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, 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

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
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