The left’s war against conservative DAs investigating election fraud, and against lawyers who would defend conservatives
Please read the whole thing. Here’s an excerpt:
The left has developed a powerfully coordinated legal election effort under the leadership of left-wing lawyer Marc Elias. In recent years, he has successfully brought together a coalition of left-wing nonprofit groups to work in conjunction with each other on elections. It’s a brilliant plan considering the left now dominates much of the legal system to give him victories; in urban areas they have more judgeships, they dominate state bars which are responsible for attorney discipline, and they run the biggest, most powerful law firms.
A Gramscian March through the legal institutions.
More:
Now they’re coming after elected attorneys too. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, who has been out on the forefront investigating election fraud, had 12 bar complaints filed against him and his staff by radical activist Democratic Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs over election issues. He beat them, but she will just figure out reasons to file more; continue to throw mud until something sticks. The Arizona State Bar is one of the most vicious bars in the country. I work as a reporter, and can rarely get comments for my articles from conservative attorneys in the state due to their fear of retaliation.
The State Bar of Texas is going after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, suing him for investigating election fraud in the 2020 election. Paxton asked the U.S. Supreme Court to enjoin Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for breaking election laws by implementing voting changes during the COVID-19 pandemic without the approval of state legislators. SCOTUS rejected his request 7-2 for lack of standing, a sign that it wasn’t completely without merit. So now the bar is alleging he violated a catch-all, vague rule of professional misconduct prohibiting “dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”
The left is ruthless, committed, and determined. And even in relatively conservative states, apparently the bar associations are not conservative at all. That’s why some attacks on conservative lawyers are accomplished through the bar.
As the author of that article, Rachel Alexander, writes:
It’s easy to get left-wing run state bars to disbar conservative attorneys, because it’s not a jury of Americans that decides; it’s either a left-leaning bar judge or panel stacked with left-wing attorneys, plus occasionally a token member or two from the public.
The writer goes on to describe how a Virginia lawyer who represented some January 6th protesters was disbarred that way. Other lawyers – these are not AGs, mind you, but lawyers – who represent conservatives, as well as Trump’s lawyers, have been targeted too.
It used to be that both sides respected the legal system and the need for every defendant to have a lawyer, even a defendant on the opposite political side. The left stopped subscribing to that principle quite some time ago. To them – based in part on being taught Marxist-based approaches such as Critical Legal Studies and its philosophical descendants – law is a power struggle, pure and simple. And in a power struggle the left will employ every weapon that it can find.
“Der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen” (Dutschke) indeed! How much hope for the future can one reasonably have (even should this fall’s elections truly be conducted fairly and conservative candidates do well) when not only has K-12 been thoroughly corrupted, but also (of course!) academia for many decades, as well as, increasingly, the professional schools, not only law but also medicine, with medical schools more and more obsessed with DIE and “anti-racism”? In the struggle for power (according to Foucault, all that truly matters) leftists, believing blindly in the justice of their cause (“the right side of history”), will never abandon their devotion to “by any means necessary.”
I think I would suspend judgement on what she reports.
My brother in law who passed away a couple of years ago graduated at the top of his law class at the University of Texas in the mid 1960’s. He and I had a lot of visits about what was wrong with the world and in the 1990’s he told me that during the decade of the 1980’s something happened to the way law was practiced. Before that he said a lawyer could come to an agreement with opposing council over the phone, make a deal and consider the matter completed. By the end of the 1980’s he said when the agreement in writing was given to them for review before signing every sentence had to be read carefully because there were a lot of lawyers who would try to rework the deal on paper to benefit their client. The old working on trust with a sense of good faith had gone away and win by any means had replaced it with a lot of lawyers, that along with padding bills with extra hours and keeping deals from being reached in a timely manner to run bills up made the practice of law for my brother-in-law more difficult as the years went by.
I do miss him dearly, he would be 81 now and he was known nationwide in his specialty because he was a smart, meticulous, kind and generous man.
Here’s the story of the destruction of Rachel Alexander’s own legal career by the Left: https://intellectualconservative.com/the-left-s-targeting-of-rachel-legally
Michelle Malkin is quoted at the start:
“Make no mistake: This is just another nasty battle in the Left’s long war to marginalize, demonize, and criminalize conservative dissent. The selective protection of free speech is unconscionable. The freedom to blog is under assault on so many fronts. It has to stop.”
Pretty chilling read. The Marxists taking over the courts are another loss for the country. They are protecting their own ( Sussman) and railroading their opponents.
Neo:
Thanks for this. The Town Hall article hits home to me here in Nebraska.
The Left and the Bar Association proposed a new disciplinary rule aimed at protected speech. It is really designed to punish conservatives. I had a grievance filed against me by another attorney, but it was dismissed because the current rule doesn’t cover Twitter comments.
The Christian Legal Society and the NE Attorney General filed scholarly comments with the Supreme Court. I filed a number of comments. Over 250 pages of comments were submitted and I’m going to write an article for The Nebraska Lawyer.
One of my comments was about the county attorney here in Omaha. Some left wingers didn’t like one of his decisions and so they protested outside of his house for a month. The Democrat Party passed a resolution calling him a racist. He switched parties. I’m sure if this new rule was in effect then, they would have filed a Bar grievance against him. The Left is well schooled in Alinksy tactics.
The comments from the Left were mostly, “about time” and “everyone else is doing it.”
I have confidence that the Supreme Court won’t enact this new disciplinary rule. The process is the punishment. All but one of the Justices of the Nebraska Supreme Court are Republicans. One clerked for Justice Gorsuch.
I should clarify my previous comment. On Twitter, a person with the name “Bill S. Preston, Esq.” posted pictures of herself with facial piercings through her nose and lips. My Twitter comment was that facial piercings were not lawyer-like or professional.
I also commented that she was representative of how far my alma mater, Creighton Law School, had sunk. The Dean and all her liberal friends defended her. They called me names and commented about MY appearance.
Since I used my real name on Twitter, she filed a Bar grievance against me based upon an ABA Model Rule that was not in effect in NE. Since I’m a real lawyer and didn’t graduate in the bottom 10% of my class at a third-tier law school, I filed a motion to dismiss. Granted. But the process was the punishment.
Apparently at the last statewide Bar meeting, my incident was discussed but my name wasn’t used. Under the new rule, I might have been called in for a hearing.
The funny thing here is that about ten years back Nebraska federal judge Richard Kopf wrote a blog post advising women to not wear provocative clothes in his court because he considered himself a “dirty old man.” He got all sorts of grief and terminated his blog. Under this new rule, he could have been had a Bar grievance filed against him for sex discrimination.
Last note, the other conservative lawyers did a fantastic job of briefing this issue. We got 97 lawyers to sign one of the comments; including 10 women.
To the Left, “law is a power struggle, pure and simple. And in a power struggle the left will employ every weapon that it can find.”
In corrupting and reducing the legal system into a travesty of its former self, they are instituting the enforcement of a tyranny which in effect, “cuts down all the laws”.
“So much of left-wing thought is it kind of playing with fire, by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” George Orwell
I once told a female medical student who had pink hair and facial hardware that she should omit the decorations when she was interviewing patients. The patients were county hospital patients and I told her that they had no choice of physician. When she was in her own practice the patients would have a choice. Obviously that was more than 15 years ago.
Katie Hobbs, the AZ SoS, is another George Soros creature. I had heard she was going to run for Governor but have heard nothing recently.
The US Supreme Court did not cover its self with glory in the post-election controversies. They denied every case on the basis of “standing” even when state AGs were filing.
Mike K:
I don’t recall that standing was usually the issue. SCOTUS declined to hear some of the cases without explaining why, and in others they said it was too late, and in others they said it was a state matter and not a SCOTUS matter. I’m doing that from memory because I can’t find a comprehensive article about it right now.
“And even in relatively conservative states, apparently the bar associations are not conservative at all.”
Correct. I’m a member of the bar in a deep blue state, with all of the absurdities one might expect. But my understanding is even state bar associations in crimson states lean left. It has to do both with the legal profession moving far to the left over the last 30 years or so and…what lawyers are active in their state’s bar association. It’s a vicious cycle…as the Overton window shifts, conservative lawyers are disinclined to get involved, further shifting the window.
The long March through the institutions… continues.
Ackler:
That is the case in Nebraska.
“. . . [a] panel stacked with left-wing attorneys,” [Neo]
It will be intresting to see if the recent SEC case will have any will have any effect on this type of situation.
For those not aware, the Fifth Circuit recently found that judges established by the SEC to rule on SEC cases were unconstitutional; the decision noted that the SEC was creating a judiciary which it had no constitutional right to do. Several reviews have opined that this could have a serious effect on the regulatory state.
The next question should be “Why is an internal adjudication panel (ABA, AMA, etc.)any different from an internal court of judges?”
FYI: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/sec-in-house-judges-violate-right-jury-trial-appeals-court-rules-2022-05-18/
“The left is ruthless, committed, and determined.” It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop… ever, until you are dead!
Listen, and understand!
T,
I read about the 5th Circuit decision in a recent Manhattan Contrarian blog post and had the same thought as you. Lawyerly opinions, anyone?
Also, for Neo’s attorney readers, a question – what exactly is form of the ‘immunity’ that protects AGs and prosecutors from being sued in civil court for ‘political’ or ‘unfair’ or whatever you want to call it, harassment? I know that disbarment can occur – as in the case of Mike Nifong (?) and the Duke students demonstrates – but that requires a bar association that is relatively unbiased. The prospect of a judgement being rendered in civil court would put the brakes on a lot of nonsense. IMO.
The left is ruthless, committed, and determined.
The Church of Woke is a fundamentalist sect, that sees the political divide not as Left vs. Right, but Normal vs. the Evil Other. That justifies, in their minds, their crusades against all who dissent from their One True Way, life and liberty be damned.
Does anybody here really think this situation can settled entirely by peaceful means?
Alarmed expatriate in South Korea.
Does anybody here really think this can be settled entirely by peaceful means?
Alarmed expatriate in South Korea.
“ Mike K:
“I don’t recall that standing was usually the issue. SCOTUS declined to hear some of the cases without explaining why, and in others they said it was too late, and in others they said it was a state matter and not a SCOTUS matter. I’m doing that from memory because I can’t find a comprehensive article about it right now.”
That was the difference, as I recall with that case – it was a direct case, instead of a Petition for Cert, which could be, and often were dismissed just by not getting 4 votes for Cert. This was a case between states, so SCOTUS had original, and not appellate, jurisdiction. Standing doesn’t make much sense in suits between states. They really have nowhere else to go to sue each other. And before this case, most attorneys would have probably said something similar. And because of that, it was believed that the High Court couldn’t dodge the bullet here. But the Chief Justice had the votes of the 3 libs, plus the newest 2 members, of the court, so with his 6 votes, arguably invented, on the spot, Standing Doctrine for cases between states where that court had original, and not appellate, jurisdiction, so that they could dodge responsibility for allowing obvious election fraud to determine the 2020 election.
“”The left’s war against” the rule of law…was unleashed by Obama and his enthusiastic, corrupt henchmen in government and the media.
The result: Obama has inspired massive Democratic Party lawlessness, the effects of which we saw, massively, in 2016 and the years that followed, culminating in the “piece de resistance”, in November 2020.
But “culminating” is entirely incorrect.
This because Democratic Party-inspired lawlessness, supercharged and reinforced with every “VICTORY” has only continued from that point onward (Jan. 6, Afghanistan, Iran “Deal”, Southern border, sabotaging the energy industry and the entire economy…for starters) and will continue until they capture the prize—the “Ring”—or are somehow stopped forcibly and catgorically in their tracks.
(It bears stating here that the Democratic Party is the party of “Resistance”… Resisting what? one might ask… the answer to which is: resisting the American people and everything that is good and decent in the country.)
Oops….forgot the link…to the masterful Michael Flynn “OPERATION”:
“Another Justice Department Fail: The Flynn Unmasking;
“Classified information was leaked to the media by several Obama intelligence officials. But no one will be punished.”—
https://amgreatness.com/2022/06/02/another-justice-department-fail-the-flynn-unmasking/
It’s always the cover-up? No, not always.
But it is the crime and then the successful MULTIPLE coverups that ensue, ably enabled by the Deep State and a colluding media.
“The left is ruthless, committed, and determined.” There is no denying this. But, why? I can’t wrap my head around why they want to so much power and control. I look at those people and can’t understand what is lurking within them to be so steadfast in their determination. For what end? Do they even know or are they merely tools of other powers? And as to the legions of fellow travelers, do they not understand that they, too, will end up in the gulag? Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?
T-Rex:
A couple of things drive the Left. They think they are better, smarter and more virtuous than you so that’s why they want to be in charge and run your life. They are utopians.
They also want to be on the right side of history and win. Saving the planet is also a big driver. That’s why the ESG and CAGW scams are key vehicles allowing the Left to run things. Same deal with CRT.
Revamp legal education. Nobody needs to sit in a lecture hall for three years, followed by intensive preparation for a licensing exam during which they actually learn everything they should have learned in law school, to become a lawyer. There are still alternative paths but they need to be more widely recognized. I wish Kim Kardashian had had more success at passing the California bar exam, because it could have made JD-alternative paths more popular. In New York, you’re allowed to sit for the bar exam after completing the core first-year course of study at a law school then two years of work in a law office. That should be the norm. People who are serious about wanting to become legal scholars and professors can stay in law school for two more years. This would do a lot to reduce the indoctrination and help with student debt, as well.
Revamp legal education. Nobody needs to sit in a lecture hall for three years, followed by intensive preparation for a licensing exam during which they actually learn everything they should have learned in law school, to become a lawyer. There are still alternative paths but they need to be more widely recognized.
-shadow
Perhaps readers recall a hippie band which played at Woodstock, “Country Joe and the Fish.”
____________________________
And it’s One, Two, Three, Four,
What are we fighting for?
Don’t ask me, I don’t give a damn.
Next stop is Vietnam!
____________________________
“The Fish” was Barry Melton, co-founder and lead guitarist for the group. He wanted to get out of the touring grind, uphold his values and raise a family, so he enrolled in an extension program, then a correspondence law school. With this preparation, he managed to pass the California Bar and has managed a practice since.
I hear the California Bar is, or at least, was tough. So I assume Melton was pretty bright as well.