the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

[TwiceHorn 31470]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

“Now, some of you will argue that that is the profession protecting itself.  But it isn't really.  Sanctioning doctors often becomes a litigation unto itself, taking weeks or months and entailing appeals that drag on into years.”

 

Touche.

But, we do need to make the distinction that lawdogs can get their peepees whacked both in court and by the bar in separate proceedings.  For lawdogs, the court route of peepee whacking relies on the judge or the opposing party to request a sound whacking, which they often don't want to do because of the potential for extended litigation.  Opposing parties don't want to waste the time and money, and courts are reluctant to further burden their dockets with collateral stuff.

It seems that doctors are even more likely than lawdogs to contest professional discipline coming from the licensing entity.

[Bozo_Casanova 26460]

That’s true, but these particular lawyers are literally trying to subvert a presidential election and the fundament of American Democracy itself by tying up the system with meritless lawsuits in order to prevent the process of  certification from moving forward. The possible outcomes include literal civil war.

And you’re looking at that and saying “nah, we’re too busy. Need to free up the system and get back to weed dealers and shady contractors.” 

Edited November 21, 2020 by Bozo_Casanova

[SilasCoade 2622]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Meaning at a hospital or clinic or other facility, correct?

Yes, facilities routinely deny credentials to bad docs.

But my question to you, Gregg, is what do you do to insure that those docs cannot practice anywhere else?  Because what we're talking about here relates to licensure and it does appear that the medical profession is quite lax at revoking and suspending licenses.

Arguably, credentialing committees are in the business of protecting the facility from lawsuits rather than protecting the public from bad docs.

I don't get the Gregg reference. The state controls licensing. Anyone can file a publicly accessible complaint. Denying access to patients at your facility is the most a facility can do. I'm not saying bad apples don't get through from time to time but the implication was that there is a system to actively obscure bad actors from public scrutiny and that doctors do nothing to police their own. Both are false.

[Hard Times 302]

I'm sick and tired of hearing all these conspiracy theories. Of course the vote count jumped to Biden at the end of the night when the inner city votes were counted. And this Dominion BS. I bet republicans own shares of software companies too. What software company is going to risk civil and criminal penalty by manipulating their software?

 

All all these supposed hundreds people signing affidavits saying they saw fraud. What, one example out of hundreds of thousands of votes? I have no doubt Trump paid them off. If he gave me $1 million, I'd say I saw fraud too.

[Huckleberry 32859]

12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not the way the First Amendment works.

I think one of the best ways to attack it is via mental health.  Require an examination and/or some supervision, at which point they admit that they don't actually believe that shit, and then they may be open to discipline.

Completely disagree that it's a First Amendment issue. That's a total copout. Plenty of professional organizations limit what their members can do or say. That is a voluntary relationship. 

[Dahobbs 17534]

8 minutes ago, Hard Times said:

I'm sick and tired of hearing all these conspiracy theories. Of course the vote count jumped to Biden at the end of the night when the inner city votes were counted. And this Dominion BS. I bet republicans own shares of software companies too. What software company is going to risk civil and criminal penalty by manipulating their software?

 

All all these supposed hundreds people signing affidavits saying they saw fraud. What, one example out of hundreds of thousands of votes? I have no doubt Trump paid them off. If he gave me $1 million, I'd say I saw fraud too.

The affidavits are mostly nonsense and don't actually describe anything close to fraud. 

[Dahobbs 17534]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Completely disagree that it's a First Amendment issue. That's a total copout. Plenty of professional organizations limit what their members can do or say. That is a voluntary relationship. 

Plenty of professional organizations aren't arms of the state. But a state's bar is, making its actions subject to the First Amendment. 

 

[TwiceHorn 31470]

55 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That’s true, but these particular lawyers are literally trying to subvert a presidential election and the fundament of American Democracy itself by tying up the system with meritless lawsuits in order to prevent the process of  certification from moving forward. The possible outcomes include literal civil war.

And you’re looking at that and saying “nah, we’re too busy. Need to free up the system and get back to weed dealers and shady contractors.” 

I'm not saying that.

The courts presiding over the suits might be saying that.  The defendants might be saying that.  Some of this is premature.

The reality is that the lawsuits themselves are judged on their own merits or lack thereof.  They aren't judged additionally by the insane rantings of lawyers that didn't appear in the cases, e.g. Giuliani, Powell, and Ellis.  If the lawsuits had sufficient legal merit, the subjective motivation is irrelevant.  Just because they got their asses kicked does not necessarily mean that the suits wholly lacked merit in a way that the judge can whack them.  

There are two different tracks of professional repercussions, here.  From the judges/courts presiding over particular lawsuits and from the bars that regulate the professional behavior of lawyers.  The acts that give rise to repercussions can be the same or related, but they are two entirely different routes for whacking peepees.

The real loon bags appeared in almost none of the lawsuits, so they aren't subject to sanctions/discipline from the judges.The ones that did appear in the lawsuits, or filed them, can.

They can all be subject of discipline from the various bars to which they are admitted.

The other thing is that judges and bars are going to be reluctant to sanction attorneys based on political causes, no matter how unpopular or corrupt that cause may be.  Although it's an inapt analogy, today's politically unpopular lawsuit is tomorrow's civil rights case.

[TwiceHorn 31470]

8 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Completely disagree that it's a First Amendment issue. That's a total copout. Plenty of professional organizations limit what their members can do or say. That is a voluntary relationship. 

Well, except bar "membership" is not voluntary.  And almost any state bar with disciplinary authority is going to be a state actor.

You are thinking of private professional associations that are not state actors. 

It is true that holding a law license is a privilege, not a right.  But the First Amendment itself is a fundamental right.

It may not be a slam dunk defense to discipline, but out of court, politically tinged "speech" is always going to present a problem for state actors attempting to discipline for it.

[Huckleberry 32859]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Plenty of professional organizations aren't arms of the state. But a state's bar is, making its actions subject to the First Amendment. 

 

There are things I can say as a private citizen that I can't as an agent of the state, which I would be on a voluntary basis. If I'm a police officer I would be subject to discipline or termination for posting on my Facebook feed that women and minorities are inferior. 

Most public agents are expected to hold themselves to a higher standard but attorneys are not according to your theory. Attorneys want to be public agents when it suits them and private actors when it doesn't. Pick one. 

[TwiceHorn 31470]

32 minutes ago, Llogg said:

I don't get the Gregg reference. The state controls licensing. Anyone can file a publicly accessible complaint. Denying access to patients at your facility is the most a facility can do. I'm not saying bad apples don't get through from time to time but the implication was that there is a system to actively obscure bad actors from public scrutiny and that doctors do nothing to police their own. Both are false.

Animal House.

I'm just saying that facility privileges and credentialing, while a form of self-regulation that should be applauded, don't quite reach the level of revoking licenses or actual professional discipline.

[Texaspython 231]

7 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Not sure what you mean here. There is a list published monthly of every board order levied against a physician in the state giving the name, practice location, specific violations no matter how minor or egregious, and final disposition including fines and required remedial action, up to and including surrender of license

I’m still waiting on my Ins premiums to drop after making it nearly impossible to sue doctors in this state.

[TwiceHorn 31470]

10 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

There are things I can say as a private citizen that I can't as an agent of the state, which I would be on a voluntary basis. If I'm a police officer I would be subject to discipline or termination for posting on my Facebook feed that women and minorities are inferior. 

Most public agents are expected to hold themselves to a higher standard but attorneys are not according to your theory. Attorneys want to be public agents when it suits them and private actors when it doesn't. Pick one. 

Lawyers aren't generally speaking public agents.

Their jobs are somewhat imbued with the public interest, but they are not like government employees, unless they are government employees.

No one is defending these asshats.  We're just explaining why bar associations and trial judges aren't foaming at the mouth to disbar these people (privately they may be).

There is a general tendency these days to want to regulate unpopular, even despicable speech.  But the real answer is to counter it with better speech.  At least that's what the First Amendment teaches.

[Texaspython 231]

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, except bar "membership" is not voluntary.  And almost any state bar with disciplinary authority is going to be a state actor.

You are thinking of private professional associations that are not state actors. 

It is true that holding a law license is a privilege, not a right.  But the First Amendment itself is a fundamental right.

It may not be a slam dunk defense to discipline, but out of court, politically tinged "speech" is always going to present a problem for state actors attempting to discipline for it.

I’m someone who doesn’t believe lawyers should be allowed to advertise. I’ll just stay out of this conversation.

[TwiceHorn 31470]

2 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

I’m still waiting on my Ins premiums to drop after making it nearly impossible to sue doctors in this state.

I imagine sawbonz is also waiting for his premium to drop.

[TwiceHorn 31470]

1 minute ago, Texaspython said:

I’m someone who doesn’t believe lawyers should be allowed to advertise. I’ll just stay out of this conversation.

I'm with you on that.

[Sbbruin 21853]

6 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

I’m someone who doesn’t believe lawyers should be allowed to advertise. I’ll just stay out of this conversation.

 

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, Hard Times said:

I'm sick and tired of hearing all these conspiracy theories. Of course the vote count jumped to Biden at the end of the night when the inner city votes were counted. And this Dominion BS. I bet republicans own shares of software companies too. What software company is going to risk civil and criminal penalty by manipulating their software?

 

All all these supposed hundreds people signing affidavits saying they saw fraud. What, one example out of hundreds of thousands of votes? I have no doubt Trump paid them off. If he gave me $1 million, I'd say I saw fraud too.

Dominion was used in states like Florida where Trump won by a bigger margin than pre-election day polls indicated. I'm not a "polls are gospel" guy, myself; but they can be indicators.  Hell, in 2 decades, Florida has practically become the poster child for how to run an election.  Yet and still, they used the machines in question.

The picking and choosing of where to challenge the results is rather convenient...

Edited November 21, 2020 by slorch

[HenryJames 66052]

 

[Huckleberry 32859]

50 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, except bar "membership" is not voluntary. 

Yes it is. Take me for example. I'm not a member. It's voluntary. The fact that it's required to practice law in Texas doesn't make it compulsory. You want to publicly and repeatedly lie about stuff that you know is false? Don't be an attorney. You want to post racist and sexist filth on your Facebook feed? Don't be a cop. You want to campaign for the lowering of the age of consent? Don't be a public middle school teacher. 

32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There is a general tendency these days to want to regulate unpopular, even despicable speech.  But the real answer is to counter it with better speech.  At least that's what the First Amendment teaches.

No it doesn't. That is your conclusion based on the First Amendment's text. There is plenty of speech that may be regulated as you well know, including knowingly false statements that may incite imminent lawlessness. Like, for example, raving and ranting press conferences full of known lies telling the idiots you wink and nod to about plots to kidnap governors that the election is being stolen from them.

Not to mention you're conflating what the government should do with how other citizens should react. Other citizens should counter with truth. The government has a responsibility to sanction people who are lying and intentionally breeding mistrust in valid governmental mechanisms. 

It's very important to note here that I'm specifically taking about speech that is known to be false by the speaker. If people want to scream from the rooftops that our methods are ripe for fraud that's one thing. Publicly stating that widespread fraud has actually happened when they know they are lying is something else entirely. 

Edited November 21, 2020 by Huckleberry

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

They really whack lawyers peepees?

[Bozo_Casanova 26460]

15 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Yes it is. Take me for example. I'm not a member. It's voluntary. The fact that it's required to practice law in Texas doesn't make it compulsory. You want to publicly and repeatedly lie about stuff that you know is false? Don't be an attorney. You want to post racist and sexist filth on your Facebook feed? Don't be a cop. You want to campaign for the lowering of the age of consent? Don't be a public middle school teacher. 

No it doesn't. That is your conclusion based on the First Amendment's text. There is plenty of speech that may be regulated as you well know, including knowingly false statements that may incite imminent lawlessness. Like, for example, raving and ranting press conferences full of known lies telling the idiots you wink and nod to about plots to kidnap governors that the election is being stolen from them.

Not to mention you're conflating what the government should do with how other citizens should react. Other citizens should counter with truth. The government has a responsibility to sanction people who are lying and intentionally breeding mistrust in valid governmental mechanisms. 

It's very important to note here that I'm specifically taking about speech that is known to be false by the speaker. If people want to scream from the rooftops that our methods are ripe for fraud that's one thing. Publicly stating that widespread fraud has actually happened when they know they are lying is something else entirely. 

Oh, but they don’t have time for all that, man. Their private club has such super high standards that it’s too hard to punish the most egregious violations of those same standards because they are so egregious. 
 

I know one attorney who has been disbarred. Basically because he had an addiction and did a bad thing as a result of his addiction. But we can’t disbar people for defrauding the court and mocking the legal system itself, that’s too hard. 
 

I probably don’t get it because I’m not in the  club. Lotta what-have-yous I’m sure. 

Edited November 21, 2020 by Bozo_Casanova

[Sawbonz 27561]

37 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

I’m still waiting on my Ins premiums to drop after making it nearly impossible to sue doctors in this state.

From reading previous posts I thought you were a lawyer.  What year did you start medical practice and what specialty? My first year in practice in Texas was pre tort reform. I paid 75000 with zero claims in training. There were only 2 carriers in Texas that wrote 1m3m policies and TMLT was not one of them. The first year after tort reform my premium was 35000 with TMLT for 1m3m and slowly dropped to where it is now which is 24000.  

[HenryJames 66052]

@Huckleberry arguing with a lawyer is by far the worst thing to happen in 2020.

[TwiceHorn 31470]

8 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Yes it is. Take me for example. I'm not a member. It's voluntary. The fact that it's required to practice law in Texas doesn't make it compulsory. You want to publicly and repeatedly lie about stuff that you know is false? Don't be an attorney. You want to post racist and sexist filth on your Facebook feed? Don't be a cop. You want to campaign for the lowering of the age of consent? Don't be a public middle school teacher. 

No it doesn't. That is your conclusion based on the First Amendment's text. There is plenty of speech that may be regulated as you well know, including knowingly false statements that may incite imminent lawlessness. Like, for example, raving and ranting press conferences full of known lies telling the idiots you wink and nod to about plots to kidnap governors that the election is being stolen from them.

Not to mention you're conflating what the government should do with how other citizens should react. Other citizens should counter with truth. The government has a responsibility to sanction people who are lying and intentionally breeding mistrust in valid governmental mechanisms. 

None of your responses are fairly provoked by what I said.

Many government employees surrender their First Amendment protections for on-the-job speech, and for speech off-the-job that isn't a matter of public interest, when their employer has an interest in maintaining order and discipline.

The fact remains that attorneys in private practice are not government employees and the bar is not their employer.  The bar retains some ability to discipline lawyers based on speech, especially that made in court or in legal proceedings or advertising, but you can be sure that this instance would not go down easily.  I would not want to predict the outcome.

[Bozo_Casanova 26460]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

From reading previous posts I thought you were a lawyer.  What year did you start medical practice and what specialty? My first year in practice in Texas was pre tort reform. I paid 75000 with zero claims in training. There were only 2 carriers in Texas that wrote 1m3m policies and TMLT was not one of them. The first year after tort reform my premium was 35000 with TMLT for 1m3m and slowly dropped to where it is now which is 24000.  

Congratulations to your profession for socializing the cost of bad actors you basically refuse to police until they kill or maim lots of people. 
Maybe if you policed them you wouldn’t have to place the cost of their negligence on the people they injure and society at large, and then your premiums could go down. 
 

but I’m sure that’s too hard like with lawyers. 

[TwiceHorn 31470]

7 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Oh, but they don’t have time for all that, man. Their private club has such super high standards that it’s too hard to punish the most egregious violations of those same standards because they are so egregious. 
 

I know one attorney who has been disbarred. Basically because he had an addiction and did a bad thing as a result of his addiction. But we can’t disbar people for defrauding the court and mocking the legal system itself, that’s too hard. 
 

I probably don’t get it because I’m not in the  club. Lotta what-have-yous I’m sure. 

As mentioned above, one of the central problems in attorney discipline in Texas that I observe is inconsistency in application and penalties.

Bottom line, the book isn't closed on what may happen to some/all of the various attorneys responsible for the shit show.  I think it is somewhat more likely that those involved with the lawsuits get whacked than those making ridiculous statements out of court.

Edited November 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

Can the attorney-doctor slap fights be taken to another thread?

[Bozo_Casanova 26460]

5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Can the attorney-doctor slap fights be taken to another thread?

I like most of both. They just need to do a far better job of policing their professions and stop making society pay for their respective failures. 

[South Austin 52500]

Leave lawyers alone!

 

[SilasCoade 2622]

5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Congratulations to your profession for socializing the cost of bad actors you basically refuse to police until they kill or maim lots of people. 
Maybe if you policed them you wouldn’t have to place the cost of their negligence on the people they injure and society at large, and then your premiums could go down. 
 

but I’m sure that’s too hard like with lawyers. 

His response to someone about premiums not going down was to highlight that his premiums went down substantially. Not sure how your comments follow from that.

Since some don't seem to understand the concept of scope of responsibility and scope of authority, individual medical practitioners can only do the following in response to negligent, incompetent, or malignant practitioners: 1) refuse to send patients to them, 2) petition facilities where they are credentialed to revoke credentials, 3) file a complaint with the the state medical board. The last two can be done by any citizen, actually. These complaints generally must have factual basis to avoid legal entanglements.

If the state is responsible for licensing, they are responsible for enforcing the standards of licensing. Other physicians can report to the board but they don't really have this "policing" authority that some have imagined.

[Sawbonz 27561]

25 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Congratulations to your profession for socializing the cost of bad actors you basically refuse to police until they kill or maim lots of people. 
Maybe if you policed them you wouldn’t have to place the cost of their negligence on the people they injure and society at large, and then your premiums could go down. 
 

but I’m sure that’s too hard like with lawyers. 

Our reimbursement at least as surgeons is already socialized so I’m ok with it socializing the risk. We’ve rehashed this for close to 20 years across 3 websites so I don’t imagine either of us will change his mind 

 

As for getting rid of dangerous doctors, as long as they have access to lawyers it’s going to be a battle

Edited November 21, 2020 by Sawbonz

[Brisketexan 105139]

Two points to make on the lawyer thing:

1) Ghouliani etc are making two types of statements. They are making in-court statements which, for the most part, AREN’T outrageous, on their own. Parties are entitled to complain about poll watching, vote counting processes, voter signatures, that sort of thing. And if their claims fail for lack of evidence, then they do. For the most part, the in-court statements have been within the guardrails. They are shitty cases, but they’re being dealt with.

Then, they are making batshit crazy out of court statements. But they’re really making those as spokespersons for the campaign. Rudy could be making them, Ivanka could be making them - they’re really not a legal function.

2) it’s important that statements in court, even ones we deem “outrageous,” have particular protection. That’s because lawyers are supposed to make outrageous statements on occasion. They have done so throughout our history, saying things that a large chunk of the country found appalling, outrageous, and against every notion of justice and common sense. Things like “black people should be allowed to vote,” and “the constitution protects interracial marriage,” and “cigarettes cause cancer.” At the time, a huge percentage of our population thought such statements were more than time-wasting bullshit, they were anti-American and dangerous. So....we are very reluctant to discipline lawyers for doing what amounts to “taking what we think are shitty legal positions.” And we should be. Because today’s shitty legal position can be tomorrow’s Brown v Board of Education.

As for the out of court statements, we can discipline lawyers for out of court actions (commit a major crime, you can lose your license). But the actions here are political speech. If Rudy WASN’T a lawyer, would there be a proper mechanism to sanction his outrageous and dangerous speech? If there is, then it should come into play. If there isn’t...then he shouldn’t be subject to heightened sanction for saying something politically unpopular and outrageous. Citizens say such things all the time, and they generally should be allowed to. If he’s inciting violence, that can be subject to criminal sanction. And if it is criminal, then it can also be subject to additional sanction by the Bar.

TLDR version: we generally avoid a system that would punish lawyers for saying outrageous things or taking outrageous positions because today’s outrageous position can (and sometimes should) become tomorrow’s legal precedent. That means that some lawyers sometimes get away with saying some epically stupid shit. Like on Surly, for example.

[lemonlime 5503]

Oh, but they don’t have time for all that, man. Their private club has such super high standards that it’s too hard to punish the most egregious violations of those same standards because they are so egregious. 
 
I know one attorney who has been disbarred. Basically because he had an addiction and did a bad thing as a result of his addiction. But we can’t disbar people for defrauding the court and mocking the legal system itself, that’s too hard. 
 
I probably don’t get it because I’m not in the  club. Lotta what-have-yous I’m sure. 

I’m a lawyer and agree with you. I wish the call to sanction these lawyers came from inside the house and not from an out of state politician. But they shouldn’t be able to use their law licenses in an attempt to play footsie with treason without consequence.

These lawyers are actively trying to subvert the government and the constitution they all swore an oath to protect. Some are worse than others. Eg. Giuliani arguing in court there was fraud and then holding press conferences filled with lies in an attempt to overthrow the government. I’m baffled that anyone thinks the first amendment means there shouldn’t be consequences to his career for that.

[Brisketexan 105139]

I’m a lawyer and agree with you. I wish the call to sanction these lawyers came from inside the house and not from an out of state politician. But they shouldn’t be able to use their law licenses in an attempt to play footsie with treason without consequence.

These lawyers are actively trying to subvert the government and the constitution they all swore an oath to protect. Some are worse than others. Eg. Giuliani arguing in court there was fraud and then holding press conferences filled with lies in an attempt to overthrow the government. I’m baffled that anyone thinks the first amendment means there shouldn’t be consequences to his career for that.

And there should be, if he lied to the court. But that’s based on what he told to THAT court, in THAT proceeding. That’s the challenge here. They’re spewing a lot of bullshit in a lot of places. But each case is considered on its own merits, and the lawyer’s statements in case A (or in a press conference) are almost never going to be relevant to a sanctions motion in case B.

[Beau Vine 54226]

8 hours ago, ultimaton said:

Is it just me, or does literally every single screen shot of OAN look like it's from a porn parody to anybody else?

No idea what you're talking about...

 

[Huckleberry 32859]

44 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

@Huckleberry arguing with a lawyer is by far the worst thing to happen in 2020.

You know, Tom Herman has woken up as the Texas football coach 326 times in 2020.

[lemonlime 5503]

And there should be, if he lied to the court. But that’s based on what he told to THAT court, in THAT proceeding. That’s the challenge here. They’re spewing a lot of bullshit in a lot of places. But each case is considered on its own merits, and the lawyer’s statements in case A (or in a press conference) are almost never going to be relevant to a sanctions motion in case B.

I listened to the beginning of Giuliani’s argument. And he repeats the nonsense about fraud in mail I’m voting. Other lawyers have submitted nonsense affidavits. I’m not suggesting every lawyer who argued on trumps behalf be disbarred. But there should be career consequences for many of them.

[TwiceHorn 31470]

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Two points to make on the lawyer thing:

1) Ghouliani etc are making two types of statements. They are making in-court statements which, for the most part, AREN’T outrageous, on their own. Parties are entitled to complain about poll watching, vote counting processes, voter signatures, that sort of thing. And if their claims fail for lack of evidence, then they do. For the most part, the in-court statements have been within the guardrails. They are shitty cases, but they’re being dealt with.

Then, they are making batshit crazy out of court statements. But they’re really making those as spokespersons for the campaign. Rudy could be making them, Ivanka could be making them - they’re really not a legal function.

2) it’s important that statements in court, even ones we deem “outrageous,” have particular protection. That’s because lawyers are supposed to make outrageous statements on occasion. They have done so throughout our history, saying things that a large chunk of the country found appalling, outrageous, and against every notion of justice and common sense. Things like “black people should be allowed to vote,” and “the constitution protects interracial marriage,” and “cigarettes cause cancer.” At the time, a huge percentage of our population thought such statements were more than time-wasting bullshit, they were anti-American and dangerous. So....we are very reluctant to discipline lawyers for doing what amounts to “taking what we think are shitty legal positions.” And we should be. Because today’s shitty legal position can be tomorrow’s Brown v Board of Education.

As for the out of court statements, we can discipline lawyers for out of court actions (commit a major crime, you can lose your license). But the actions here are political speech. If Rudy WASN’T a lawyer, would there be a proper mechanism to sanction his outrageous and dangerous speech? If there is, then it should come into play. If there isn’t...then he shouldn’t be subject to heightened sanction for saying something politically unpopular and outrageous. Citizens say such things all the time, and they generally should be allowed to. If he’s inciting violence, that can be subject to criminal sanction. And if it is criminal, then it can also be subject to additional sanction by the Bar.

TLDR version: we generally avoid a system that would punish lawyers for saying outrageous things or taking outrageous positions because today’s outrageous position can (and sometimes should) become tomorrow’s legal precedent. That means that some lawyers sometimes get away with saying some epically stupid shit. Like on Surly, for example.

Curiously, though, although there is a litigation privilege against defamatory statements made in court proceedings and papers, the First Amendment protection for those statements against discipline from the court or the bar is at its lowest. 

The statements made outside of court, being political speech, receive the highest protection.  Their falsity, to the extent it can be proven and shown to be intentional, would reduce that protection some.  Although despicable and undermining of democracy, I don't think those statements would rise to the level of inciting violence required to support a criminal prosecution.

A discussion of the issues as pertains to lawyer discipline. https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1193&context=flr

[Pato del Muerto 52498]

1 hour ago, Sbbruin said:

 

I’ve seen and used this picture dozens of times, and I just now noticed that the scales of justice are tipped. 

[TwiceHorn 31470]

15 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

I listened to the beginning of Giuliani’s argument. And he repeats the nonsense about fraud in mail I’m voting. Other lawyers have submitted nonsense affidavits. I’m not suggesting every lawyer who argued on trumps behalf be disbarred. But there should be career consequences for many of them.

I think there certainly will be career consequences in terms of their being untouchable except by Trumpkins in the future.

Don't get me wrong here. I would like it very much if there were disciplinary consequences for this stuff.  But the First Amendment means we have to endure some shitty stuff.  I don't know if that is ultimately right or wrong, but I do know it would play a big role in most attempts to discipline Giuliani, Powell, and Ellis.  It is what it is.

I have perused Powell's lawdog site (she has an "infowars" site as well) and she was evidently quite good, or got a lot of work, as an appellate lawyer until about 2009.  I had certainly never heard of her, that I can recall, but her pre-Trumpkin resume is solid.  Quite solid.

It would be interesting to know if something happened in the last 10 years or so, like a nervous breakdown or something.

Edited November 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[RDCanecutter 26442]

1 hour ago, Texaspython said:

I’m someone who doesn’t believe lawyers should be allowed to advertise. I’ll just stay out of this conversation.

I think they should be forced to advertise, belligerently, while drunk.

Get rid of that "No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers" bullshit, replace it with a handle of Bourbon, and when the lawyer starts pronouncing that as "Buh-eebun," start the tape rolling.

[TwiceHorn 31470]

3 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

I think they should be forced to advertise, belligerently, while drunk.

Get rid of that "No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers" bullshit, replace it with a handle of Bourbon, and when the lawyer starts pronouncing that as "Buh-eebun," start the tape rolling.

You should look into Adam Reposa.

 

Edited November 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Francisco 2.0 32392]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I have perused Powell's lawdog site (she has an "infowars" site as well) and she was evidently quite good, or got a lot of work, as an appellate lawyer until about 2009.  I had certainly never heard of her, that I can recall, but her pre-Trumpkin resume is solid.  Quite solid.

It would be interesting to know if something happened in the last 10 years or so, like a nervous breakdown or something.

 

 

 

[Pato del Muerto 52498]

Would gag orders stop any of the press conference garbage?

[RDCanecutter 26442]

[Covri 6249]

On 11/20/2020 at 12:06 AM, Irwin F Fletcher said:

If you were to google search an image "fuck around and find out", this would be the result.

 

On 11/20/2020 at 1:28 AM, cam4mav said:

looks more to me like 

"fucked around and found out"

needs Gritty over his shoulder

[Eskimohorn 5635]

You know, Tom Herman has woken up as the Texas football coach 326 times in 2020.

That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.

[RDCanecutter 26442]

Yesterday afternoon I did my periodic monitoring of Talk Radio to get a feel for the pulse.

It appears that word has spread that Bobby Lee has surrendered up in Virginny. Neither station that I listened to had politics or Trump as their primary talking point.

On the national syndicate station, Michael Berry came across as the day after getting kicked by a mule, and stuck to feel-good family topics.

On the local host station, I tuned in to a once-fairly-funny Center-Right type guy who had once done great send-ups of the Roy Moore crazies, but who in the aftermath of the election had turned into a barking Alex-Jones imitation, all ragey.

He wasn't on. A back-up guy explained how the regular host had gone to the emergency room with chest pains. Hope he ends up OK and chills out some.

Edited November 21, 2020 by RDCanecutter

[TwiceHorn 31470]

9 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Would gag orders stop any of the press conference garbage?

A gag order only works against the lawyer "before the court," that is, that have entered an appearance in a case.  They're also less "sustainable" in a civil case as opposed to a criminal case.