Jump to content

Ken Paxton is dirty? NO FUCKING WAY!

Gil Bang

By Gil Bang
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Chewbacca
Chewbacca

Here's a hint - if you vote for someone, you support them.  Whether it's Paxton, Abbott, Trump, Cruz, your vote says you support their actions.

SydneyCarton
SydneyCarton

Ah, yes. The “I don’t like this guy, but voting for a a literal criminal into a position of power is better than voting for someone who fights for civil liberties. Because fuck democrats and people wh

BevoAbyss
BevoAbyss

Lulz. With all due respect, what this really means in 2023 GQP Texas is: "I lean hard fascist, but I've never been a fan of fascist Paxton. Of course, I am a fan of many other fascists and voted

Posted Images

Paper_jam

Paper_jam 831

Posted
Posted (edited)

is there any mechanism by which Paxton can be reprimanded or censured for filing such a frivolous, destructive, and meritless action with the SC?  Don't the ABA and/or the Texas State Bar have professional and ethical codes of conduct? For example, in the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 8.04, Misconduct, paragraph (a)(3) states:  "A lawyer shall not...engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."

 

Edited by Paper_jam
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,438

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Paper_jam said:

is there any mechanism by which Paxton can be reprimanded or censured for filing such a frivolous, destructive, and meritless action with the SC?  Don't the ABA and/or the Texas State Bar have professional and ethical codes of conduct? For example, in the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 8.04, Misconduct, paragraph (a)(3) states:  "A lawyer shall not...engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."

 

Here's the problem with that.  And no it's not a defense of lawyers, it's just a statement of the reality of lawyer discipline, Huckleberry.

Until a court finds one or more of the lawsuits frivolous or otherwise in bad faith, state bar associations are unlikely to take any action.  Lawyers are generally disciplined under that provision when a court finds that they have engaged in the stated conduct, either by sanctions or by a criminal conviction.

While we all know-know that what Trumpco is doing is malicious and deceitful, proving it in an objective fashion is not easy.  Merely losing a lawsuit is not sufficient proof.  Losing in pretty spectacular fashion is not enough.

The fact that they are willing to plead this stuff in a lawsuit that is dismissed without sanctions probably completely insulates it from review by the various bar associations.

Losing a lawsuit combined with sanctions for frivolity, misrepresenting things, etc. probably is sufficient to invoke bar scrutiny.  But it would only expose that particular set of lawyers to the sanctions and to bar discipline, not the whole group of them, and there are many different sets

In the past, I have mentioned how difficult it can be to prove perjury and used Ken Starr and the years and millions he spent to prove what everyone knew-knew, that Bill Clinton was lying about molesting and fucking Monica Lewinsky.

Proving that what these clowns are doing is sanctionable conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation is going to be more heavy lifting than most bar associations are going to be willing to undertake without an assist from the courts.

The matter is further complicated by the fact that what Trumpco is espousing is political speech, which receives the highest form of First Amendment protection.  It is also of an opinion nature, which also helps it.  If it could be easily and quickly proven to be false, wholly false, that might change the calculus some.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,438

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I am often amazed that the things which seem cut and dried in a moral or ethical sense don't clear the bar (pun intended) for legal malpractice, but the things that DO clear that bar can often seem fuzzy.  

I live in a different world.

Malpractice is a different deal from attorney discipline, although they sometimes overlap.

The bar is far more likely to take steps against an attorney who is injuring the public by malpractice than by someone who is filing borderline frivolous lawsuits.  Every month, there are 20 or so lawyers publicly disciplined. https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Table_of_Contents&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=51907  The vast majority of those cases are related to neglect of a legal matter, which may or may not rise to the level of malpractice, and for shenanigans with fees.

Note "borderline."  The term frivolous gets tossed around a lot, when it's a term with a pretty specific meaning in the legal context.  A lawsuit is not frivolous until a court declares it so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
Horn Under a Bad Sign

Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,390

Posted
Posted

Ken Paxton tweeted Paul Sperry's lie about those attacking the capitol as being Antifa members.  I tweeted the graphic posted elsewhere here that shows that all of them ---- Jake Angeli, Jacob Tankersly etc.... ----- are white supremacists and Q-Anon, and pointed out that Ken Paxton is currently under indictment, WHICH IS TRUE. 

Result? 

What a freakin' pansy!

Ken Paxton.jpg

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pacman

pacman 7,355

Posted
Posted

Thought this would have made it here. Siap

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2021/01/05/attorney-general-ken-paxton-seeks-43-m-google-lawsuit/6555047002/

 

Since Paxton's corruption gutted his department, he wants $43 million to hire outside attorneys to handle the suit against Google. Of course, he likely has a way to benefit from that award as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17,659

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, pacman said:

Thought this would have made it here. Siap

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2021/01/05/attorney-general-ken-paxton-seeks-43-m-google-lawsuit/6555047002/

 

Since Paxton's corruption gutted his department, he wants $43 million to hire outside attorneys to handle the suit against Google. Of course, he likely has a way to benefit from that award as well.

I did not realize they'd hired Lanier.  If anyone can beat Google, it's probably him.  He's a very talented trial attorney.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32,848

Posted
Posted
On 1/8/2021 at 12:13 PM, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Ken Paxton tweeted Paul Sperry's lie about those attacking the capitol as being Antifa members.  I tweeted the graphic posted elsewhere here that shows that all of them ---- Jake Angeli, Jacob Tankersly etc.... ----- are white supremacists and Q-Anon, and pointed out that Ken Paxton is currently under indictment, WHICH IS TRUE. 

Result? 

What a freakin' pansy!

Ken Paxton.jpg

That's against the law. Report it to Twitter, elected officials can't block constituents on Twitter. The 5th Circuit already ruled on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17,659

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Updawg said:

Will be interesting to see what the legislature has to say.

It will.  

Don't get me wrong.  Paxton is an utter piece of garbage who should've been in jail long before he was AG.  If he were to hang for his treason in DC last week, I'd probably strongly consider going to see it.  

Maybe as the article says that other guy from the AG's office who bailed because he knew Paxton was scum could handle it.  But that's water under the bridge now. If the people of Texas want to win against Google, Lanier in the driver seat is a good start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,438

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 1/11/2021 at 5:05 PM, Chad Fuck said:

I did not realize they'd hired Lanier.  If anyone can beat Google, it's probably him.  He's a very talented trial attorney.  

Somewhat ironically, but unsurprisingly, Lanier is a former pastor.  One of my best friends from law school was his top lieutenant for a number of years.  I bet it was hard to breathe when they were in the same room together.

I have a hard time believing that the ones who left would be anything near an adequate substitute for Mark Lanier, who has some actual experience with antitrust litigation.  He handled the Retractable Syringe case against hospital suppliers and hospitals.

All that said, though, the critical element of an antitrust case is having the right expert witnesses and for that, I am guessing that Texas and the other states are piggybacking on the DOJ case.

And, yeah, I'm sure that money represents a bit of a slush fund for Paxton.  In any event, when he gets run out of office, if he still has a law license, you can bet he will be begging Lanier for a job with this as a quid pro quo.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted (edited)

Ken keeps attempting to elevate his profile for one reason and one reason only.  A security detail provided by somebody else once he leaves office.  

the people he was helping Nate Paul launder money for aren't happy with him right now.  They're not going to harm a sitting Attorney General of a major U.S. state.  

After he's removed from office or is primaried out in less than two years however............well, he should grow a beard, dye his hair, and gain some weight.  Because that eye is gonna give him away.  

Edited by Lobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17,659

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Somewhat ironically, but unsurprisingly, Lanier is a former pastor.  One of my best friends from law school was his top lieutenant for a number of years.  I bet it was hard to breathe when they were in the same room together.

I have a hard time believing that the ones who left would be anything near an adequate substitute for Mark Lanier, who has some actual experience with antitrust litigation.  He handled the Retractable Syringe case against hospital suppliers and hospitals.

All that said, though, the critical element of an antitrust case is having the right expert witnesses and for that, I am guessing that Texas and the other states are piggybacking on the DOJ case.

And, yeah, I'm sure that money represents a bit of a slush fund for Paxton.  In any event, when he gets run out of office, if he still has a law license, you can bet he will be begging Lanier for a job with this as a quid pro quo.

We probably both know that fellow.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,438

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

We probably both know that fellow.  

Assuming we're talking about Gene, hopefully he wasn't a dick to you.  He's a good person but has that capacity.  I haven't spoken to him in a shamefully long time.

He got in a fistfight at a deposition with another friend of mine from undergrad.  Awkward.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13,508

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, The Dog said:

How many of those 50 are under federal indictment and need a pardon?

One thing about this impeachment that I hadn't thought of before is that Trump will focus on that subject over the next week. It doesn't give much time for people to lobby him for pardons. People like Paxton are most likely worried about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17,659

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Assuming we're talking about Gene, hopefully he wasn't a dick to you.  He's a good person but has that capacity.  I haven't spoken to him in a shamefully long time.

He got in a fistfight at a deposition with another friend of mine from undergrad.  Awkward.

I was speaking of a different fellow.  But fistfight in a depo?  Oof.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45,665

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Horndog said:

Paxton defending the whistleblower suit by arguing that the AG is not a public employee and the statute does not apply to him.  https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/14/ken-paxton-texas-whistleblower-lawsuit/

Anyone with expertise in this area want to opine? 

 

I don't have any expertise, but my opinion is he's a fucking asshole that should die a fiery death.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wreckatx

wreckatx 141

Posted
Posted
On 1/14/2021 at 1:55 PM, Horndog said:

Paxton defending the whistleblower suit by arguing that the AG is not a public employee and the statute does not apply to him.  https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/14/ken-paxton-texas-whistleblower-lawsuit/

Anyone with expertise in this area want to opine? 

 

No one has expertise in that area because that is a made up, unsupported, bullshit argument designed to provide an opportunity for immediate interlocutory appeal and delay of proceedings (read: discovery) in the trial court.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudge Nuggets

Fudge Nuggets 19,188

Posted
Posted
On 1/14/2021 at 1:55 PM, Horndog said:

Paxton defending the whistleblower suit by arguing that the AG is not a public employee and the statute does not apply to him.  https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/14/ken-paxton-texas-whistleblower-lawsuit/

Anyone with expertise in this area want to opine? 

 

I’m pretty sure an elected official is the very definition of a public employee. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,438

Posted
Posted (edited)

It's utter bullshit.

The Act is here. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.554.htm

It defines public employee as:  an employee or appointed officer other than an independent contractor who is paid to perform services for a state or local governmental entity.  So, yeah, that might support a reading that elected officials aren't public employees.

There's only one, leeetle problem with that.  The statute gives public employees the right to sue governmental agencies.

The agency in this case is the AGs office.  The public employees in this instance are the plaintiffs, the former employees.  And they ain't elected.

I suppose Paxton is sued in his personal or official capacity, as well, so it might have some tiny bearing on that.  But to the extent he argues that the suit cannot be maintained against the Office of the Attorney General, he is completely and utterly full of shit.  Surprise.

 

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...