The scary thing is that ALL lawyers have to pass two different Bar exams. The first is the Ethics Bar. Every would-be lawyer has to prove on a very hard test that they understand the rules and limits of the actions they can take. It's a lot of subtle insider stuff, but "don't rip off the feds" is absolutely covered!
The second exam is the one we all call "the bar exam" to prove they have knowledge of the law too. But if they fail the Ethics Bar, they won't ever take the bigger "real" Bar exam.
So 100% of the bottom-feeding dregs in the Trump DOJ literally proved they knew "right from wrong" in the legal context while they were in law school. It just makes their corruption and criminality so much worse.
Hurray for judge Williams! She is very courageous.
On the other hand, what is it with the different state's bar associations? Do they really have to wait for complaints to be filed? Can't they start disbarment proceedings in cases like many of the ridiculous suits filed by the orange convicted felon's, when it's clear from the beginning the lawsuitis to support his corruption?
It is not just that trump has a "pattern of misusing the courts to serve his political purposes." It is that he uses everything and anything to financially enrich himself. We have a grifter in the highest office.
Blanche is a member of the New York Bar. New York calls its disciplinary rules "Rules of Professional Conduct." I looked them up. The answer to the question seems to be Yes, the Bar has to receive a complaint before it can act; but any lawyer can file one. Here is the text of Rule 8.3:
A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of
the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that
lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer shall report such
knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon
such violation.
Note that it says "shall." It doesn't say that the complainant's knowledge has to have been obtained first-hand. Nor does it say that the complainant has to be a member of the New York Bar, I do not know however how the rule has been interpreted.
If Trump could be shown to have been personally involved in this criminal scheme (as he surely must have been), wouldn’t it be in his private capacity (bringing suit against the government) rather than an “official act” as president, and thus not subject to criminal immunity under Trump v. United States?
There are numerous ways this could have been stopped years ago. In my opinion those in power all those years did not want to stop it because they were making too much money.
We need to fix this FIRST. Big money MUST be taken out of our political system.
I thought I had read that Todd Blanche had formally recused himself from any litigation involving Trump as an individual (as he clearly had to). Am I wrong? Because if so, his signing of the order terminating all tax proceedings against Trump was obviously ultra vires. And moreover, that action ought to be further grounds for Bar discipline.
The court ruling is right. It would have still been right if the judge had referred the legal team for disbarment. Ditto if the judge had referred them for prosecution, with a statute of limitations well past the "use by" date on TaterDick's sham presidency.
"The Roberts Court sees only white," Eddins charged, opening with an attack on the chief justice. (Hawaiian State Supreme Court Justice)
"That is not blindness," the opinion said, arguing that the court's racial preferences were at the heart of its decisions. "That is white sight, by design."
The scary thing is that ALL lawyers have to pass two different Bar exams. The first is the Ethics Bar. Every would-be lawyer has to prove on a very hard test that they understand the rules and limits of the actions they can take. It's a lot of subtle insider stuff, but "don't rip off the feds" is absolutely covered!
The second exam is the one we all call "the bar exam" to prove they have knowledge of the law too. But if they fail the Ethics Bar, they won't ever take the bigger "real" Bar exam.
So 100% of the bottom-feeding dregs in the Trump DOJ literally proved they knew "right from wrong" in the legal context while they were in law school. It just makes their corruption and criminality so much worse.
They ALL should be indicted for various crimes of murder and accessory to the fact.
Hurray for judge Williams! She is very courageous.
On the other hand, what is it with the different state's bar associations? Do they really have to wait for complaints to be filed? Can't they start disbarment proceedings in cases like many of the ridiculous suits filed by the orange convicted felon's, when it's clear from the beginning the lawsuitis to support his corruption?
It is not just that trump has a "pattern of misusing the courts to serve his political purposes." It is that he uses everything and anything to financially enrich himself. We have a grifter in the highest office.
"Grifter" is just another name for a thief. That's all Trump has ever been - a thief.
Note: We ELECTED him into office, Irena.
Blanche is a member of the New York Bar. New York calls its disciplinary rules "Rules of Professional Conduct." I looked them up. The answer to the question seems to be Yes, the Bar has to receive a complaint before it can act; but any lawyer can file one. Here is the text of Rule 8.3:
A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of
the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that
lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer shall report such
knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon
such violation.
Note that it says "shall." It doesn't say that the complainant's knowledge has to have been obtained first-hand. Nor does it say that the complainant has to be a member of the New York Bar, I do not know however how the rule has been interpreted.
If Trump could be shown to have been personally involved in this criminal scheme (as he surely must have been), wouldn’t it be in his private capacity (bringing suit against the government) rather than an “official act” as president, and thus not subject to criminal immunity under Trump v. United States?
There are numerous ways this could have been stopped years ago. In my opinion those in power all those years did not want to stop it because they were making too much money.
We need to fix this FIRST. Big money MUST be taken out of our political system.
It must happen NOW!!!!!!!!!!
I thought I had read that Todd Blanche had formally recused himself from any litigation involving Trump as an individual (as he clearly had to). Am I wrong? Because if so, his signing of the order terminating all tax proceedings against Trump was obviously ultra vires. And moreover, that action ought to be further grounds for Bar discipline.
Name any lawyer other than Rudy, who was already not practicing, being disbarred or heavily sanctioned for knowing abuse of the courts. I'll wait.
True, KnockKnock. Big money protects them.
The media is doing nothing. CBS shivers in fear.
Americas democracy has been trashed.
Noone seems to be doing anything. Soon America will have Concentration Camps in Texas and Florida.
Jdg blocks Jan6 slush fund & sanctions Fraudster in chief & his acting AG Blanche! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoRtEQ1ZLAA
Dems: an order of magnitude better than the Trump & Co sociopaths. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_i38-qjtbI Please, bring on a Blue Tsunami. #VoteBlue! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6ji9EFt9Lg
I would revise that to - Dems: SEVERAL orders of magnitude....
You wrote “authorized” when I think you meant “unauthorized.”
The court ruling is right. It would have still been right if the judge had referred the legal team for disbarment. Ditto if the judge had referred them for prosecution, with a statute of limitations well past the "use by" date on TaterDick's sham presidency.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-sitting-judge-just-delivered-the-most-scathing-critique-of-this-supreme-court-term/ar-AA28a4DL
"The Roberts Court sees only white," Eddins charged, opening with an attack on the chief justice. (Hawaiian State Supreme Court Justice)
"That is not blindness," the opinion said, arguing that the court's racial preferences were at the heart of its decisions. "That is white sight, by design."
Very well explained. Thank you.
From your keyboard to The Lord's eyes!