FITZ!

Gee, “skew[ing] the entire legal process.”

That’s their MO.

OMG that Judy thing was helarious!

Good morning firedogs!

OT – explosion in NYC – CNNtv, story developing. a building collapsed

Explosion in NYC this morning, probably a building collapse from a gas leak. Most of us here still get a strong sick feeling when we hear a loud boom or see a low flying plane. I felt for awhile after 911 “lets get those guys”, problem is maybe “those guys” are us?

Oh gosh, ppp, take it easy today. Let us know if you hear any news on this.

Christy,

Is what they did the same as making false representations to the Court? Would their respective State Bar Grievance committees have “jurisdiction?” If so, any old citizen can report ‘em.

Let me stress that IANAL.

Christy – one correction to make in the second paragraph of your post: “…who are not olny only officials elected to a high office…”

As a lawyer myself I am appalled at that behavior, but are they not protected by the Speech and Debate Clause in the Constitution? This is not my area and it’s too early in the morning to reseach it, but they should be publicly condemed, even if stronger punsihment is not possible.

pete — the colloquy would likely be protected. But the filing of the brief? Not so much, I would argue — that’s an action above and beyond to file an amicus brief based on information that you know to be a false representation of the facts.

From what I’ve read, they didn’t even bother to stage it – they simply had a fictitious transcript inserted into the record.

Christy at 10: Again, not my area, but I think you’re right – filing the brief is not speech and debate, and if I sat on the court that had such a brief submitted I would be most displeased. Why not file complaints with their respective state bars and see what happens?

Unfortunately, their “request for permission to revise & resubmit” their remarks is always allowed. It makes it harder to do a content analysis of debate if, as Dean points out, the record of what was actually said is not clear. (Having taught in both Fla & SCarolina, it also allowed some of my barely literate reps & senators to sound like they had a brain.)

There’s a difference, I think, between the Senate ethics aspect of this (which will never happen as the R’s are in charge), and that involving the bar. The speech and debate clause gives these folks absolute immunity for what they do on the Senate floor. The issue would be, assuming that all of knowledge stuff is true, whether the courts or the electoral process are the right redress for any wrongs committed, and whether the courts had the power to impose sanctions and take away licenses based on such acts. I suspect that the answer to that question is “no.” If you don’t like how they do business on the Senate floor, redress is at the ballot box, not with the disciplinary committee.

And to answer the next question–the Clinton deposition and disbarment are different kettles of fish, as the S & D clause only pertains to the legislature, not the executive.

That said, what they did is reprehensible, and I wonder how much their lawyers at the Supreme Court knew what they were up to–I suspect that they did. I can’t remember what the brief actually said, but I don’t know whether it crossed the line. Certainly they would not be immune from motions for sanctions and the like.

Whoops, “or” question with a “no” answer. Rather, the answer is vote them out of office–don’t take away their licenses. Sorry about that.

Good Morning Christy and Everyone -

Olberman is supposed to devote a chunk of tonight’s program to Dean’s article (maybe a new book)

I recall some excellent comments by ‘Anonymous Liberal and ‘____ Librarian’ over at Glenn’s place when their “legal mischief” was first exposed – identifying specific instances of wrong doing – I’ll see if I can find it

Sorry, but in terms of politics there is no traction here — the issue is way too complicated for non-lawyers to figure out without getting a headache.

I am not a lawyer, and I don’t even get to play one in my kids’ home videos, but I cannot imagine that filing the amicus brief that claims that a conversation on paper, made after the fact, was part of the legislative history is in anyway ethical.

Okay, let me rephrase that. I cannot believe that apart from a group lawyers (I’ve had a bad time with lawyers), that anyone else in the sane universe would treat their misleading filing of that brief as an ethical act of their profession.

Kyl is my Senator.

I urge you and beg of you to do what you can to make his political life miserable. Do

Some would claim that Arizona is more purple than red, and trouble for Kyl could help bring Jim Pederson to office. (He will surely lose otherwise.)

Whatever you do, do it soon, November ain’t that far away.

What does CREW, http://www.citizensforethics.org, say about this? They will file lawsuits, FOIA requests, and ethics complaints….

It is one thing to submit revised comments to replace those you actually made on the floor and in that way hide grammar mistakes and accidental misspeaking (like leaving out a “not” and thereby saying the opposite of what you mean)

I have no probelm with that. However, it should be done BEFORE the legislation passes. If a legislative history is to be used for the purpose of interpretting the law, how can you have the actual history subject to revision after the fact?

This is Orwellian.

Further, in terms of fraud, I really don’t see how this is any different than an embezzler or other white collar criminal going back and altering or “cooking” the books.

This is a problem with the Senate rules, though.

Sadly, I have to agree that the Speech and debate Clause must cover this.

As for the brief itself, did the Senators sign it? Or did their laywer?

The reason I ask is that it is a seperately sactional offense under the federal rules of civil procedure for a lawyer to sign a document (pleading, motion, appelate brief) to be filed with the court without taking reasonable steps to ensure that the filing is true.

So, their lawyer could be standing in a pile of manure.

Well, I probably won’t be in good odor with the site managers for saying this, but here goes: lawyers talk all the time about the incredible levels of ethics, honor, and integrity that is part of their profession. But ordinary Citizens outside the legal profession really don’t see that so much; rather, they see a fairly closed guild protecting and scratching one anothers’ backs.

Can anyone point me to 10 significant cases of lawyers facing meaningful sanctions from state bar associations or state licensing boards for ethical lapses? Typically the only ones I ever read about are where the dude runs away with an entire trust fund and the victims have enough clout to place a story in the paper. Has there ever been a sanction for violating ethics in a political case?

Cranky

oh god, that’s “sanctionable” not “santional”

even for me, that’s a bad one

i don’t know how you guys put up with me

… just one, small, little problem here.
When you have a most corrupt individual, along side with the 3 stooges of corruption: the VP, his deputy and the deputy of the NSA
shall we just say,
calling the Constitution, just a “..f***ing piece of paper” and NOT ONE CONGRESSMAN/CONGRESSWOMAN calls him on it,
nor does it create IRE across the nation,
this s*** will continue to bastardize our entire legal and judicial system.

Cranky at 20

yeah, the guy who helped Tawana Brawley pull her hoax, lost his license and got hit with a bunch of fines.

6 miles

Has Cheney literally been quoted saying the Consitution is a “F***ing piece of paper”?

I did not know that

Or did you mean that figuratively?

Cranky

There must 9 more

Cranky at 20 — in every single bar journal that I receive on a monthly basis, there are disciplinary action records for those attorneys who have been disbarred, suspended from practice, fined, etc. Additionally, there are attorneys that specialize in malpractice cases against attorneys who fail to properly do their jobs. You may not see it, but it happens. In fact, just a feww years ago, our local prosecuting attorney was suspended from practice for a large number of years for doing things that he oughtn’t have been doing. State bar associations do this all the time — and the main reasons for doing so are stealing from clients (the biggest no no you can EVER do) or failing to adequately do the job (not filing timely paperwork, etc.).

And the reason you see them as a police case — because the state bar disciplinary board has likely turned over their investigative information from disbarment proceedings for criminal charges as well.

Oh oh oh

Cranky,
the coffee is starting to kick in.

I just remebered another one. Joe Cairo, the old Republican County Chair in Nassau lost his license too. Maybe some fines, I forget.

Since it’s now being reported that the Senate plans on debating post Hamden dimensions all summer and I’m seeing many right-wing talkers say Graham’s amendment made it illegal for SC to take up the Hamden case, and since if left unchecked Graham will be at the forefront of the Hamden debate, sunlight such as yours and Dean’s is no long just informative and disturbing but a moral imperative to get in front of American couches. Am going to try and do my part.

lhp — I could list off 10 that I know of, but they wouldn’t mean anything because they are WV attorneys who don’t have national notariety. But every state bar that I know of operates under the same sort of standards — and just like every other profession, it’s the smarmy asses who get the headlines and the hundreds upon hundreds of decent, ethical, hard-working attorneys who have to clean up after them. Jackasses.

Ethics…South Carolina and Arizona Pleeeze!

Christy – Thanks for posting the Dean article. Since colloquys are entered into the Congressional record (without having actually taken place on the floor of the Senate or House) pretty routinely, I didn’t understand what the big deal was.

The Dean article explained it very well. Thanks again.

Redd,

I know, I can go to todya’s NY Law Journal and proabably cough up 10. I was trying to think of some that Cranky might recognize.

Like Joel Steinberg

NY has the REALLY scary lawyers

LHP,

It was Bush who was supposed to have said “[the Constitution] is just a goddamned piece of paper.”

Cranky –

I’m licensed in Oregon & Washington — a quick perusal of the discipline section in the monthly Bar bulletins will show frequent discipline for dishonesty, conflicts of interest, fraud (on clients, others, or the Court), negligent misrepresentation, etc. Sancitions range from public reprimand to disbarment, with the most common being suspensions ranging from 2 months to 2 years.

Serious stuff.

the listing of disciplinary actions against lawyers in legal journals repeatedly reminds attorneys that there are penalties for unethical and illegal actions … the listings serve as warnings

FWIW, I will forever despise smarmy Lindsay Graham for his major role in the attempted coup d’etat against Bill Clinton …

At the risk of sounding horribly cynical, let me add as another attorney, that the cases of discipline I read about generally have to do with someone dipping into their client’s trust account and, even more cynically, usually involve attorneys in solo or small practices, i.e., not white-shoe law firms.

Sarah T

The big deal is that it happens at all. Tell me how that is not fraud. As I said above, it is one thing to offer a written version of your remarks that are all nice and cleaned up, and offered BEFORE the lagislation passes.

Witness testifying before COngress do that as well. I’m fine with that, it makes for more usable quotes in a brief (you know, without all the “um”s and “like”s )

But anything that dramtically changes the substance (not counting a dropped not or other negative) I have a really big problem with.

I’m sorry. It’s the moral equivelent of fraud. How can we prosecute a Ken Lay (who I desperately wanted prosecuted and convicted) for doing exactly the same thing in a different context.

As always, it’s the hypocracy!

Obvioulsy, I have a problem with that. Need to work on my hypocracy intolerance issues. *g*

ot, sorry

the republicans and the press are going to try to make hamdan a dividing issue;

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07…..wanted=all

this WILL play into democrats hands IF they MAKE SURE they shape the discussion;

for instance, WHENEVER the subject is broached a democrat NEEDS to put this into language that the republican base understands…for instance a republican should say something like so…(they are invited to plagiarize my thoughts and now have full license to do so without acknowledgment;

the president claimed he could make up any law he wanted, make it up out of thin air, even after the action took place, even after the person miight have been arrested by mistake. and then he claimed he could charge anyone at all with the crime he just created from whole cloth…nobody could challenge whether the law should or should not be a law, no matter how ridiculous.

for instance (because I’m sure anyone that thinks this ruling of flawed needs an example), the president actually thought he could say “now it’s illegal to pray to Allah at 3 pm “, and then he could charge people with that prayer even if they never prayed to Allah after he invented that law

even though the only time they prayed to Allah was before the law came out of this president’s own head.

that’s not even the worst of it;

the president also claimed that captives do not have to be told what crime they are charged…ever

that the lawyer would not be told what crime to defend…ever

no evidence would need to be presented at all, the lawyer would not know the evidence or ever see if it exists…ever

the lawyer wouldn’t be present at trial, nor able to argue at trial

the captive could never ever prove he’s innocent even if he was, he could never ever force a trial…never ever.

third and fourth party evidence could be used from people who might have agenda to steal property or position, all they have to do is claim “they heard someone tell someone.”

there are other even more ridiculous and absurd claims made by the administration I hesitate to even mention they are so barbaric and so depraved they are hard to believe

I’m sure republicans don’t want this kind of abuse taking place in the name of The United States of America…we are SUPPOSED to be winning the hearts and minds of this country to keep children from becoming terrorists

that’s the way the debate duscussion needs to be framed and anyone that has contact with their local democrats should relay information along those lines.

Tommy Yum

How did I miss that? I have seen many refrences, but thought they were figurative.

Bush was caught saying F***ing”? There is tape somewhere? Was I in a coma that I missed that?

Not hard to guess why I thought it was Cheney.

lhp,

no tape, and third hand. forgot the source. bush said something to the effect of “stop waving the constitution in my face. it’s just a goddamned piece of paper.”

bet google will be your friend.

looseheadprop –

I read through your comment #19 and completely missed your typo until you corrected yourself a couple comments later. I think I put my subconsicious spell-check on, and it help to follow your comments without distraction.

Kind of like reading punaise and ALWAYS looking for the punch line.

To paraphrase Bobby McFerrin: Don’t worry – keep typing!

me to me

makes me think of the Diplock Courts used for “trials” of suspected IRA members. They ere a farce as well. Even Chinese trials are getting a squoosh better than that.

Thank you Peterr,

you are very understnding. I only go back an correct the ones i think are completely indecipherable.

Otherwise the whole thread would be my corrections. sigh

Thanks for pointing all of this out, Christy. The Dean article is excellent. There is no doubt, of course, that the BIG LIE lives, and is the heartblood of whatever bankrupt ideology Kyle and Graham are proponents of.

On Sen. Graham: He is not a stupid man. John Cornyn is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and Jeff Sessions is a stone-cold simpleton, but Graham is a good bit smarter and quicker than most of us would be willing to admit. I hope that these articles will bring him down at least a little bit, as his slippery little maneuvers tend to go unpunished in the rubber-stamp congress.

On the Judiciary Committee:
William “Torture Boy” Haynes’ nomination (Fourth Appeals) has been resurrected after a long dormant period. I have a hunch that this development is related to some of the negotiations that have gone on between Specter, Addington/Cheney, and Gonzalez about whether or not the country should be abandoning the Bill of Rights and the rule of law in general. We will be engaging in street theater depicting torture in front of the Senate Dirksen office building tomorrow at about 1:45 in protest of Mr. Haynes nomination.
There is much info available on Haynes at fcnl.org, and newyorker.com, among other places.

peace,
jim

llosehead

it’s all about language

we can’t use legal terms when trying to convey to people with knee jerk reactions

we have to start talking on their level and stop expecting them to understand what we have to say…they don’t unless we use the language they understand

believe me, this is the real problem with democratic issues

I am hoping the typo and gramar fairy shines her light on my post up at #39

Cranky — seriously, what Christy and Wzrdvoz said. I was an assistant to an attorney for a handful of years in financial law section at a Fortune 100 company; used to amuse myself during slack time with the state bar journal mag. You will definitely find disciplinary actions in the mag; I encourage any non-lawyer FirePup to check it out next time they’re at the library, makes for interesting and often amusing reading.

Bottom line, though, is that like any other profession, the overwhelming number of members are good eggs. The few bad ones stink so badly that the rest of the profession suffers for it. Doctors have similar frequency of disciplinary actions, few and far between but they happen — yet because we perceive a NEED for doctors and a WANT for lawyers, we don’t paint the medical profession in the same bad light that we do the legal profession. Think about it: can you name 10 doctors who’ve been disciplined or had their license yanked? They’re just as frequent as lawyers, and governed in nearly the same way. Have you checked your own doctors’ history? Or do you simply trust them to be a professional?

(Full disclosure: I chose to work as an assistant in a legal dept. because it was the best way for me to decide whether to go to law school. While I’m sure I could handle the rigors of study, the curriculum, probably pass the bar, the actual practice of law can be very challenging and I simply didn’t have the moxie for it. More power to those folks who do, it’s not at all easy and definitely not like it looks on television.)

And those little Senate colloquys are, even when actually performed, almost invariably scripted, predictable, simpering, infantile, and misleading. There is hardly a man in the senate who is willing to engage in legitimate public debate.

If the Senate is going to debate Hamden all summer, per mailsailset 28, I think the democratic staffers on the Hill may want to pay careful attention to future statements entered into the record at a later date.

I also wouldn’t mind, if and when Kyl and Graham ever step to the floor to speak on Hamdan, if one of their colleagues would see if either one would entertain a few questions on this matter. I’d love to see a lawyer in the Senate dress them down for attempting to use the rules of the Senate allowing the insertion of materials into the record to mislead the Supreme Court. The mere attempt demeans the Senate, and makes it harder for the Legislative branch to have its discussions taken seriously in future cases.

In my head, I hear Robert Byrd’s voice, but that’s because of the whole “powers of the Senate” angle. I don’t know that he’d be the best to bring this up respecting the legal angles here.

Of course, it probably isn’t going to happen. I think the “distinguished gentlemen” of the Senate would think that such a public dressing down of a colleague would be unseemly, and try to shut the speaker up.

Similarly unlikely, of course, is Timmeh or the Sunday morning folks taking this on with either Kyl or Graham.

Guess that just leaves us . . .

me to me @46

they don’t unless we use the language they understand…

2×4 usually works for me

:-)

LHP @ 38

You’ll certainly get no argument from me on your position. And I didn’t mean to imply that this was no big deal. The extent of the colloquy, the way it was used, and the filing with the SC — all of it was way out of bounds.

It’s just another example of the total breakdown of Congressional procedures (especially in the Senate) where the Republicans will bend and twist every rule to win at any cost. Once, everybody knew where the boundaries were, and people from different parties treated one another with respect.

Those days long gone, now.

Why is it we only see the typos in that millisecond after we push submit, but before it disappears into cyberspace?

51Dr. Bong says

July 10th, 2006 at 7:29 am
me to me @46

they don’t unless we use the language they understand…

24 usually works for me

:-)

I’m reminded of a talk show host named Ira fistell.

quite the intellectual and I could listen to him all day, always enlightening discourse…usually light topics, once in a while politcial

he’s take calls from all fields, with all levels of expertise…he is a camelian, never talking down, but never having to talk up either…an intelectual camelian

he ALWAYS had insight for experts even when disussing with formeost experts in their respective fields..and could always shape the language of the conversation to terms anyone could understand

me to me

I could not agree with you more. About the language we use to convey our message.

I can’t stnd Peggy Noonan. And she is way too in love with her own airty fairy meatphors, but in the main, she is on to something.

Everybody “got” the “thousand points of light”, it was succinct, evocative and inspirational. Not bad for 3 little words.

The best bit of that we have done in recent times is “the16 words”. I was at a family party all day on saturday (and evidently missed many kick ass posts–sorry I missed ya’ Mary. I read it today, it was great) and the phrase came up.

Most on my (totally non politcal) releatives did not know what the 16 words were, what the subject matter of them was or when the were spoken (SOTU).

But every single one of them said “wasn’t that some huge terrible lie Bush told?”

Well, they didn’t all use those exact words, but you get the drift.

They can’t remeber which lie it was. But for lots and lots of folks, the phrase “16 words”= it is a proven fact that Bush lied about something important to the American people (as opposed to lying about a private matter)

Clinton was disbarred under MRPC Rule 8.4(c)

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation

over at Glenn’s (3/28/6), there was some debate as to violation of FRPC Rule 11 – some were arguing ‘no’ b/c it didn’t involve an actual case, etc. (including someone named Tommy Yum!)

the lawyers may enjoy these Greenwald links

see y’all after moderation

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot…..ebate.html

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot…..-just.html

LHP, the quote attributed to Bush is via Doug Thompson.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com…..7779.shtml

I believe Doug is right (as you could see from my home page).

Yeah, Glenn’s place is a regular snark attack.

I admire his ability to administer reasoned, cogent dope slaps.

ifththunderdontgetya @57

Although I have some reservations concerning the veracity of capitolhillblue, I would tend to believe this story… my $.02

:-)

That oh-so-Senatorial portrait reminded me of someone -

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obi…..amp;img=14

I need an english major to give me the proper spelling for the sighners of a document

I want to say “signatuers”…or “signatees”, or whatwever

some suggestions puh leeze

signers

signatories?

not fancy enough

signators

me to me, are you writing to EXpress or to IMpress? The latter is always weaker.

ah…”signatories”…I think that’s it, thanks

me to me @62

http://www.answers.com/topic/signer-signatory

signer or signatory

:-)

writing to be poetic..I like poetic sounding pros, not to impress anyone but my own self

Christy:

Is there something we can do about this? Like contacting the Bar Associations in AZ and SC, asking them to investigate these two? Or is this something only lawyers can ask?

I’m thinking that the more people they hear from the more likely they’ll be to do something about it.

signatory…that’s it..but what about the plural?

signatories

me to me–

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/signatories

thanks, off for the day…have fun everybody

This is like a signing statement, except by the Republican Senate majority.

Indeed, we’ve always had a system where we give authority to a few and expect them to use that authority to support the political and legislative process. Now we have a group who are willing to let the process work, but then use their authority to subvert the result.

The problem is that many people are still watching the process at work, and it looks like Democracy In Action. Indeed, it is, except that it turns out the Congress is now legislating in a giant Habitrail Hamster Hideout (TM) and the powers that be can barely be bothered to occasionally refill their food dish.

Hamster analogies aside, this reminds me of last year’s election in Ethiopia. Jimmy Carter and a number of foreign monitors watched the process and declared it a generally fair election. There was some fraud but it generally went better than expected. Then they all left the country, since the election itself had been conducted relatively fairly.

The deadline for announcing the results kept getting pushed back, and finally fabricated results were announced. Today, many of the major opposition leaders are in jail about to be tried and executed for treason. The process worked, it just was disconnected from the power supply. Oh, and since the government is our ally on the War on Terror, we’re not hearing much about it all.

everhopeful,

how it’s done

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=564093

I like *ilsons’ ’signators” too.

ok, really gone till later

ta

OT: Putin announces that Chechen leader Basayev is dead.

Yes, the speech and debate clause gives Kyl and Graham immunity for having inserted their “colloquy” in the Congressional Record. That immunity is probably absolute. But the S&D clause does NOT grant them immunity for having filed a misleading brief in the federal courts. They portrayed their “colloquy” as something that had been heard, and possibly taken into account, by the other legislators considering the bill. Which was false. They did not indicate — and indeed, tried to obfuscate — that the remarks had been inserted after the debate was over.

However, as they were not lying about oral sex, their respective state ethics committees will probably do nothing.

Cranky: the Tulia (TX) “drug” case. The DA got into serious trouble.

I don’t have time to go hang at Glenn Greenwald’s today, but Rule 11 santions were what I was referrring to when I said I thought their lawyer might be standing in a pile of manure.

Thunder

thanks for the link. I added it to my “impeachment” folder in my favotites bar.

Criminals.
.

lhp: I posted this link a couple days ago at the end of a thread. It’s a great article.

Dropping the F-Bomb
By Joel Achenbach
The Washington Post
Sunday, June 25, 2006

“Before he was elected president, George W. Bush used the [F] word repeatedly during an interview with Tucker Carlson.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01378.html

An AZ paper had a piece up on Friday about this: http://www.eastvalleytribune.c…..?sty=69183

I was struck by the tag line near the end of the article describing Kyl as “an attorney who previously has been mentioned as a Supreme Court nominee.” Given this whole deal, it sounds like he’d be right up Bush’s alley in terms of the kind of nominees he’d like to see.

Kyl’s defense, as he portrays it here, is to keep this whole thing focused on the Senate rules. “Everyone puts things into the record . . . we were just trying to make it interesting to read.” His weakness, of course, is misrepresenting things to the Supreme Court.

That’s where the letters to the editor need to hit him. The rules of the Senate apply to the Senate, but the Rules of the Court and the Bar apply when you file a brief.

Christy,

More on the likelihood that Kyl and Graham’s immunity under the Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause does not apply to their filing of an amicus brief in the court.

Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 99 S.Ct. 2675 (1979)
Abstract of Opinion
Full Text

(Proxmire’s statements in his newsletters and press releases were not protected by the Speech and Debate Clause.)

lhp

an impeachment folder in favorites? THAT is good.

Gonna fix me one of them thar things, too.

GREAT idea.

BK

ps – your info re: lhp postition in ruggers and how it applies to ethics you wrote just recently was very educational. Thanks. (…and keep typing. No worries about typos; I’m a criminal in that venue.)

fyi – FRCP Rule 11
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm

“One species of such legal protection is beyond challenge: the legislative immunity created by the Speech or Debate Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, 6, cl. 1. Even here, however, the Court has been careful not to extend the scope of the protection further than its purposes require. See, e. g., Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 622 -627 (1972); see also Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 123 -133 (1979); Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 (1973); United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972); United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 (1966); Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1881). “

FORRESTER v. WHITE, 484 U.S. 219 (1988)

Peterr your 86

That’s where the letters to the editor need to hit him. The rules of the Senate apply to the Senate, but the Rules of the Court and the Bar apply when you file a brief.

Is exactly spot on.

Both of these clowns were willfully attempting to pepetuate a fraud upon the court…

cbl at 89: fyi – FRCP Rule 11

Yes, exactly. Motion for disciplinary sanctions in the Supreme Court.

Are Kyl and Graham members of the Supreme Court Bar, and did they sign the amicus brief, or was it submitted on their behalf?

If submitted by another lawyer, possible sanctions and/or disciplinary proceedings against him or her.

Oh, Lordy – it’s Monday, and with last week so short, and so many people away, today is making it nearly impossible to keep up with FDL.

Read the John Dean piece and am – once again – appalled. And sick. Sick of these oily, too-smart-for-their-own-good Senators serially deceiving the American people. Sick of the corporate media being either ill-informed or complicit in the deceit. Graham, especially, touts his legal bona fides – especially his JAG commission – at every opportunity. As far as I can tell, those fides ain’t so bona, if ya know what I mean, and I think you do.

And I am particularly distressed that the Supreme Court is allowing to stand, without serious repercussions or even a reprimand, the intentional deceit of Graham and Kyl. If the Supreme Court doesn’t have the ethical balls to sit these two in the corner, I doubt there will be any successful action to sanction them.

Grrrr.

What IS it with all these run-amoks in high office these days?

“Dear Zinedine, in such a hard and intense moment for you, I would like to express the whole nation’s affection and admiration for you,” M Chirac said. “You are a virtuoso, a genius of football and an exceptional human being. That is why France admires you.”

Well, not all of France . . .

IANAL but it seems to me that what Graham and Kyl did was definitely wrong and possibly illegal – it would be very unfortunately be difficult to prosecute successfully. Yet, there was definitely a provable attempt to misrepresent the timing and circumstances of the “debate”.

So my question for the lawyers here is: Could someone – either other lawyers or a citizens group – take complaints to their respective State Bar Associations?? Their behavior is unethical and immoral, it not able to be proven as illegal.

It is not clear that Kyl’s statement in the Congressional Record was affirmatively misleading, however:

“I would like to say a few words about the now-completed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006.” Quoted in Hamdan, footnote 10.

Brief for Kyl and Graham was submitted by:

Jeffrey A. Lamken Counsel of Record Sheila J. Kadagathur Baker Botts, L.L.P. 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20004-2400 (202) 639-7700 Counsel for Amici Curiae Senators Lindsey Graham and John Kyl

Christy,
I put this on Congressman Conyers blog because if anyone will take an interest and check this out I believe it would be him. I hope he will respond as he does many times. I hope you don’t mind. I did post your link to my comment.

Re my #95 comment: Oops, typo–too many “Be s” in the first sentence. I was having trouble compressing all the ideas into a somewhat understandable sentence.

Here are disciplinary guidelines from the website of the Arizona Bar:

Here are a few examples of the kinds of conduct the State Bar has authority to investigate:

A lawyer does not do what he or she has promised or does not do it in a timely way.
A lawyer continually fails to respond to inquiries about the case, to tell you about court dates or to appear in court.
A lawyer lies or advises you or someone else to lie in the course of a case.
A lawyer represents you as well as another person whose interests conflict with yours.
A lawyer will not give you money he or she is holding on your behalf or will not give you a full written accounting.
You should also be aware of what the State Bar cannot do.

The State Bar cannot investigate complaints of malpractice or resolve legal issues.

Without doing careful analysis (which John Dean presumably has done, here are excerpts from the Amicus Brief for Kyl and Graham, quoting them.

Again, were the two lawyers who submitted the brief, Jeffrey A. Lamken and Sheila J. Kadagathur, complicit in the deception of the Supreme Court?

These are long excerpts, so I will post in segments.

In an extensive colloquy (which appears in the Congressional Record prior to the Senate’s adoption of the Conference Report), Senators Graham and Kyl made it clear that the statute “extinguish[es] one type of action – all of the actions now in the courts – and create[s] in their place a very limited judicial review of certain military administrative decisions.” 151 Cong. Rec. S14,263 (daily ed. Dec. 21, 2005) (statement of Sen. Kyl). The special language in “paragraph (h)(2)” declaring that the new cause of action and substantive standards created by the DTA shall “apply to pending cases” helps make it clear that, to the extent a case is already in the proper court and meets the DTA’s requirements, the claim need not be dismissed; instead, “that claim [can] go forward” as a “request for review of the detainee’s CSRT pursuant to Section (e)[(2)].” Ibid. (statement of Sen. Graham); 151 Cong. Rec. S12,755 (daily ed. Nov. 14, 2005)

. . .

Congress was well aware that revocations of jurisdiction like that provided in Section 1005(e)(1) – are presumptively applicable to pending cases. 151 Cong. Rec. S14,263 (daily ed. Dec. 21, 2005) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (”The courts’ rule of construction” is that “legislation ousting the courts of jurisdiction is applied to pending cases.”).

. . .

As Senators Graham and Kyl explained in an extensive colloquy (which appears in the Congressional Record prior to the Senate’s adoption of the Conference Report), the statute “extinguish[es] one type of action – all of the actions now in the courts – and create[s] in their place a very limited judicial review of certain military administrative decisions.” 151 Cong. Rec. S14,263 (daily ed. Dec. 21, 2005) (statement of Sen. Kyl). The special language in Section 1005(h)(2) declaring that the DTA’s new cause of action and substantive standards shall “apply to pending cases” helps make it clear that, to the extent a case is already in the proper court and meets the DTA’s requirements, the case need not be dismissed; instead, “that claim [can] go forward” as a “request for review of the detainee’s CSRT pursuant to” Section (e)(2). Ibid. (statement of Sen. Graham); see also ibid. (statement of Sen. Graham) (”No sense in kicking out a detainee’s current habeas action in the D.C. Circuit just so that he has to re-file a section 1405 review request – it would be better to let the current case go forward as a 1405 review request.”); 151 Cong. Rec. S12,755 (daily ed. Nov. 14, 2005)

. . .

Christy, I’m an Arizona attorney and am concerned I may have an obligation to report here. You have the ability to email me, I think. Please do so.

AL!!!

Draft Al Gore for ‘08 Petiton!

To the extent it is relevant, the legislative history of Section 1005 confirms that Congress intended all of Section 1005 to be immediately effective, governing pending cases and any newly filed lawsuits alike. The above-cited colloquy between Senators Graham and Kyl – two of the primary sponsors of the amendment – makes that unmistakably clear. See 151 Cong. Rec. S14,260-S14, 268 (daily ed. Dec. 21, 2005).

closed italics

Because Senators Graham and Kyl were “sponsor[s] of the language ultimately enacted,” their remarks serve as “an authoritative guide to the statute’s construction.” North Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 526-527 (1982); see also FEA v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., 426 U.S. 548, 564 (1976) (such statements “deserv[e] to be accorded substantial weight”).

Petitioner’s assertion that the colloquy is not probative of the statute’s meaning, Pet. Opp. to Gov’t Motion to Dismiss 10, lacks merit. Petitioner cites nothing in the Congressional Record – which is conclusively presumed to reflect Congress’s proceedings – indicating that the colloquy is anything less than a genuine expression of the Senators’ understanding of, and intention regarding, the jurisdictional provisions of the DTA. See 151 Cong. Rec. E2341 (daily ed. Dec. 21, 2005) (noting that the Congressional Record is presumed to reflect live debate except when the statements therein are followed by a bullet, indicating “statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor,” or are underlined, indicating that they are “words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor”).

The colloquy, moreover, appears in the Congressional Record immediately before the Senate’s adoption of the Conference *17 Report, and predates the President’s signature. [FN3] See 151 Cong. Rec. S14,260-S14, 268 (daily ed. Dec. 21, 2005) (Sen. Graham & Sen. Kyl colloquy); id. at S14, 275 (adopting conference report). [FN4]

FN4. Senator Kyl’s reference to the “now completed” Defense Authorization Act, 151 Cong. Rec. S14,260 (daily ed. Dec. 21, 2005), cannot be read to mean that the Act had already been passed. It merely reflects Senator Kyl’s
understanding that the Act’s drafting and the related fine-tuning had been completed and the bill was ready to be enacted. See 151 Cong. Rec. S14, 263 (daily ed. Dec. 21, 2005) (statement of Sen. Graham) (”I want our colleagues to know exactly what they will be agreeing to.”) (emphasis added).

. . .

As Senator Graham explained, Congress “extinguish[ed] these habeas and other actions in order to effect a transfer of jurisdiction over these cases to *22 the D.C. Circuit Court and [effect a] substantive legal change as well.” 151 Cong. Rec. S14,263 (daily ed. Dec. 21, 2005) (statement of Sen. Graham); see id. (statement of Sen. Kyl) (”[T]his bill’s provisions *** extinguish one type of action – all of the actions now in the courts – and create in their place a very limited judicial review of certain military administrative decisions.”).

. . .

new thread

uh, Prof–maybe you need to close italics, unless you have posted that way intentionally.

Kyl – appears to be at least subject to an ethics violations per state code

go down to ER8.4(c) (Clinton was disbarred for same under Ark. code)

further, look at ER8.5(a) just below where first sentence states

attys are subject to State Supreme Court Committee investigations “regardless
of where the lawyer’s conduct occurs”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/az/code/AZ_CODE.HTM

gonna go look for same in South Carolina – suspect I’ll find it

IANAL,

But when I’ve had to file affidavits in court actions (as an expert witness, and on my own behalf in custody issues with my ex-) I had to sign them myself.

If the dodge of having your attorney sign on your behalf leaves all possible sanctions for falsehoods on her desk is really and truly the law, I’ve been a fool.

BC

Was the Kyl and Graham brief filed under their signatures? The brief that Dean links to is by some lawyer. If Kyl and Graham merely faked the Congressional Record (which should be illegal, but isn’t), and then had someone else write a brief for them, they’re probably in the clear. If they signed the brief themselves, they should be investigated. Which was it?

tenstepsleft -

my 113 above was for you –

also forgot to highlight this

ER 3.3 CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

IANAL, so I looked up code’s definition of ‘tribunal’ oh yeah, it fits

Here’s South Carolina Code
and of course they had to make their Rule 8.4 just a smidge more arcane

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/sc/narr/SC_NARR_8.HTM

With the enactment of the DTA, Congress did nothing more than return the habeas statute back to its pre-Rasul state. 151 Cong. Rec. S14,264 (daily ed. Dec. 21, 2005) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (”Eisentrager was the law of the land for over 50 years *** Congress *** restores *25 Eisentrager’s role as the governing standard.”); id. at S14,267 (statement of Sen. Kyl) (”[W]e legislatively overrule Rasul today.”); id. at S14,268 (statement of Sen. Graham) (”And since the Rasul decision was based on the habeas statute in the U.S. Code, I am very comfortable amending that statute as a proper Congressional response to the Court’s decision”).

No need to close italics, I think. These are all long excerpts.

As for the submitting lawyers, I posted their names.

[Actually, there was an open tag, and it was closed. You might want to think about the “blockquote” tags in the future - it sets off the quoted material quite nicely, and leaves no doubt that you are quoting, not inadvertently forgetting to close an italics tag. Just a suggestion from behind the curtain!]

this is a flame to Prof: any student of yours who had ever taken a beginning computer class knows that you have to close HTML tags if you use them… you had a couple of moderators busy click-clacking trying to clean up the unclosed italic tags you kept using repeatedly despite exhortations by others to stop. you didnt!

BAD, BAD PROF !

still, interesting legal material I suppose…

I wasn’t aware of the supposed Bush quote myself, to the effect that the constitution is nothing but “a goddamn piece of paper.” But I just checked it out. Here’s Gary Leupp’s story on it from last December.

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html

rumpole – love the name. I think Christy, lhp, Prof etc. are right though.

Graham and Kyl moved their speech from the Senate floor and into a court proceedings for the purpose of misreprenting to the court. I’d think that needs at least investigations.

The military has already been jeopardized enough by reckless and irresponsible actions of leaders. For a JAG officer to take those kinds of steps is something that in particular should get a second look.

That said – man Christy – you are one tough cookie to put it up as a headliner. *g*

As to the comments on ethics – not only are there the state bar proceedings, but as mentioned, rule 11 proceedings. Big firms have their own ethics committees as well, and they do put a stop to some things before they ever get started. Most lawyers, most firms, take perpetrating a fraud on the court or misrepresentation to the court pretty seriously.

I’d say with the out of control lobbying and law firm ties, and the fact that even DOJ has been making misrepresenations to the Courts in high profile cases, it seems more widespread than it really is in general practice.

If the attorney submitted an amicus brief with false assertions at the behest of Kyl and Graham, wouldn’t there be suborning issues?

Mary,

Your comment “For a JAG officer to take those kinds of steps . . . ” got me wondering. We’ve been talking about the rules of the Bar of the Supreme Court, as well as the AZ and SC Bars, but are there any JAG rules that might have been violated here? What’s the JAG oversight process?

Inquiring minds want to know. The non-inquiring minds of the Senate OUGHT to want to know, but that’s another story. . .

MEDIA is the problem – when they also profit from this illegal occupation and control news with their Orweillian newspeek.

Rent/Buy “Orwell Rolls in His Grave” – you will understand much then… grasshoppers.

Until WE THE PEOPLE have more diversity in the corporate owned media – we have NO VOICE – the small internet voice we have is already being attacked in many places.

Even if the tide turns in our favor -the corp. owned media will “change the message”. Compare Clinton’s treatment to the Bu$hCo FREE RIDE and think for yourselves!

new thread

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..his-image/

Dear behind the curtain, oh yeah, the blockquote thingy. Should have used that.

Lost in all these shenanigans is a nice story about how Senators Bingaman and Levin (and, I write begrudgingly, Specter) actually gave a crap about habeas corpus. Good on you!

That “constitution is just a piece of g*ddamn paper” is from a “colloquy” brought to us by Wayne Madsen’s Capitol Hill Blue.

The quotes and supposed conversations in his stories, which are supposed to have been provided by a “White House insider,” are lamer sounding than those my elementary age students used to embroider.

Had they actually said that stuff after hours in the Senate, I guess the “speech and debate” clause would protect them. But if it was never said on the floor, merely inserted into the record, then I suppose that they could be sanctioned.

The problem is, the highly political and Republican Supreme Court is unlikely to sanction them.

Prof –

Since your posts were all legal text, you could have presented it as plain text — no italics or blockquotes were needed.

*ilson, what happens to other comments if one leaves an open italics tag? It messes up someone else?

The last computer class I took was in 1961 or 1962. It involved Fortran and plug boards on card sorters.

It seemed to me that WordPress was tolerant of not-closed tags, so for the sake of speed I just put opening tags on each excerpt from the amicus brief, since it didn’t seem to be affecting my other posts as I went along.

But are you saying that my not-closed tag messed things up for others? I’d like to understand that.

By the way, the reason for “not stopping” is that I wasn’t looking. Just typing.

Bad prof.

OMG! Lindsay Graham has a Muslim crescent prominently displayed in the upper right-hand corner of his web site!

http://lgraham.senate.gov/

Obviously, the Senate has been infiltrated by America-hating Islamo-fascists who seek to overturn our very way of life! Senator Graham–a Benedict Arnold for our time! No WONDER he hates America!

Both Gomer Kyl and Cracker Graham should be brought up on charges before their respective State Bar Assns…

But that’ll never happen cuz they’re both made men in the Mayberry Mafia.

I suspect Cheney’s got tapes of Graham in flagrante delicto with Guckert/Gannon…Kyl’s just a shit head…

Anyway, it’s always OK if you’re a Republican…

Prof – the open tag means that all comments that follow are included in the open tag – that’s why, when someone forgets to close the bold tag, all the comments that appear after it are in bold.

And even though what you cited did not technically require blockquotes, it does set it off well, and it tells everyone that what is in the blocked area is not your original comment.

I’m lagging far behind in the comments, so this has probably already been said, but there seem to me to be two issues here.

One is that Kyl and Huckleberry inserted a made-up colloquy into the Congressional Record.

This probably is done all the time and the Senate won’t bring ethics charges agains those two.

The other is that Kyl and Graham made a false representation to the Supremes in their brief, by representing the colloquy as having really and truly having happened, which they knew it had not.

These seem like two very different issues, and what the Senate does is of little consequence regarding this.

But – - trying to mislead the Supreme Court is a separate issue and a damned important one that Senate rules have nothing to do with.

Summary: Everybody lies on the Senate floor and in Senate dealings.
They shouldn’t but they do.

Nobody can knowingly lie to the Supreme Court and maintain their credentials as Officers of the Court.

The latter is what Christy is talking about, not what happens in the Senate.

Please forgive if this was already discussed, and I will go upthread now and try to catch up.

Hi Prof, when you leave an open tag like [i] and don’t close it with the [/i], everything after remains in italics, including posts from other people.

Both Senators Graham and Kyl are attorneys. Report them to their respective state bar disciplinary boards. I was thinking of doing that myself. The attorneys who drafted the brief in Washington D.C. should be reported as well, if for no other reason than to get them on the record that they were deceived by these two scumbags.

looseheaddrop

it was the evil decider in the corrupt oval

his’self who called it a f***ing piece of paper.

Nice huh?

Anne at 136 and ifthethunderdontgetya at 138, so during the 15 seconds after making a post, *ilson and other moderators were stepping in and inserting closing italics tags?

Wow! I didn’t realize that the FDL staff were so adept at plugging those internets italics tubes from spraying all over everyone else.

For many months now, I have been astonished that Nixon-crony John Dean has consistently been the leading critic of the Imperial Presidency and America’s leading defender of Constitutional Rights. His columns on Findlaw.com are always a must-read.

Slightly off-topic, but did anyone else hear David Brooks avow that Lindsey Graham is a “judge” in the naval reserve?

Doesn’t Judge Advocate General just mean he’s a lawyer in the military?

Kyl and Graham’s lawyer in filing their Supreme Court amicus brief (which I quoted extensively above, in multiple italics posts) is Jeffrey A. Lamken and he is a member of the DC and California Bars, as well as the Bars of the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Eleventh, and Federal Circuits and the
United States Supreme Court.

A blog in late March suggested that lawyers Jeffrey Lamken and Sheila J. Kadagathur should be disbarred.

http://washparkprophet.blogspo…..ument.html

Meanwhile, a comment at the site of our Fearless Leader, DailyKos, provided this link for filing an ethics complaint against a member of the California Bar: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state…..mp;id=1144

Sheila Kadagathur is a young thing that is one year out of law school. Member of the Illinois State Bar.

sheila.kadagathur@bakerbotts.com

A comment at DailyKos asserts that the two lawyers filed the same brief a month later in the DC Circuit:

Is there any thing of value that can not be accomplished by lying or misleading?

-whistleblower

Found a publicly available source for the Kyl and Graham brief:

http://www.hamdanvrumsfeld.com/GrahamBrief.pdf

Plain-language description of complaint procedure for South Carolina Bar (Graham): http://scbar.org/public/lawlin…..torney.asp

Joe Buck says:
July 10th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Had they actually said that stuff after hours in the Senate, I guess the “speech and debate” clause would protect them. But if it was never said on the floor, merely inserted into the record, then I suppose that they could be sanctioned.

The problem is, the highly political and Republican Supreme Court is unlikely to sanction them.
———————————————————-
You know, I hadn’t been thinking of it this way, but that’s an excellent point. We’ve been assuming that the “speech and debate” clause applies here, but Joe Buck reminds us here that this supposed speech was never actually made on the floor of the Senate. The fact that “everyone” falsifies the Congressional Record doesn’t make it okay, and I can’t imagine that the subsequent fakery merits Constitutional protection.

We should give due credit to the woman at Slate whose writing brought the matter to John Dean’s attention.

Emily Bazelon’s essay on this was posted on March 27 at http://www.slate.com/toolbar.a…..id=2138750

I dunno about this ‘lack of traction’ thing.
Anyone can comprehend lying, and anyone with teenagers can immediately grasp this particular tactic of lying.

Its not nice to try and fool the supreme court, and its even worse to lie to them.

People can get that.

Stephen Dare.

The Arizona Republic published a worthwhile article this morning.

Kyl has just about lost any support out here in AZ. Pederson’s looking very good to knock him out for Senator.

The Supreme Court outed Kyl and Graham last week for their not-ready-for-real-time performance by bringing it up in a footnote in its decision in the landmark case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
“Those statements appear to have been inserted in the Congressional Record after the Senate debate,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote.
The justices frequently turn to the Congressional Record to gauge the intent of lawmakers who drafted the laws in question.
Legal experts said they rarely see senators go to that extent to make the dialogue appear real.
“If it’s done in order to persuade the court that the Senate meant something that maybe it didn’t mean, which I think it was done for, that’s more than trivial,” said Arizona State University law professor Paul Bender, who has argued more than 20 cases before the high court.
U.S. Senate historian Richard Baker told The Washington Post that the actions were unprecedented.

Unprecedented attempt to dupe the SCOTUS, and by those “moral values” Senators Kyl and Graham. These people use fraud to win elections, go to war and to change the laws of the land.

This is truly monumental in its assault on our system of government.

Shame on Senators Graham and Kyl.

As a former Congressional staffer (and now law professor), I guess my take on this is they should be investigated by their respective bars for ethical violations in connection with the brief they filed, but the colloquy itself is not technically actionable, even though it’s a clear breach of Senate comity among Senators. I’ve written and had inserted in the CR many a colloquy or revised remark myself, but I do not EVER recall entering one into the record where no original remarks were made on the floor at all, let alone something that deliberately contradicted a previous deal with other colleagues. In a properly run legislative body, there would be the legislative equivalent of a beat-down over this, but the Republicans are so cowed into submission by the White House that they will let Kyl and Graham lie and cheat their colleagues with impunity, I imagine, since it was in service of the White House’s agenda.

Have Levin or the other Senators involved in this said anything on the record?

The colloquoy certainly is not without precedent. However, as attorneys submitting a brief, they clearly misrepresented the context of the inserted colloquoy (and the actual import and meaning of the colloquoy vis a vis the intent of the Senate) and should be sanctioned by both the Supreme Court (i.e. should not be allowed to ever appear before it in any subsequent case). Furthermore, this should be a rallying cry for Democrats and should not be let to die. Lying is lying. And this was lying to the highest court in the land about issues that are vital to our national security and not some lie concerning a personal sexual encounter.

##UPDATE##

http://www.azcentral.com/news/…..C0710.html

Haven’t practiced in AZ in over 20 years (since moving to CA and becoming a bar member here), but I took a quick glance at the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers, and it looks to me like Kyl may be in violation of Ethical Rule 8.4 [which states, in its entirety]:

ER 8.4. Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or

(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable Code of Judicial Conduct or other law.

(g) file a notice of change of judge under Rule 10.2, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, for an improper purpose, such as obtaining a trial delay or other circumstances enumerated in Rule 10.2(b).

Most other ERs seem to be confined to duties toward clients and others in matters where the lawyer is strictly acting as an advocate or counselor; this ER 8.4 seems to be more the “kitchen sink” rule prohibiting dishonesty generally, in all of one’s affairs . . .

WSBA President disbarred

The state Supreme Court upped his sanction from that recommended by the Bar Association and at last report he is not practicing law anymore. This was sex w/ clients, and not a trust account violation, which someone upthread asserted were the only reasons for disbarrment. No, it’s money AND sex.

Christy and all the other lawyers. The speech and Debate clause notwithstanding, there was no speech, that has been admited, there was no debate, the argument was never presented on the floor. Does the speech and debate clause cover writings that are never presented? The Supreme Court ruled (in part…if I read it right) that the defendant was not subject to the UCMJ, because the defendant was not in the military. So if the Speech and Debate clause covers the floor and the the Congressional Record, and the Congressional Record is supposed to be an accurate record of that which transpires on the floor is this a an issue of disbarment, or an issue of the fact that 2 Senators engaged in perpatrating a knowing act of fraud on the Congress, and thus on the american people, we who are represented by those 2 from every state. I would agree that the redress of a censure resolution will never happen in this Congress. So it seems that the redress is the ballot box.

Now, it seems to me that Jane has traveled to a state in which there is an important race, to lend her presence to Lamont. It seems to me (and I plan to do this for Rowley, given that there is no reason someone from out of state can’t volunteer to walk precints or work phone banks). I’m just saying.

TREASON!!!

Thanks for the links and analysis.

My understanding is that while this particular insert into the congressional record was unethical, it was not illegal and insertions after a bill is passed are not uncommon. The purpose of the insertion was, however, both unusual and unethical, and similar in purpose to Bush’s signing statements.

What is completely illegal and obviously unethical is Kyl and Graham lying in their Amicus brief by stating their colloquy occurred before the bill was passed. It’s also obviously unethical for them to suggest, as they did, that the matter was fully debated on the Senate floor. In fact, Senator Levin had specifically stated that the Supreme Court would retain Hamdan jurisdiction.

(I’ll be doing a post on this later tonight on my own blog quoting the specific records.)

To Sen. Kyle,

(borrowing a quote from Lindsey Graham) Senator, your logic defies explanation.

And to Sen. Graham,

BACK AT-CHA.

Scarecrow – per your request.

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..ent-169236

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..ent-169326

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..ent-169441

re: #97

someone asked who i thought was the worst person (in regards to actions against america) of previous republican administrations, they laughed when i said james a baker III

the war we should be fighting is against Bush, Baker, Botts, & bin Ladin, LLC, not ourselves, and certainly not our friends and allies who may be the only ones to help us out of this predicament (didn’t france help us out once before when we were under tryannical rule ??)

i have a feeling that as time goes on we’re going to be finding out more and more about the unsavory, hidden things in the Rethugs modus operandi because, as you know, “everybody does it.”

Mahalos to Justice Stevens for his useful footnote for future reference!

Mark Twain was right when he said there is only one criminal class in America and it’s Congress. If he were still alive I’m sure he would expand his observation to include the entire inside the Belt Way crowd. The American people have been subjected to such a constant barrage of illegal behavior by this government that we are overwhelmed to the point of ho hum – people, like mechanical devices simply shut down when overloaded.

I recommend this recent post by Anonymous Liberal (and a previous post of his he links to in it) as well as detail (from ‘Disenchanted Dave’) in the comments for more specifics on this situation:

http://www.anonymousliberal.co…..-just.html

The a.c. brief was misleading in that it tried to claim that the fake Kyl/Graham colloquy (that was NEVER SPOKEN ON THE SENATE FLOOR) WAS spoken on the floor. The Congressional Record has a labeling system to indicate whether remarks recorded in it were spoken on the floor or not. This fake colloquy was FALSELY LABELED (either missing a mark, or adding a mark) to mislead readers of the C.R. into thinking that the remarks were in fact made on the floor. And the brief was specifically trying to convince the Supreme Court of this (and partially succeeded in doing so to boot – by giving a plausible excuse to do so to the justices who are part of the White House Political Gang).

The timing was long after the amended bill passed the Senate with remarks spoken ON THE FLOOR and located in the Congressional Record BEFORE original Senate passage by Levin, Reed, Feingold, Durbin, etc. stating THE OPPOSITE of what Kyl/Graham are claiming. It was after the bill came back from Conference Committee with the House some time later that the Kyl/Graham fraud was perpetrated (maybe the White House thought they had it in the bag in the Conference Committee, so weren’t worried about the Senate version — but somehow they failed in Conference and thus resorted to this fraud of a tactic).

Thank goodness the Hamdan lawyer(s) caught this — they have C-Span tape to prove that it didn’t happen on the floor, I believe. [And yes, Carl Levin submitted a competing a.c. brief to the Court opposing Kyl/Graham’s fraudulent version of reality.]

Frauds and the Fraudulent Fraudsters who Commit Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at Congressional Republicans.

malacandra, did you have a problem with clinton lying to the court? of course not. enough said.

“hugh beaumont” – 172

Yeah, I did have a problem with Clinton lying to a court. So your dismissive “of course not” is bunk.

Some people actually can apply critical analysis to not only their political adversaries, but their allies as well. How about that?

On the other hand, it’s a little bit like comparing a lone firecracker with the Chinese New Year celebration that constitutes the lies of this Republican administration and their enablers in Congress.

Tom DeLay. Scooter Libby. Jack Abramoff. Duke Cunningham. Colin Powell before the UN Security Council. Rumsfield’s “We know where the WMD’s are…”. Bush’s “16 words” about yellowcake. Bush’s “I’ll fire anybody who leaked”. Armstrong Williams. The FERC’s inaction while California’s energy markets were gamed. The billions of missing Iraqi funds. Unitary executive powers. Imprisonment without charges. Military Tribunals. Extraordinary Rendition. Abu Ghraib’s “few bad apples”…

The depth, breadth, width and duration of the shell games played by the GOP to defraud, mislead and distract the American people while establishing an authoritarian, un-American regime is without parallel in our history.

hugh beaumont wrote: “malacandra, did you have a problem with clinton lying to the court? of course not. enough said.”

Hugh, could you do me a favor? I seem to have misplaced my keys, and given your remarkable ability to read minds over the internet, I’m sure you’d have no trouble searching my subconscious to find out where I left them.

And, Malacandra, much as I disagree with your opinion re: Clinton, I have to admire the originality of your stance. I know plenty of people who thought that a misleading statement regarding a side issue in a civil suit didn’t rise to a level of an impeachable offense and some who thought that the months of investigating and bloviating were a waste of the government’s time and the taxpayers’ money, but until now, I’ve never even heard of anyone who believed that perjury was “no problem.” (And don’t even try to tell us that’s not really your opinion. The Amazing Beaumont, sees all, knows all and reveals all.)

From an old court reporter’s vantage point, it stinks. Many lawyers have been disbarred for lesser crimes than “fraud upon the court,” which this certainly seems to be. I reported a trial wherein a judge was removed because she (oh yes, it was a she) had the temerity to call an attorney into chambers and proceed to button her top button for her, calling her attire indecent. On a scale of 1 to 10, I’d say Graham and Kyl rate a 10, and the “fair” judge a 5, but she was booted and faced widespread condemnation.

Are there no Dems in South Carolina with the guts to file a complaint with the state bar? Why doesn’t someone tip the lazy reporters in SC to the Supreme Court opinion, insist that they write about it, and create some heat?

Absolutely unbelievable. What a disgusting stain to the profession of lawyering. This is one shameful case study for legal schools to study in the ethics portion of their education. “Hay seed” Grahm, and “spitoon” Kyle should be impeached by the senate for trying to fraudulently cite to the supreme court, a “sense of the senate” exchange on the senate floor, that never took place with other senators present. Lawyers???No fucking wonder there are so many denigrating jokes about lawyer’s integrity in our social interchanges. Does anyone in the ABA care about this fradulent and shameful attempt to sway the supreme court in their decision making on such an important case?? I submit they should be charged and tried for conspiracy to destroy the integrity of the legal system in this country. Where is the MSM on this???

I have spent the lash hour and a half reading each of these comments. I made notes to answer some of your questions and as I got to the end I found others answered your questions.

Last Friday I sent the following message to Christy (Don’t know if she got it.):

“I have never (except in the case of GW Bush) seen such crass and craven acts such as the fraud Senators Kyl and Graham’s Hamdan v Rumsfeld Scam first against the Congress and the Supreme Court by filing a bogus amicus brief. The Supreme Court apparently chose to ignore the fraud. I don’t think we can.

Not only did they attempt to deceive the Supreme Court and the Senate, after their hoax was pointed out to the Supreme Court a month later they tried their scam on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Appeals Court, apparently aware of the scam rejected their amicus brief.

As I see it Graham and Kyl have committed at least five felonies, fraud against the Senate, fraud against the Supreme Court and if the amicus brief had an affidavit attached, perjury, attempted fraud against the Appeals Court, and conspiracy.

This is heady stuff. That Graham and Kyl are so arrogant, that they think nothing of perpetuating fraud august such an august body as the Supreme Court is revolting and disgusting to people who care about what is going on in the Congress.

Dennis”

I included a copy of Mr. Dean’s commentary at FindLaw.

I later realized there was at least on other alleged felony, obstruction of justice.

I later sent a copy of the above and Mr. Dean’s commentary to CREW and followed it up with a phone call to Naomi because I thought it so important. I asked that if there was merit to my concerns that CREW make a formal complaint with the FBI.

Naomi said she would present my complaint to their lawyers for review.

Anne, I don’t think the Supreme Court is going to let Graham & Kyl’s blunder stand. They have their ways of dealing with this. Note that the DC Appeals court refused their amicus brief after accepting 4 others. Word gets around. The chance of any court accepting anything from them in the future is scant. That is of course if opposing attorneys are on the ball.

Most state “Rules of Professional Conduct” are based on Federal “Rules” with some adaptation. Washington State’s Rule 3.3 “Candor toward the tribunal. (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) Make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal;***
(4) Offer evidence that the lawyer know to be false.”

I don’t think Graham & Kyl’s attorney has any exposure. If he signed a affdavit he would have signed under “information and belief.” In other words he got the “information” from Graham and Kyl and he believed them.

Anyone can make a complaint, in any bar association, against any attorney anywhere in the United States no matter where you live.

A few years ago I was researching a book about lawyers being bad. To give you a scope about how many bad lawyers there are? Over 15,000 complaints are filed in California every year. (Bad lawyers are innocent until proven guilty.)

I also found that bar disciplinary boards have a vested interest to find in the favor of lawyers, in most of the cases I reviewed, except in slam dunks and the most egresses cases.

Remember anyone can write a letter to the editor in AZ & SC. You don’t need to live there.

You can also swamp Graham & Kyl’ offices with requests for answers. Perhaps they will be too busy to muck anything else up.

Dennis

I have spent the lash hour and a half reading these comments. I made notes to answer some of your questions and as I got to the end I found others answered your questions.

Last Friday I sent the following message to Christy (Dont know if she got it.):
I have never (except in the case of GW Bush) seen such crass and craven acts such as the fraud Senators Kyl and Grahams Hamdan v Rumsfeld Scam first against the Congress and the Supreme Court by filing a bogus amicus brief. The Supreme Court apparently chose to ignore the fraud. I dont think we can.

Not only did they attempt to deceive the Supreme Court and the Senate, after their hoax was pointed out to the Supreme Court a month later they tried their scam on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Appeals Court, apparently aware of the scam rejected their amicus brief.

As I see it Graham and Kyl have committed at least five felonies, fraud against the Senate, fraud against the Supreme Court and if the amicus brief had an affidavit attached, perjury, attempted fraud against the Appeals Court, and conspiracy.

This is heady stuff. That Graham and Kyl are so arrogant, that they think nothing of perpetuating fraud august such an august body as the Supreme Court is revolting and disgusting to people who care about what is going on in the Congress.

Dennis

I included a copy of Mr. Dean’s commentary at FindLaw.

I later realized there was at least on other alleged felony, obstruction of justice.

I later sent a copy of the above and Mr. Dean’s commentary to CREW and followed it up with a phone call to Naomi because I thought it so important. I asked that if there was merit to my concerns that CREW make a formal complaint with the FBI.

Naomi said she would present my complaint to their lawyers for review.

Anne, I don’t think the Supreme Court is going to let Graham & Kyl’s blunder stand. They have their ways of dealing with this. Note that the DC Appeals court refused their amicus brief after accepting 4 others. Word gets around. The chance of any court accepting anything from them in the future is scant. That is of course if opposing attorneys are on the ball.

Most state “Rules of Professional Conduct” are based on Federal “Rules” with some adaptation. Washington State’s Rule 3.3 “Candor toward the tribunal. (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) Make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal;***
(4) Offer evidence that the lawyer know to be false.”

Anyone can make a complaint, in any bar association, against any attorney anywhere in the United States no matter where you live.

A few years ago I was researching a book about lawyers being bad. To give you a scope about how many bad lawyers there are? Over 15,000 complaints are filed in California every year. (Bad lawyers are innocent until proven guilty.)

I also found that bar disciplinary boards have a vested interest to find in the favor of lawyers, in most of the cases I reviewed, except in the most egresses cases.

Dennis

Don’t forget, the notorious Fred Phelps lost his law license (permanently disbarred) in Kansas for lying to the court in a motion he filed for a new trial. Check out State v. Phelps, 226 Kan. 371; 598 P.2d 180 (1979)

Here’s the first reference to Bush allegedly calling the Constitution just “a piece of paper” that I know of. The earlier comment’s reference (www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html) provides a link to what I believe is the original source: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman…..7779.shtml

embarrassing as it is… I am from South carolina. Lindsey Graham does not represent the people of South Carolina. Lindsey Graham represents something totally unknown to the people of this state. Through the grapevine, I hear most of the party instate is UNSATISFIED> they will speak with their pockets when allowed… * his next race*/
We have just had a large GOP party split. The incumbant governor did not endorse the incumbant LT Gov. The Gov’s wife endorsed the repub opponent and son of former GOP Gov now deceased Carroll Campbell. Big Bush was all over our tv;s endorsing Campbell. Well Campbell and the incumbant ran off and the incumbant won NOT BUSH’s choice…….
I must admit I was quite surprised and pleasantly because in my humble opinion the current Lt Gov could pass for a Democrat anyway….haha- haven’t ya;ll noticed all values have switched in politics?
But in a stranger twist, an well known long time republican ,a state senator… Jake Knotts is now soliciting signatures to get on the Nov ballot to challenge the current republican Gov AND the democrat choice…… is he workin for the democrat? Who knows….. but since the current Gov supports Graham and BushCo lock stock and barrel,….. we;ll see. Times are interesting aren;t they……..

and what does state recall consist of… anyone got advice? can :” little average Joe from tv land :” do it???????

Here’s the Slate article that links to the actual C-Span footage for December 21, 2005 – which is the day that the Conference Report containing the Detainee Treatment Act passed the Senate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2138750/

The article is called “Invisible Men” — and this is an apt title for more than one reason. That face up above is fronting for a whole lot of behind the scenes eager beaver lawyers working their tails off to deconstruct our Republic, law by law.

The Slate article also links to the Graham/Kyl A.C. brief (no affidavits were included in it). Someone spent a LOT of time and a LOT of money putting that brief together (over at James Baker’s Baker Botts law firm). The Neal Katyal response brief (he’s the Hamdan lawyer who cuts through the government’s lawyering mendacity like a hot knife through butter) is also linked — his response brief is quite an education in both the law, and the twisting of it that the government and Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham (and their Invisible Men) have engaged in. [At one point the government is trying to throw out the rules concerning treatment of prisoners required of “civilized peoples” under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions by basically saying “It depends upon what the meaning of ‘one’ is.”]

At any rate, the main debate in the Senate on the DTA took place I believe just before and/or after Thanksgiving, 2005. That’s when the Senate passed its version, with a lot of clear statements from Democrats saying that it would leave Hamdan under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court [language which they were apparently unable to get into the bill itself - the bill was more or less neutrally worded, except for ‘Under this Act’ - which backed up the Democrats, in one place]. When the Conference Report was finished and submitted for a vote in the Senate on 12/21/05 NO DEBATE TOOK PLACE on the Senate floor. It was a voice vote, with no roll call recorded. That debate ship had sailed weeks before Kyl and Graham got around to inserting their bogus DTA debate into the Congressional Record on 12/21 [it sounds like the bogus transcript may even have overlooked the usual participation by the President Pro Tem of the Senate - who senators speak to and are recognized by before gaining the floor to debate their colleagues - but I haven’t read the actual C.R. wording].

Another complicating factor is that the ‘labeling system’ of the Congressional Record is apparently OPTIONAL, as to what was spoken live and what wasn’t. [Reform needed…!] A bullet at the end, or underlining, or both sometimes perhaps, generally are used to indicate that something was NOT spoken on the floor. Or not, as the case may be… On 12/21/05 neither a statement by Carl Levin (submitted first regarding the DTA Conference Report) nor the bogus Graham/Kyl transcript – both placed into the C.R. that day – had the bullets or underlining, for unknown reasons. Either inadvertently (senators writing “live” on their copies for submission – which apparently is fairly common) or with malice aforethought both of those submissions went into the C.R. as though they had been spoken on the Senate floor, which the C-Span tape proves did not happen.

Way too much is going on in the shadows behind the scenes of our government right now — I wish the Democrats at least would come clean about what really transpired in this instance. And Neal Katyal and company need to be front and center as expert witnesses should the Congress even consider tampering with either the UCMJ or the War Crimes Act or the treaties we have ratified, with regard to the limbo now being endured by the Guantanamo Bay prisoners…

“I cannot emphasize enough how much this is NOT done as an attorney”

Republicans.

There’s finally coverage in a SC newspaper this morning. Here’s the link, at least today: http://www.charleston.net/stor…..=localnews

We’re a little slow down here in SC, but the Graham story is the lead story above the fold in the Charleston paper (the Post & Courier) this morning