dis-bar Pjt 65

disambig, main no hyphen

see eastman clark

---

-=-=

an 11 26 DING DONG? DISBAR

On Monday, the Supreme Court upheld the disbarment of a prominent MAGA lawyer and right-wing judicial activist who has previously been accused of weaponizing the courts at the behest of President Donald Trump. Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman had appealed the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling last year, which imposed a two-year suspension on his law license, but the country’s highest court has maintained the punishment.

Klayman has been one of the foremost conservative legal activists since launching Judicial Watch in 1994, which has primarily targeted Democratic administrations and election officials to push a right-wing court agenda. Over the past decade, the organization and Klayman himself have played key roles in pushing Trump’s voter denial claims, targeting DEI policies and asserting MAGA conspiracy theories, and the group was found to be one of the top purveyors of false information regarding Covid.

Through it all, Klayman has been repeatedly sanctioned by various courts. He was banned for life from appearing before judges in California and New York due to his erratic in-court behavior. He’s previously been suspended for periods of 18 months by both the D.C. Court of Appeals and D.C. District Court over ethics concerns, and these previous disciplinary actions were taken into account by the Florida Supreme Court when it suspended him last November, ruling that he had broken ethical rules by representing a client for whom he developed romantic feelings. According to the Florida Supreme Court, “the record includes writings from Klayman in which he expressed to [a client] that his emotions had rendered him nonfunctional as a lawyer,” and the court also found that he'd engaged in “a pattern of misconduct,” “bad faith obstruction of disciplinary proceedings,” “submission of false evidence” and more, lending justification for a lengthy suspension. While he said at the time that he was “confident” the decision would be overturned, the U.S. Supreme Court has now upheld that disbarment.

The decision throws a wrench into a number of Klayman’s current cases. Most recently, Klayman has been representing MAGA influencer Laura Loomer in a defamation lawsuit against HBO and comedian Bill Maher. In September, he also filed suit against progressive influencer Hasan Piker seeking $150 million in damages under claims he’s incited violence against Jewish and Christian Zionists. Piker was quick to respond to the news of Klayman’s disbarment, posting, “Isn’t this the guy who was suing me for antisemitism for like a billion dollars?!” Many other courtwatchers celebrated the ruling. “This is a beautiful precedent,” declared one, adding, “More of this please.” And another summed up the sentiments among many, asserting, “Couldn’t have happened to a griftier guy.”

-=-=

an 4 26

A Politico Senior Affairs writer reports that the California Supreme Court has declined to reverse the disbarment of conservative attorney John Eastman, one of the co-conspirators in President Donald Trump‘s plan to overturn the 2020 election.

The decision came weeks after Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland ruled Eastman should be removed. Last year, A California appellate court, charged with reviewing recommendations to discipline lawyers in that state, affirmed the findings of a trial judge and recommended that Eastman 'be disbarred from the practice of law in California and that Eastman's name be stricken from the roll of attorneys.'"

Eastman was one of Trump’s lawyers in 2020, and he played a big part in helping Trump try to overthrow the results of the 2020 election, which the former president falsely claims was “stolen” by Joe Biden and Democratic officials. Eastman helped devise a false elector’s scheme involving former Vice President Mike Pence invalidating the 2020 results during a joint session of Congress as it convened to count the electoral votes.

Additionally, Eastman is the attorney behind Trump’s ongoing push to end birthright citizenship in America,

“The idea that birthright citizenship is a false interpretation or recent innovation that warps the intended meaning of the 14th Amendment has been pushed into mainstream Republican circles by the tireless work of John Eastman and the Claremont Institute,” said Bulwark writer Phillip Jaffa last year.

Eastman faced 11 disciplinary charges including violations of California’s business and professions code by making false statements that constitute acts of “moral turpitude, dishonesty and corruption,” the California State Bar wrote in a filing.

Eastman testified in his defense and asked the state Supreme Court to review the Bar’s decision.

The court disagreed with him.

---

SEE DISBAR ABA DISCIPLINARY ETHICS ED FUCKING MARTIN 3 26

an3 26

Outgoing "weaponization" chief Ed Martin was supposed to have left the Justice Department sometime in February after Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche "made moves to significantly limit Martin’s ability to wield power," CNN reported at the time. Now, Martin is facing an ethics investigation.

"On his way out the door from the U.S. attorney's office, [Martin] announced to his entire staff that he was under investigation by the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel without elaborating on the details, CBS News reported Tuesday. According to the report, Martin is facing ethics charges after he sent a letter to the Georgetown University Law Center alleging that a whistleblower reported them for teaching "diversity, equity, and inclusion."

Martin's Feb. 17, 2025, letter made the allegations, but before he heard a response, he said he would impose sanctions on Georgetown by telling his staff not to hire any students from the school.

Now-former dean, William Treanor, responded in a letter challenging Martin's Catholic faith, saying it was "an attack on the University's mission as a Jesuit and Catholic institution."

A filing revealed Tuesday shows Disciplinary Counsel Hamilton "Phil" Fox III of the D.C. Bar alleged on Friday that while working for the federal government, Martin violated the First and Fifth Amendments with his letter. "Mr. Martin knew or should have known" that.

"Acting in his official capacity and speaking on behalf of the government, he used coercion to punish or suppress a disfavored viewpoint, the teaching and promotion of DEI," the court filing says. "He demanded that Georgetown Law relinquish its free speech and religious rights in order to obtain a benefit, employment opportunities for its students."

The filing goes on to say that Martin replied to the exchange, "stating that he would not be responding to Disciplinary Counsel’s inquiry, complained about Disciplinary Counsel’s 'uneven behavior' and requested a 'face-to-face meeting with all of you to discuss this matter and find a way forward.' He copied the White House Counsel 'for informational purposes because of the importance of getting this issue addressed.'"

Technology lawyer Kendra Albert mocked on BlueSky that Martin's comments in count two had "I want to speak to your manager" energy.

Lawfare's senior editor, Roger Parloff, called the comments from Martin, "very Ed Martin-y." He noted that after the D.C. Bar Association began its inquiry, "Martin [wrote] Chief Judge of D.C. Court of Appeals three times." He was warned not to on two occasions and did so anyway.

The first letter was sent to the judge ex parte, meaning it did not inform the opposing counsel.

Slate legal analyst Mark Joseph Stern suggested this is one of many reasons Attorney General Pam Bondi is going after state Bar Associations for filing ethics complaints.

---

an 3 26

Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance is disputing a Wednesday claim by President Donald Trump's administration that it can sideline investigations by Bar Associations around the country.

According to Bloomberg Law, the Justice Department is working to "suspend stat bar ethics investigations" targeting DOJ lawyers. The DOJ has clashed with judges across the U.S. and judgment, behavior and legal violations have prompted complaints to state Bar Associations as a result.

According to the proposal, which was posted in the Federal Register on Wednesday, the DOJ wants to do its own internal review of the lawyers rather than the regulatory association. Critics see it as diminishing the power of the Bar Associations as a whole.

Commenting on the report on X, Vance called it "bunk."

"State bars license attorneys and consider misconduct allegations. Historically, state bars have deferred to DOJ‘s internal discipline process as a courtesy, but they are not obligated to, and the AG has zero authority to suspend state bar operations," Vance said about Attorney General Pam Bondi.

"DOJ can’t avoid investigation and incredible allegations of clear, ethical violations, like lying to or misleading judges and failing to follow court orders if state bars want to pursue them," Vance added. "The process is usually long and involves wrist slaps instead of jumping straight to disbarment, but egregious cases deserve serious discipline."

University of Michigan Law School Professor Barbara McQuade agreed.

"All DOJ lawyers are members of a state or DC bar, and subject to its ethics rules and penalties, up to disbarment. Subverting state bar authorities would give DOJ lawyers carte blanche to violate ethics rules," she said about the report.

Self-described "recovering lawyer" Jeff Jacobs commented, "You would think that, given the ethical implications of many of the actions by this DOJ and its state-licensed attorneys, the administration would go out of its way to avoid antagonizing state bar associations."

In January, the Texas Supreme Court ended the 42-year reliance on the American Bar Association for law school accreditation because the ABA has diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) requirements. Florida has now done the same. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) has proposed his own accreditor for Florida law schools instead.

If Bondi's proposal moves forward after a public comment period, “whenever a third party files a bar complaint alleging that a current or former Department attorney violated an ethics rule while engaging in that attorney’s duties for the Department, or whenever bar disciplinary authorities open an investigation into such allegations,” the attorney general “will have the right to review the complaint and the allegations in the first instance,” it states.

Bondi is calling ethics probes into attorneys at the DOJ part of an anti-Trump "weaponization" effort.

---

OMG AN 3 26

Political scientist Austin Sarat on Wednesday warned that

06/16/2025

by Kyle Mantyla

Courtney Hagle, Alex Kaplan & Noah Dowe @ Media Matters: Right-wing disinformation machine spins up a false profile of Minnesota shooting suspect

The suspect is reportedly a Trump supporter who railed against abortion and the LGBTQ community. But as the public waited for more information, conservatives spun a profile of a far-left Tim Walz ally who assassinated Democratic lawmakers over immigration.

David Gilmour @ Mediaite: MN Suspect Vance Boelter’s Chilling ‘Hit List’ Named 70 ‘Targets’ – Including Amy Klobuchar, Ilhan Omar, Abortion Providers

The suspect arrested in the murder of Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband reportedly left a chilling “hit list” of potential targets that included Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and the offices of multiple abortion providers.

S.V Date @ HuffPost: Trump Hosts $45 Million Military Parade For Himself Before Underwhelming Crowd

While the parade was ostensibly to honor the U.S. Army’s 250th birthday, and not Trump’s 79th, Vance hyped Trump’s remarks as “the main event” of the night.

Colin Kalmbacher @ Law & Crime: Appeals court affirms disbarment recommendation for Trump attorney John Eastman

The legal disciplinary board for attorneys in California has affirmed a recommendation that former law professor John Eastman be disbarred over his role in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election to favor President Donald Trump.

Steve Benen @ The Maddow Blog: Trump Organization eyes a new Trump-branded wireless service, complete with gold phones

For those consumers who’ve already stocked up on all kinds of Trump-branded items, but who are still asking, “Where’s my Trump phone?” I have some good news.

David Edwards @ Raw Story: ‘I'll have to answer’: Tucker Carlson admits to being ‘dishonest’ and ‘nasty’

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson admitted that he had spent much of his life being dishonest, cruel and nasty.

Home > PAM BONDI

Trump allies launch a bid to take control of the D.C. Bar Association

archiescom - March 8, 2025

WASHINGTON — Two of President Donald Trump’s allies have launched bids for leadership roles with the D.C. Bar Association, an under-the-radar effort that would give them more control over the influential legal group.

The push comes amid bar associations’ confrontations with the Trump administration, and some federal attorneys have looked to their state groups for ethical guidance amid Trump’s rapid reshaping of government.

Bradley Bondi — a lawyer who is Attorney General Pam Bondi’s brother — and Alicia Long — a deputy to Ed Martin, Trump’s interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia — are running for president and treasurer. The election runs from April to June, according to the organization’s website.

While the general public may not pay much attention to bar associations, lawyers do. The nongovernmental groups decide who gets to be a lawyer — and who gets to stay a lawyer when misconduct allegations are involved. The D.C. Bar, as it is known, has more than 120,000 members, and, by virtue of its location, it is where a significant number of federal attorneys are licensed.

The effort to take control of the D.C. Bar follows warnings Trump administration officials have directed at bar associations, which lawyers inside and outside the government have suggested could play a role in slowing down legally questionable elements of Trump’s agenda.

On one of her first days as attorney general, Pam Bondi warned career lawyers that they could be fired for refusing to carry out orders because of any personal objections. Meanwhile, the D.C. Bar maintains a confidential legal ethics hotline for members to submit concerns.

In a statement to NBC News after this article published, Bondi pledged to protect the D.C. Bar from being politicized and noted that he has been an active member of the organization for 26 years.

“The Bar has a non-partisan mission, which I intend to vigilantly protect against any push to politicize it,” he said.

“My effort to run for DC Bar president began months before the federal elections and has no connection with national politics at all. With my six years of DC Bar leadership — having been elected two times to a Bar leadership position — three years in public service, and over 20 years in private practice and as a law professor, my record of serving the legal community with that integrity is plain to see,” he added.

Bondi also said he wants to focus on “efficiency and practical benefits,” including “free on-demand continuing legal education for all 50 states” and more educational programs and pro-bono opportunities.

“This isn’t about politics; I’m running to help strengthen our profession and support members of the Bar no matter what their beliefs or backgrounds,” he said.

Bondi and Long each face one opponent. If elected, they would join the professional organization’s 23-person Board of Governors. Though the D.C. Bar does not have a direct role in disciplining lawyers for misconduct, its board does recommend members to sit on the D.C. Board of Professional Responsibility, the disciplinary arm of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Disciplinary cases are brought forward by a separate Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which investigates and prosecutes ethical complaints against lawyers.

With Republicans in control of the House and the Senate, bar discipline could be one of the last remaining ways to hold Trump-appointed attorneys accountable. On Thursday, a group of Democratic senators wrote a letter to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel expressing “grave concerns” about some of the highly unusual steps Martin has taken since he became interim U.S. attorney. The letter accused him of “serious violations of professional conduct” and abusing his position. Martin did not respond to requests for comment.

Some Trump attorneys have faced sanctions in Washington for their actions. Rudy Giuliani was disbarred in Washington last year in the wake of his efforts to overturn Trump’s 2020 presidential election loss; a committee of the Board on Professional Responsibility found that what it called his “utter disregard for facts denigrates the legal profession.”

Jeffrey Clark — a former Justice Department lawyer whom Trump tried to make attorney general in the days before the Jan. 6, 2021, attack — appeared before the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility last year and invoked the Fifth Amendment. A panel made a preliminary determination that he had committed an ethical violation and recommended in August that he be suspended from practicing law for two years. With Trump back in the White House, Clark is now acting administrator of the White House Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

And a Republican report issued in December by Rep. Barry Loudermilk, of Georgia, alleged possible coordination between House Jan. 6 investigators and the D.C. Bar to target an attorney who represented a former Trump White House aide. (The Office of Disciplinary Counsel dismissed that complaint last year.)

Bondi’s and Long’s bids quickly caused some alarm among attorneys in Washington. An email seen by NBC News and sent to dozens of Washington-area lawyers — and also shared on social media — described the duo as “Trump/Pam Bondi loyalists” who were “making a bid to take over the DC Bar” and encouraged recipients to pay attention and vote.

An attorney at a federal agency said the pro-Trump effort to win leadership positions at the D.C. Bar suggests the administration “may be getting pushback internally” from lawyers who are concerned about potential professional consequences for carrying out Trump’s agenda.

“They know this is a potential weakness,” this person added.

Bondi and Long did not respond to requests for comment. NBC News has reached out to the D.C. Bar for comment.

Bondi’s opponent, Diane A. Seltzer, an attorney with a focus on employment law who already serves on the D.C. Bar’s Board of Governors, said she decided to run because she saw it as the culmination of decades of bar leadership experience at a critical time in history.

“I want to be able to support the members of our bar in this time of governmental chaos,” she said. “Our legal system needs a bar that understands and sees them and can support them in ways that will be helpful and keep everyone’s energy up and keep people from giving up or burning out.”

The D.C. Bar does not control the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, but anyone can submit a complaint there, which is then heard by the Board of Professional Responsibility. The D.C. Bar seeks candidates for the Board of Professional Responsibility, but the D.C. Court of Appeals ultimately chooses the candidates.

There are fears among some Washington lawyers, however, that with Trump-supporting officials in place, the D.C. Bar might choose to ignore Court of Appeals rulings or orders from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

“I would never want to be president of a bar that could do that or that would do that,” Seltzer said. “I wouldn’t want to be president of a bar where those lines could be blurred and we would say, ‘I am not going to follow what the Court of Appeals has decided or what the Office of Disciplinary Counsel has ordered.’”

The disciplinary process can be protracted. Jennifer Kerkhoff Muyskens — a former assistant U.S. attorney in Washington who led the aggressive prosecution of anti-Trump protesters arrested en masse during Trump’s first inauguration in 2017 — is only now facing a disciplinary hearing eight years later, accused of hiding exculpatory evidence from defendants.

The Trump administration has had a contentious relationship with bar associations, and Republicans have long accused them of having a left-wing bent — tensions that reached a boiling point in Trump’s first term when the American Bar Association, the national bar organization, rated several of his judicial picks as “not qualified” for the jobs they were nominated for.

Project 2025 took aim at the American Bar Association in its policy road map for a future conservative administration, calling for the president to issue an executive order pursuing antitrust measures against it. In one of his first moves as president, Trump signed an executive order that said bar associations could be targeted for investigations over their diversity programs.

Last month, the American Bar Association lambasted what it described as the Trump administration’s “wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself.” After billionaire Elon Musk, who is overseeing Trump’s effort to reshape government, called for judges who have ruled against Trump to be impeached, the ABA said in a new statement Tuesday that it would “not stay silent in the face of efforts to remake the legal profession into something that rewards those who agree with the government and punishes those who do not.” It added that such attempts at intimidation “cannot be sanctioned or normalized.”

On Wednesday, Chad Mizelle, the Justice Department’s chief of staff, punched back at the ABA, posting to X that “they disguise their advocacy as work to ‘promote the best quality legal education, competence, ethical conduct and professionalism, and pro bono and public service work in the legal profession,’ but they never mention that they also work hand-in-hand on left-wing causes.”

He also wrote that the bar association’s “dedication to left-wing activism undermines justice” and that under the attorney general’s “leadership, DOJ is carrying out President Trump’s executive orders putting an end to radical DEI programs, and we’re all over the ABA’s illegal and immoral diversity mandates for law school accreditation.”

In 2020, the ABA rated Mizelle’s wife, Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, as “not qualified” to serve as a U.S. district court judge in Florida. She was 33 at the time and the youngest person Trump had tapped for the lifetime appointment. She was confirmed to the seat in November 2020.

---

Jeffrey Clark — a senior official at former President Donald Trump's Department of Justice — may have committed a major verbal error while testifying under oath at his disbarment hearing.

The Associated Press reported that Clark, who was acting head of the DOJ's civil division in the waning days of the Trump administration, reportedly had inappropriate and unsanctioned contact with Trump behind the backs of his superiors. According to the AP, Clark maintained that there was rampant and widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election and urged the DOJ to take action to intervene in various battleground states that Trump lost — like Georgia, where Clark is a co-defendant in the Fulton County RICO case — to void President Joe Biden's victory.

Acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen and his deputy, Richard Donoghue, made it clear to Clark that while there may have been a few isolated incidents of fraud scattered across various states, it wasn't nearly enough to make a difference in who won the election. They also learned that Clark had direct contact with Trump, which was a violation of DOJ policy as to who had contact with the White House. Even though Rosen and Donoghue told Clark to cease his contact with Trump, Clark continued to communicate with him in direct violation of DOJ rules.

“My first reaction was, and I said it out loud: ‘You violated the White House contacts policy,’” Donoghue testified during Wednesday's hearing. “I was taken aback... I said, ‘Do not violate it again.’”

During Clark's disbarment proceedings in Washington, DC this week, the lead investigator questioned him under oath about his time at the DOJ in the aftermath of the 2020 election. While Clark spoke generally about his legal background and experience, he invoked a number of privileges to get around answering most questions. But when Clark invoked attorney-client privilege, he may have gotten himself in even more trouble.

"Mr. Clark, you asserted a number of times attorney-client privilege," DC bar committeewoman Patricia Matthews asked. "For whom were you the attorney?"

Clark then responded that his client was "President Trump, the head of the executive branch, the sole head, the unitary head of Article Two, the executive branch of the United States government."

This prompted Clark's lawyers to interject and urge their client to plead the Fifth Amendment to avoid incriminating himself.

"I would respectfully request my client to invoke questions about the basis for attorney-client privilege because those answers would be intimidating to them as well,” Clark's attorney, Harry MacDougald, said. "So respectfully, I would ask him to invoke [the Fifth Amendment]."

Clark's disbarment proceedings will continue on Thursday, with a three-person committee expected to issue its recommendation on whether Clark can keep his law license to a professional responsibility board after proceedings conclude.

Meanwhile, at his own disbarment hearing in California, a committee recommended that former Trump attorney John Eastman's law license be revoked in relation to his attempts to help Trump overturn the election. Like Clark, Eastman is also under felony indictment in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' RICO case.

===

an 4 22

former Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark is getting a last-minute assist from former President Donald Trump in his disbarment proceedings that may derail the entire process.

According to a Tuesday report in Politico, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche recently sent a letter to Clark's attorneys asking him to keep silent about any private conversations with the former president while he was in the White House. Blanche asserted that those conversations could be protected by "Trump’s executive privilege and other related privileges, including law enforcement privilege, attorney client privilege and deliberative process privilege." He added that the ex-president reserves the right to "intervene in any litigation involving these privileges."

Should Trump decide to assert executive privilege in Clark's disbarment proceedings, Politico legal correspondents Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein wrote that it could "force months of litigation on the matter."

Clark is currently defending his law license in Washington, DC, where he is in the midst of a disciplinary hearing that could result in his disbarment over his efforts in helping Trump overturn the 2020 presidential election. He is also one of the co-defendants in Fulton County, Georgia district attorney Fani Willis' sprawling RICO case against Trump and his associates for alleged election interference in the Peach State.

The former Trump DOJ official had previously sought to have his Georgia case moved from Fulton County to Washington, DC in an effort to have a friendlier venue, arguing that he was acting in his capacity as a federal government employee in DC. The judge who shot down Clark's bid to change the venue for his case also rejected former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows' attempt to relocate his trial from Georgia to DC.

Jeffrey Clark isn't the only Trump aide to face potential disbarment. John Eastman — author of the infamous "Eastman Memo" that laid out the plan to challenge electors and install Trump for a second term — is in the midst of his own disbarment proceedings in California. State bar officials have brought 11 disciplinary charges against Eastman as part of his attempts to subvert election results. A decision is expected by February 29. Eastman is also facing felony RICO charges in Fulton County.

After his failed attempts to move his Georgia trial, Clark and Eastman will both stand trial along with the former president in Fulton County, where they will each serve up to 20 years in prison if found guilty. Willis has requested an August trial date.

===

https://www.alternet.org/trump/john-eastman-2659316821/

...e**astman**, the far-right attorney, disgraced former law professor, former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and current chairman of the anti-LGBTQ National Organization For Marriage (NOM) is facing eleven counts of alleged ethics violations, and disbarment, by California state bar regulators. Among the allegations, “intentional acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.”

As The New York Times reported last fall, “after the November election, Mr. Eastman wrote the memo for which he is now best known, laying out steps that Vice President Mike Pence could take to keep Mr. Trump in power — measures Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans have likened to a blueprint for a coup.”

So has the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, which late last month referred Eastman – in the same breath as Donald Trump – to the Dept. of Justice for possible prosecution on criminal charges, including obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States.

[twt]

on Thursday, Bloomberg News reported California state bar regulators “say they will seek to strip” Eastman of his law license.

“The Notice of Disciplinary Charges alleges that Mr. Eastman violated this duty in furtherance of an attempt to usurp the will of the American people and overturn election results for the highest office in the land — an egregious and unprecedented attack on our democracy — for which he must be held accountable,” the State Bar of California’s Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona said in a statement. “Eastman has not been charged with any crimes to date.”

“The 11 charges arise from allegations that Eastman engaged in a course of conduct to plan, promote, and assist then-President Trump in executing a strategy, unsupported by facts or law, to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by obstructing the count of electoral votes of certain states,” the State Bar of California’s statement adds.

an 1 23

eastman the far-right attorney, disgraced former law professor, former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and current chairman of the anti-LGBTQ National Organization For Marriage (NOM) is facing eleven counts of alleged ethics violations, and disbarment, by California state bar regulators. Among the allegations, “intentional acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.”

\u201c"We believe that the evidence described by my colleagues today and assembled throughout our hearings warrants a criminal referral of former President Donald J. Trump, John Eastman, and others..." \u2014 @RepRaskin #January6thCommitteeHearings\u201d

— Defend Democracy Project (@Defend Democracy Project) 1671477014

On Thursday, Bloomberg News reported California state bar regulators “say they willseek to strip” Eastman of his law license.

Law & Crime’s Adam Klasfeld further explains that Cardona “intends to seek Eastman’s disbarment for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code section 6106, which punishes making false and misleading statements that constitute acts of ‘moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption.'”

Last week The New York Times described Eastman as “a chief architect of Donald Trump’s effort to reverse his election loss,” but it is his fellow Republican attorneys who delivered the judgment on his skills.

“Many White House lawyers expressed contempt for Mr. Eastman, portraying him as an academic with little grasp of the real world,” The Times reported. “Greg Jacob, the legal counsel to former Vice President Mike Pence, characterized Mr. Eastman’s legal advice as ‘gravely, gravely irresponsible,’ calling him the ‘serpent in the ear’ of Mr. Trump. Eric Herschmann, a Trump White House lawyer, recounted ‘chewing out’ Mr. Eastman. Pat A. Cipollone, the chief White House counsel, is described calling Mr. Eastman’s ideas ‘nutty.'”

It wasn’t just Republican attorneys in the Trump White House.

During the January 6 insurrection, Eastman, certainly no silent architect, stood at the same podium Donald Trump would speak at, and delivered a fiery speech alongside Rudy Giuliani. Six days later his colleagues at Chapman University demanded his firing[vid?]

the disbarment may be the least of Eastman’s self-inflicted woes.

“He has been drawn into the criminal investigation into election interference in Atlanta, which is nearing a decision on potential indictments,” according to The Times, also adding that the “F.B.I. seized his iPhone.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

https://www.alternet.org/kari-lake-2659013140/

sanctions? blehm

sorta

https://www.alternet.org/2022/12/us-district-judge-aileen-cannon/

bench slapped

12 22

rudy

https://www.alternet.org/giuliani-2658974089/

https://www.alternet.org/2022/12/federal-judge-orders-sanctions-for-kari-lakes-legal-team-in-voting-equipment-lawsuit/

After Democratic Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs defeated far-right MAGA Republican Kari Lake in Arizona’s 2022 gubernatorial election, conservative Republican Gov. Doug Ducey congratulated her and said he looked forward to helping with the transition from a Ducey Administration to a Hobbs Administration. But Lake, a conspiracy theorist and Big Lie promoter who falsely claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump, has refused to concede to Hobbs. And her campaign, in a lawsuit, questioned “the validity of the election results.”

Lake has also been in court attacking the electronic vote-counting equipment used in Arizona. But a federal judge, John J. Tuchi, disagrees with Lake’s claim that the equipment is problematic. And on Thursday, December 1, Tuchi ordered sanctions against Lake’s legal team.

Attorney/journalist Aaron Keller, reporting for Law & Crime on December 1, explains, “The attorneys being sanctioned are not directly named in Thursday’s order, but according to the court docket, Harvard Law School Prof. Alan Dershowitz is Lake’s lead attorney in the matter. Also on her legal team are co-lead attorneys Andrew D. Parker, Jesse Hersch Kibort, and Joseph Alan Pull of Minneapolis. Further listed as a member of her legal team is attorney Kurt B. Olsen of Washington, D.C.Parker, Olsen, and Dershowitz signed the original complaint, an amended complaint, and (an) opposition to a request for sanctions.”

Another far-right MAGA Republican who lost an election in Arizona, State Rep. Mark Finchem, joined Lake as a plaintiff in her lawsuit attacking Arizona’s voting equipment.In the 2022 midterms, Finchem ran for the position that Hobbs presently holds: Arizona secretary of state. And like Lake, he has aggressively promoted the Big Lie and Trump’s debunked voter fraud conspiracy theories. But Finchem lost to Democrat Adrian Fontes. Arizona was once a deep red state, but in 2023, it will have a Democratic governor (Hobbs), a Democratic secretary of state (Fontes) and two Democratic U.S. senators: Mark Kelly (who was reelected in November) and Kyrsten Sinema.

Dershowitz, however, stressed to Law & Crime that he is not questioning the election results in Arizona. And Keller points out that Lake and Finchem’s initial lawsuit questioning Arizona’s electronic voting machines goes back to April.

Dershowitz told Law & Crime, “I have not challenged the results of any Arizona elections. I have given legal advice about the future use of machine counting by companies that refuse to disclose the inner workings of their machines. I support transparency in elections.”

Keller explains, “The Lake/Finchem lawsuit as a whole, according to its opening salvo, sought to question the Grand Canyon State’s use of electronic ballot-counting devices. The case was filed in April, and — as Dershowitz noted — that was long before the results of the November 2022 midterms…. The lawsuit elsewhere bemoaned what it called ‘glaring failures with electronic voting systems’….U.S. District Judge John J. Tuchi rubbished the lawsuit in August— again, before the midterms — and on Thursday ascertained that sanctions were appropriate. Tuchi, a Barack Obama appointee, noted in August that Arizona election equipment is rigorously tested before it is used to count votes.”

Tuchi laid out the ways in which Arizona’s voting equipment undergoes extensive testing.

Tuchi wrote, “Before a single vote is cast, Arizona’s election equipment undergoes thorough testing by independent, neutral experts. Electronic voting equipment must be tested by both the Secretary’s Certification Committee and an Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”) accredited testing laboratory before it may be used in an Arizona election…. In addition to the equipment certification process, Arizona’s vote tabulation results are subject to four independent audits — two audits occur before the election, and two audits after.”

The judge continued, “The first of these audits is a logic and accuracy test, which is performed by the Arizona Secretary of State on a sample of the tabulation equipment…. The second required audit also takes place before election day. For the second audit, Arizona counties must perform a logic and accuracy test on all of their tabulation equipment.”

Tuchi wrote that Lake’s claims were “too speculative to establish an injury in fact.” Keller notes that the sanctions Tuchi has ordered only apply to the attorneys, not to plaintiffs Lake and Finchem.

The judge also wrote, “The Court shares the concerns expressed by other federal courts about misuse of the judicial system to baselessly cast doubt on the electoral process in a manner that is conspicuously consistent with the plaintiffs’ political ends.”

an 10 22

On Thursday, POLITICO reported that former Trump Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark is struggling to fend off disciplinary actions, and potentially the loss of his law license, as the Washington, D.C. bar investigates his role in the efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

"Jeffrey Clark appeared for a lengthy proceeding Thursday that is a prelude to a disciplinary hearing on claims he violated legal ethics in his persistent efforts to undercut the legitimacy of the 2020 election," reported Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein. "The heart of the issue: Did Clark merely offer up unwise suggestions to his superiors — hardly the basis for disciplinary action — or did his persistence in the face of a lack of evidence of fraud render his conduct so inappropriate that he should be punished?"

Clark allegedly gave the White House advice on how to fight the election results, in violation of DOJ communication policies, and in particular wanted to send a letter to officials in Georgia advising them on nonexistent "irregularities" in their vote count. Trump had wanted to appoint him as Attorney General in the final days of his presidency, but officials warned the former president there would be if that appointment was made.

"Phil Fox, chief of the D.C. Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which brought the complaint against Clark earlier this year, agreed that 'It is generally not a disciplinary violation to make a stupid suggestion,'" said the report. "But Fox said Clark went further by repeatedly seeking to get the Justice Department to send a letter warning of significant signs of fraud and urging state legislatures to reconvene and consider appointing new presidential electors. 'He came back and used coercive methods or means to attempt to get the letter sent even though he had no additional information' about fraud, Fox said during the videoconference session."

According to the report, Clark's attorney resisted this logic, saying, “They’re saying it’s OK to make a suggestion, but it’s not OK to persist in a suggestion.”

In addition to professional sanctions, Clark is facing a criminal investigation as part of the broader probe into Trump allies' plots around the election. In June, federal law enforcement officials came to his home and executed a search.

note victim, always reluctant, 1776

mma 922 law lic suspend dc chryon]

LARRY KLAYMAN (FOUNDER, JUDICIAL WATCH): Here's what we're talking about right now. It's a full-court press. It's not an insurrection, it's an inquisition by the left to destroy all opposition to their total takeover of this country. And the place they really are most interested in is destroying conservative lawyers who can't fight back in court. So where does that leave us? I don't want to see this. But we're headed into revolution. And that's why we're doing what we're doing. We're trying Biden before citizens' grand juries and citizens' trials for the bribery from communist China, Ukraine, and Russia.

You can see that at our website at FreedomWatchUSA.org. We're trying Fauci, he talked about COVID-19. He's responsible for the death of 6 million people and counting worldwide. He gave the virus to the communist Chinese, the seeds of it, the SARS virus, with $3.7 million of grants from the Obama-Biden administration. So this is where we are. And I relish the fight because we're trying to do it peacefully and legally, but we are not far off. I mean, January 6 will look like a warm-up act. In fact, that wasn't violent. It was peaceful, by and large. A few people on either side, that's it. But next time it's going to be like the storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789, in France. That's where, regrettably, wemay be headed. And you, and I, and One America News, and others are trying to prevent that, but it looks inevitable at this point almost.

ADDISON SMITH (HOST):Well, it's just, you know, when we don't have a justice system anymore. When we don't have a justice system in place that's actually impartial and that actually is protecting the civil liberties and the rights of both sides, where else can you turn to, Larry? Conservatives can't turn to the justice system anymore. They can't turn to lawyers like you for help because they're just going to suspend your license. They can't turn to Trump because Trump's getting raided and decimated by the FBI. So conservatives have nowhere to turn to. Our own justice system has betrayed us.

KLAYMAN: Well, it's not true in all the states, by the way. I mean, D.C. and New York are the exceptions, OK? They're highly leftist, they're borderline socialist-communist, I mean, actually they're socialist for sure, borderline communist in their approach. But yes, this is an attempt across the board. And it's not gonna stop me from filing cases, I still can do it even in my own personal capacity. But the country needs to understand that we are at war. Biden declared war on us a few weeks ago. MAGA, you know, Make America Great Again. We are white domestic terrorists. That's what we are, white male domestic terrorists, primarily. Women can be domestic terrorists, too, in his estimation. But he has declared war. And we have not declared war on him. It reminds me of the days leading up and the actual day itself of July 4, 1776. Our Founding Fathers did not declare war on the king. They simply said we're going our own way. We've had it. When in the course of human events, I'm paraphrasing from the Declaration of Independence, the sovereign no longer represents the people. The people have a right under the laws of nature and nature's god, not the law of the state, not the law of the king, to alter or abolish that government and to form a new government by and for the people with equal rights for everyone in pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. That's the Declaration of Independence.

...

Do you think we can survive another two years with Joe Biden? We're already on our knees. We're on our back, gasping for air. This guy has destroyed the country in just two years.So consequently, we need to form a new government. Take immunity away from judges. Take immunity away from federal government officials. Make them accountable to the rule of law. Give the American people more standing to bring lawsuits in honest courts. Elect judges, don't appoint them. Now they're appointed through legalized bribes called campaign contributions. Is it no wonder that even Trump's own judges are throwing the January 6 protesters in prison?

...

It takes a counter-revolution. Wake up America. Wake up America. If you care about your kids, grandkids, future generations as our Founding Fathers did, get up off the couch if you're retired, stop counting your shekels, your money, and [SEND IT TO US AT] join us at FreedomWatchUSA.org. Or if you're middle-aged or young, you're going to have no country left. You almost have no country left right now. So we're trying to do it in the peaceful and legal way. The American people own our legal system, not the political hacks on the federal bench and some bar disciplinary counsels and other places in this country. We will rise up, and with God's divine providence, we will prevail as our Founding Fathers did.

The Epoch Times

- Mar 16

New Cancel-Culture Group Aims to Disbar Pro-Trump Lawyers

The Epoch Times: "In an interview with The Epoch Times, Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, said, 'The election is over.'

:{:{

}:}:

Brock is 'doing this just to destroy the lives of the attorneys who defended Trump,' but 'everyone, even people that David Brock hates, deserves vigorous legal representation.'

:{:{

}:}:

'It is certainly at odds with both the First Amendment and the right of all Americans to have legal representation. It’s just bully tactics' and 'a particularly vicious streak of cancel culture,' Levey said.

:{:{

}:}:

The nonprofit describes itself as 'devoted to restoring the Founders’ vision of a federal judiciary governed by the rule of law and anchored by the Constitution.'"...

a longtime Hillary Clinton ally’s new cancel-culture group announced it plans to spend millions of dollars to disbar 111 lawyers in 26 states who defended the Trump campaign in post-election litigation, or were involved in efforts to challenge the 2020 presidential election results.

According to an Axios report, The 65 Project, founded by longtime Democratic Party operative David Brock (pictured above), has begun filing bar complaints against attorneys and plans to run ads in battleground states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The group also intends to lobby the American Bar Association and state bar associations to create rules forbidding some election challenges, and to adopt model language stipulating “fraudulent and malicious lawsuits to overturn legitimate election results violate the ethical duties lawyers must abide by.”

Brock, an erstwhile conservative journalist who switched sides and became a fundraiser for Democrats, founded Media Matters for America and the American Bridge 21st Century super PAC. The “65” refers to the number of lawsuits the group claims were filed that were aimed at invalidating the 2020 election results.

Brock told Axios the purpose of The 65 Project is to “not only bring the grievances in the bar complaints, but shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms.”

“I think the littler fish are probably more vulnerable to what we’re doing,” he said. “You’re threatening their livelihood. And, you know, they’ve got reputations in their local communities.”

The article states that the project “hopes to deter right-wing legal talent from signing on to any future GOP efforts to overturn elections—including the midterms, or 2024.” The group is the brainchild of Melissa Moss, a Democrat consultant and former senior Clinton administration official.

Although the media outlet reports the group intends to spend around $2.5 million in its first year, and will operate through an existing nonprofit called Law Works, The 65 Project’s website is asking for donations to be made to it through another nonprofit, Franklin Education Forum, which provides debate and media training for left-wing activists.

Texas lawyer Paul M. Davis, who is being targeted by The 65 Project, told Axios the group’s effort “is nothing more than a desperate attempt by leftist hacks and mercenaries.”

Davis said the project’s goal is “to neutralize anyone on the right with the ability to stand in the way of the left’s efforts to hide malfeasance in the 2020 elections and to clear the path for a repeat of similar malfeasance in the 2022 mid-terms.”

Three attorneys contacted by The Epoch Times were critical of The 65 Project to varying degrees.

High-profile attorney Sidney Powell, who is appealing sanctions imposed on her by a federal judge for filing a supposedly frivolous election-related lawsuit, said The 65 Project is “unconstitutional, un-American, abusive, and hateful.”

Referring to Brock, she said by email: “I can’t even imagine how soulless and sick he and his comrades have to be to dedicate themselves and millions of dollars to try to destroy the lives and livelihoods of others. Those dollars could be spent instead to build Habitat homes or shelters for the homeless. Brock and his ilk don’t solve problems; they create them. Pathetic.”

In an interview with The Epoch Times, Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, said “the election is over.”

Brock is “doing this just to destroy the lives of the attorneys who defended Trump,” but “everyone, even people that David Brock hates, deserve vigorous legal representation.”

“It is certainly at odds with both the First Amendment and the right of all Americans to have legal representation. It’s just bully tactics,” and “a particularly vicious streak of cancel culture,” Levey said.

The nonprofit describes itself as “devoted to restoring the Founders’ vision of a federal judiciary governed by the rule of law and anchored by the Constitution.”

Former Department of Justice civil rights attorney J. Christian Adams told The Epoch Times by email that, on the one hand, The 65 Project is “another reason not to get involved with flimsy legal theories, and only bring cases with merit.”

On the other hand, “it shows the Left is swimming in so much cash that they can implement any thuggish program they choose to,” said Adams, who is president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF).

The foundation describes itself as “the nation’s only public interest law firm dedicated wholly to election integrity.” The nonprofit organization “exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity, and fight against lawlessness in American elections.”

The 65 Project website highlights the bar complaints it has filed so far against pro-Trump lawyers for their involvement in post-election lawsuits or activities.

The attorneys targeted so far are: Davis (pdf); Cleta Mitchell (pdf); Jenna Ellis (pdf); Joseph diGenova (pdf); Boris Epshteyn (pdf); William McCall Calhoun (pdf); William Bradley Carver (pdf); Daryl Moody (pdf); and James Troupis and Andrew Hitt (pdf). Carver, Moody, and Hitt are accused of falsely claiming to be presidential electors. Troupis is accused of coordinating false elector slates.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias is leading a related effort to disqualify Republican candidates for allegedly supporting an insurrection against the United States by backing then-President Donald Trump in congressional votes at the end of the 2020 election cycle. Those challenging the candidates cite an obscure post-Civil War constitutional provision intended to keep Confederacy supporters from public office.

So far, allies of Elias have tried to have two pro-Trump Republican congressmen kicked off the ballot for voting not to certify the electoral votes of Arizona and Pennsylvania during a joint session of Congress Jan. 6 and Jan. 7, 2021. During the session, U.S. Capitol security was breached and the disturbance delayed certification of then-candidate Joe Biden’s election victory by several hours. Some of those activists who entered the Capitol are being prosecuted for attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. Some of those held in pretrial detention in the D.C. jail have complained of beatings and torture by guards.

The effort to remove Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) by invoking the Disqualification Clause of the 14th Amendment was unanimously rejected Feb. 18 by the bipartisan Indiana Election Commission, as The Epoch Times reported. The challenge to the candidacy of Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) is still pending. More candidate challenges are expected.

Elias is a central figure in the “Russiagate” conspiracy.He represented the Democratic National Committee and Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, hiring Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research against then-presidential candidate Donald Trump. That research effort culminated in the now-discredited 35-page dossier written by former British spy Christopher Steele that purported to tie Trump to the Russian government.

Brock, through his Media Matters for America website, which purports to combat “conservative misinformation,” has promoted the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory and Clinton for years. Funded by left-wing financier George Soros, Media Matters has, in turn, funded the Franklin Education Forum.

This article by Matthew Vadum appeared March 8, 2022, in The Epoch Times.