It's no secret. Abdul-Hakim Shabazz and I are friends, and I enjoy our back-and-forth. It's more friendly than many imagine.
Yesterday, I scanned Abdul's "Treacy v. Parker" post on his Indiana Barrister blog, and I can confirm that I have had people tell me that relationship between Ed Treacy and Dan Parker has been strained at times. I don't believe it's some secret, so I feel comfortable about publishing that here. Do I believe it's some uncrossable chasm between the two? Not by any means. The two men have to work together, and they do.
With all that said, I totally missed the part of the post where he accused Judge Lou Rosenberg of cavorting with a political party and doing what is best for the party over what is best for justice. This, of course, has to do with the Charlie White case.
I've known Lou Rosenberg for a few years now, and I Abdul's accusations towards him horribly distasteful and inappropriate. Knowing Judge Rosenberg and the kind of man he is, I don't believe Abdul's claims.
Others did read the post, and the Indianapolis Bar Association has weighed in. They have criticized Abdul for his statements on Rosenberg. Here is the release:
Indianapolis, IN, April 28, 2011: On behalf of over 5,000 lawyers, judges, and legal professionals, the Indianapolis Bar Association on occasion finds it appropriate to speak when the integrity of the legal system or those who administer, support and defend it are unfairly called into question. The April 27, 2011 blog post by Abdul Hakim-Shabazz titled “Treacy v. Parker?”, has made unsubstantiated allegations that call into question the actions of a sitting judge and the integrity of the legal system as a whole. The Marion County Circuit Court judge in the matter involving the case of Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White is bound by the rules of judicial conduct in that and any other case. While we understand the importance of a free debate in political matters and policy issues of public concern, including those that may take place on the Indiana Barrister blog, parts of this April 27 blog post suggest without evidence that the judge has violated his duties. The legal system, its participants and the public benefit from commentary on politics that is free from baseless allegations of this nature. We also note that since Abdul Hakim-Shabazz is an attorney who has chosen a name for his blog that references the legal profession, it would have been our hope that his respect for the legal system would have outweighed any interest in publishing sensationalized, unfounded and unattributed allegations about the judge. The IndyBar reiterates its support for a vigorous public discourse about the legal system and judiciary, but encourages those who comment publicly to do so responsibly.
Abdul responds to the statement here.
I think Abdul should come forward with evidence or he should apologize to Judge Rosenberg for calling his integrity into question. Clearly, Abdul's not going to do either.
Hat tip to the Terry Burns at the Indianapolis Times and Paul Ogden for this one. Matt Stone at Indy Student also responds to the story here.