant as a minor coauthor and cite his contributions. Mr. McInnis failed to do either of these things. Instead, he claims he took whole passages of text, supposedly submitted by an assistant, added them to his article, and represented it all as original and finished work, but somehow did so unintentionally. In order to believe such acts can be accomplished unintentionally, we have to believe that Mr. McInnis was not in control of his own body or mind. Perhaps he was possessed at the time. Otherwise, he is lying. Which do you suppose is more likely?

Plagiarism represents the height of intellectual dishonesty and reveals a complete lack of academic integrity. Not so long ago, virtually all conservatives and most liberals agreed that a similar lack of academic integrity rendered Ward Churchill unfit to teach at a university. I cannot now find any ethical way to apply a lesser standard to a man who seeks, not simply to lecture a few dozen students in a classroom, but to govern the entire state of Colorado.

During law school, I sat on the faculty’s academic affairs committee as a student member. During one of our meetings, we discussed what to do about a few students who had indulged in plagiarism. The guilty students put up the same defense McInnis now offers. They claimed they did not fully understand that they were plagiarizing and that it was all unintentional.

I had no sympathy for such excuses. The idea that anyone can get into a top tier law school like the University of Colorado and not understand plagiarism is absurd. Thus, I recommended immediate expulsion for these students. The professors, however, did not want to appear unmerciful. They simply gave the students failing grades in the classes in which they were caught plagiarizing. The law school then forwarded a report of the incidents to the Colorado Supreme Court’s Board of Law Examiners, detailing the penalties discussed and imposed. The Board of Law Examiners, however, agreed with me. None of these students were permitted to sit for the Bar Examination—they were not permitted to become practicing attorneys.

Already a practicing attorney, McInnis cannot be prevented from taking the bar exam. Nonetheless, I strongly suspect that the Colorado Supreme Court will soon review McInnis’ actions and sanction him for violating Rule 8.4 of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. Anyone seeking to file a complaint about McInnis’ conduct should contact the Attorney Regulation Counsel.

Plagiarism renders a person unfit to teach at a university because academic dishonesty undermines trust in all legitimate scholarship. Plagiarism renders a person unfit to practice law because a person who would lie about a mere academic paper cannot hope to be trusted with protecting both the finances and liberties of his clients—not to mention the integrity of the justice system. The temptation to lie becomes too severe for such an unprincipled person. Yet, neither a professor nor any individual lawyer holds such public trust as a governor of a state.

The Tea Party movement, in its call for accountability in our public servants, reminds us that this issue of trustworthiness is of paramount importance today. The Republican Party is laudably attempting to address these concerns and redeem its past mistakes by demanding responsible limited government always accountable to the people. Mr. McInnis, however, has dishonored himself and proven totally unworthy of the people’s trust. Yet he has the audacity to ask the Republican Party to nominate him as its candidate for governor. After the Republican fury over Ward Churchill, nominating McInnis would be the height of hypocrisy and further alienate already disillusioned voters and Tea Party activists.

For these reasons, I must regrettably join in the call for Mr. McInnis to withdraw from the gubernatorial race in order to spare himself and our Party from further embarrassment. At this point, no ethical Republican could vote for him without shame or with any expectation of reform in government as usual. If plagiarism demonstrates such unprincipled character as to make a man unfit to teach and an attorney unfit to practice law, then it should certainly render a candidate unfit to be the governor of Colorado.

GOB United; GOP Undecided

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends:

I learned from yesterday’s front page headline of The Denver Post that my party now stands united behind former Rep. Scott McInnis in the Colorado gubernatorial race. Odd that. I used to think we had primary elections for this sort of thing, but it seems they have fallen out of fashion in Colorado. It is, after all, far more efficient for the Party’s leaders to simply anoint a candidate. I am certain that Mr. Dan Maes would be overjoyed to know that he need not bother with a primary. Afflicted with the woeful ignorance of fashion so typical of Republicans these days, however, he still seems to be campaigning. I am sure someone will point out the faux pas, though.

I also learned that we have a new platform, again courtesy of Atty. McInnis and the GOP leadership, saving the rest of us a great deal of time and consideration. The Post even published a nice ten point summary of it on the front page. In fact, many of my Independent and Democrat friends called to chat about these bullets before I even finished reading the article. Although they are each greatly dissatisfied with Gov. Bill Ritter, and despite the fact that they agree with most of those ten points listed in the article, my honorable friends told me they were going to abstain from voting entirely, or else reluctantly support Mr. Ritter again, due to the fact that two of those bullet points were dedicated, yet again, to social issues. They had hoped the GOP would focus entirely on economic and liberty issues.

Hoping to restore the confidence of my honorable friends in the GOP’s potential, I visited Atty. McInnis’s web page to examine the full text of this new platform. Interestingly, what I found was substantially different from what the Post article reported. The Post reports that this new, “Contract for Colorado” includes promises to appoint conservative judges to state courts, to establish a school voucher program, to restore Former Gov. Owens’s ban on state funding for Planned Parenthood, and to establish a general statement defending the sanctity of human life.

In contrast, the “Platform for Prosperity,” on Atty. McInnis’s web page makes no mention of judges or the judicial system whatsoever. It speaks of school vouchers not at all. While it does indeed promise to revive the Owens era ban on state funding for abortion providers, a general statement defending the sanctity of human life is nowhere to be found.

I do not know whether these discrepancies are the result of poor reporting on the part of the Post, or whether Atty. McInnis and the GOP leadership who authored this plan simply provided the Post with faulty information. However, with such noticeable inconsistencies in the commitments of Atty. McInnis and the Party leadership, I can hardly blame my honorable friends for being distrustful. Indeed, many Republicans remain wary as well. Whatever they may think of any particular issue, they have had few reasons to trust the Party leadership and its mothballed candidates who so often seem far more interested in the politics of pull than in principled policy.

While it may be true that the Good Old Boys (GOB) of the Party leadership have united behind Atty. McInnis, the Grand Old Party (GOP) remains undecided and skeptical. Moreover, as the GOP has never been known for its fashion sense, it may well ignore the new trend against primary elections and continue to consider the candidacy of Mr. Maes. If Atty. McInnis truly wishes to unify the GOP and Independents in support of his candidacy, he should strive to show firm and consistent commitment to principle. That has never been his strong point, but I have always believed people are capable of positive change.

Confirmed! Conspiracy And Kool-Aid In McInnis Audio Flap

Scott McInnis’ unforced error—reported extensively late last week—prompted a renewed interest in the nature of post-campaign finance reform verbal tap-dancing that candidates (especially potential candidates) must perform in order to skirt possible campaign violations. It has also raised concerns over what exactly being a “friend” or a “fan” or a “follower” of someone on a social networking site—in this case Facebook—really means, and if that “affiliation” constitutes an explicit or even implicit endorsement of the person(s) being followed (the GJ Sentinel alleges that is does).

For Ari Armstrong, the screwy laws that govern campaign language constitutes nothing more than censorship.

For Ben DeGrow, the Facebook evidence is not only weak but entirely meaningless, as quite a few individuals follow various and sundry groups or causes on Facebook merely to keep tabs, not as part of any formal endorsement or show of support.

That CompleteColorado.com’s own follow-up to the McInnis story includes screencaps of other prominent Coloradans, some of whom have been mentioned as part of McInnis’ team, as “followers” of the Draft Sen. Josh Penry page clearly bears this out (Sean Tonner, Monica Owens). This early in a primary session bloggers, like many others, will end up following all potential candidates in a given race simply because of the ability to gain information. This is most likely the reason that the GJ Sentinel itself appears in the list of “Draft Penry” supporters. This is probably also the same reason why Pols creator Jason Bane joined the Ryan Frazier page.

But all of this is just a diversion, according to ColoradoPols. There really is a much simpler solution.

Conspiracy!

According to the koolaid from Pols: Todd Shepherd and Justin Longo own CompleteColorado.com. They also both work for the Independence Institute. Todd refuses to disclose the source of the McInnis voice mail, but it is undoubtedly from a disgruntled Penry supporter, leaked to GOP-friendly media (it might have been faked, but McInnis himself confirmed the message was his). Sen. Penry appeared at the anti-stimulus “pork rally” in February, and aside from the “swastika guy” and Bush-Penry recession smear, is really nothing more than a minion from I.I. due to the fact that the institute’s logo appeared on a podium behind which Penry had given a short speech. Todd and Justin are both supporters of the “Draft Penry” Facebook group, and are therefore—given Penry’s I.I. association—clearly Penry insiders with an axe to grind against Scott McInnis. There is probably also a connection to 9/11 Truth, the Illuminati, Freemasons, the symbols at DIA, and global warming in there as well.

See I told you it was simpler!

Paging Robert Langdon . . .

What is really going on here are a couple things. Pols wishes to stoke a fire of resentment between possible Penry and McInnis camps, especially given the duo's own personal history (Penry was a staffer for McInnis). CompleteColorado.com has no axe to grind, and given its own investigative reporting accomplishments, would not have been an inappropriate venue to give the audio under any circumstances. Journalistic integrity was at stake. While the GJ Sentinel’s reporter isn’t guilty of any ethics violations, it is clear that his investigative reporting skills are, as well as an understanding of social networking, clearly lacking. Pols is only too willing too play “gotcha!” in an attempt to attack Penry and smear CC as nothing more than partisan and even intrapartisan hacks.

The only hackery here is the weak evidence provided by the GJ Sentinel and the lemming-like effluence emanating from Pols.

Evidence? What evidence? We need only blind accusations and ideologically-soothing conspiracy theories to carry us through the day!